City Council Agenda Packet 04-28-1980AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTiCELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 28, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
v
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White.
Meeting to be taped.
Wizens Comments.
0. 8 Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance Request from Parking
Ordinance Requirements - Kelly Driscoll.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance from Sideyard Setback
Requirements and Minimum Lot Size Requirements, and Request for
Subdivision of Property - David Munson.
3. Public Hearing - Variance to Allow Parking in a Sideyard in an R-2 Zone
Q� and a Conditional Use Permit Request for Administrative Office Addition -
•�1({I independent School District #882.
Aj 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rear Yard Setback Variance - Mel Wolters
Proposed Office Building.
Public Hearing - Variance on Off -Street Parking Requirements and Conditional
Use Permit to Allow a Loading Dock in the Front and Sideyard - Clow
Stamping Company.
Consideration of a Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3 - Harold Ruff.
en Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Lot in a
\e Planned Unit Development - McDonald's.
IPS Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Shop - Jay Morrell.
PP r 9. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Loading Dock in the
eQ� Side Yard' of a Corner Lot in an 1-1 Zone - Best -In -Webb Printing.
P+%l0. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering Feasibility Report on the Extension
Wof Improvements Along Prairie Road.
�1. Consideration of Resolution Adopting Guidelines for Bonds Issued Under
a the Authority of the Municipal Industrial Development Act.
AQP 2. Consideration of Certifying Water hookup Charge and Service Line as
Part of 1977-3 Street Assessment - Vera Diedrich.
0 13. Annual League of Cities Conference - June 11 thru 13, 1980.
P` 14. Approval of Bills - April of 1980.
15. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 14, 1980.
Unfinished Business
Wrightco Reporyl �N
I
New Business - 11�
NIL AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Variance Request from Parkinq Ordinance
Requirements - Kelly Driscoll.
PURPOSE: Purpose of this item is to consider a variance request from
Mr. Kelly Driscoll, who is considering opening a bicycle sales and service
store on Lot 10, Block 16, Original Plat of Monticello (SE of intersection
of Highway 25 and 4th Street), and would like a variance from Monticeilo's
curbing and hardsurfaced parking requirements, along with a variance to
have a residential use and commercial use on the same parcel. Monticello
ordinances only allow one principal use per parcel without a variance.
Since Mr. Driscoll will only be leasing the property from Mr. Clifford Olson,
he is asking that the City of Monticello consider this variance on a one-
year basis. At the end of one year, he will be in a better position to
determine if there is a market in the Monticello area for bicycle sales and
service. Mr. Driscoll indicated there would be no outside storage or display.
It should be pointed out that in terms of the number of spaces, that Nr.
Driscoll does meet the parking ordinance requirements, and additionally,
there are sufficient trees to cover the landscaping requirements.
I PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend granting the variances for a one-year period of time.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of variance request from
parking lot hardsurface and curbing requirements, along with a variance to
allow two principal uses per parcel for a period of one year. Council may
want to consider requiring a bond on 150% of the amount estimated to
complete the parking requirements should the variance not be extended
beyond that time. -
REFERENCES: Notation on Hearing Notice from Denton Erickson in opposition
to the variance request. map depicting the area and Planning Codmission
Minutes of April B. 1980.
2. Public Hearing -Consideration of a Variance from Sidevard Setback Require-
ments and Minimum Lot Size Requirements, and Request for Subdivision of
Property - David Munson.
PURPOSE: Consideration of the following requests from Mr. David Munson,
who es purchased Lot 2, Block ii, Original Plat of Monticello, except
for the westerly 4':
A. Variance to build an extension onto existing home on South half of
Lot 2, Block 11, within 8' of the sideyard property line. (20' setback
is required in an R-3 Zone).
'Note: Variances & Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
�l�
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
B. Subdivision of lot into two parcels - one being 6,634 square feet and
the other parcel being 3,596 square feet.
C. Variance from the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in an R- 3 zone
for both of the newly created parcels.
Mr. Munson's intent is to add onto the existing home that is currently
situated on the lot and also build a duplex on the newly created lot which
would be on the northerly portion of the existing parcel. The duplex would
be on the lot which is proposed to be subdivided, which is 6,634 square
feet in area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend denial of the variance request involved, since the lot
sizes in question were not even close to approaching the City Ordinance
requirements of 10,000 square feet each.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request
and subdivision of parcel as indicated above.•
REFERENCES: Map depicting the lot, site plan, opposition from John Huseby
noted on copy of hearing notice, and planning commission minutes of 4/8/80.
3. Public Hearinq - Variance to Allow Parkinq in a Sideyard in an R-2 Zone and
a Conditional Use Permit Request for Administrative Office Addition -
Independent School District #882.
PURPOSE: Consideration of a Variance request from Independent School
District 882 to allow a parking lot containing ten spaces to be put in
a side yard in an R-2 zone. Additionally, Independent School District #882
is requesting a conditional use permit for its 5,916 square foot addition
to the administrative wing onto the west end of the existing Junior/Senior
High School. In an R-2 zone, a school is treated as a conditional use permit.
The ten parking spaces would primarily serve the administrative offices
for the school.
It should be pointed out that, according to Monticello City ordinances, with
the addition, 103 total parking spaces would be required, and according to
our zoning administrator and building inspector, 250 spaces are currently
being provided, not counting the proposed ten additional spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: One concern addressed by the Planning Commission
was that although there Is currently sufficient parking to meet the Ordinance,
some of the parking, specifically on the east side of the building, is not
currently being used by the students and many are parking along Washington
Street. At the Planning Commission, Mr. Art Dorn, who lives across Washington
Street to the west of the Junior High School, questionned whether or not it
was necessary for those students and employees to park on Washington Street,
and requested that the Planning Commission require that they park In the
school's parking lot facility rather than on the street itself.
•Note: Variances 6 Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
- 2 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Shelly Johnson, Superintendent of
Schools, indicated that he was currently working to correct the situation
J through the student council and was very aware of the problem and would
attempt to have the students utilize the parking that is available rather
than Washington Street. It should be pointed out that currently, parking
is prohibited on the west side of Washington Street from Broadway to
3rd Street. One possibility could be prohibition of parking during school
hours along the entire west side of Washington Street. Because of various
activities such as football games, other sports activities, etc., if parking
is prohibited on the west side of Washington Street, the Council may want to
only consider this during normal school hours rather than prohibiting parking
on the West side of Washington entirely.
At their meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the granting of the
conditional use permit along with the variance to allow parking for the
administrative offices to be completed in a side yard.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of conditional use
permit request and variance.*
REFERENCES: Letter in support from Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital,
Plat Map of independent School District #882 expansion, Map depicting area
and Planning Commission Minutes of 4/8/80.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rear Yard Setback Variance - Mei Wolters
Proposed Office Building.
PURPOSE: To consider a variance request from Mr. Mel Wolters, who is pro-
posing to build a 5,600 square foot office building on Lots 9 8 10, Block 5,
Original Plat of Monticello (southeast of intersection of 6th R Walnut Streets)
which is zoned B-3, to build within 10' of the rear property line where
a normal 30' setback would be required.
Reason for the request according to Mr. Wolters is to allow him to meet the
parking requirements and to better utilize the property.
There has been concern expressed by the abutting property owner to the
south, Holiday Gas Station, in what effect this may have on their obtaining
a variance should the necessity ever arise. Additionally, Mr. Jerry Jenson,
with Holiday Stations, indicated some concern with the retaining wall that now
exists between the property owned by the Holiday Station Stores and the Dairy Queen.
requested any approval of the variance be contingent upon something being
done with this situation. This matter was discussed briefly at the Planning
Commission, and Mr. Wolters indicated he would be rectifying the situation;
however, it should be pointed out that the approval of this variance is
unrelated to what happens on the Dairy Queen Lot.
One item that the Council may want to consider in reviewing the setback
variance is the consideration of allowing 50% of the parking spaces to be
for compact cars, as also suggested by our City Planner. The Planner had
-Note: Variances 6 Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
- 3 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
previously recommended a 25% consideration for compact cars be used, but
with the rapid increase in the number of compacts, the Planner now recom-
mends we consider allowing 50% of the spaces for compact cars. By allowing a
certain portionof the lot to be used only by compact cars, it might reduce
the size of the variance required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of the 20' rear yard setback variance. (It
should be pointed out that, at the time of the Planning Commission meeting,
the concern by the Holiday Station Stores with respect to their lot abutting
to the south, was not yet received).
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of rear yard setback
variance.*
REFERENCES: Enclosed site plan, copy of map depicting area and Planning
Commission Minutes of 4/8/80.
5. Public Hearing - Variance on Off -Street Parking Requirements and Conditional
A, \ Use Permit to Allow a Loading Dock in the Front and Sideyard - Clow Stampinq
oa Company.
PURPOSE: Clow Stamping Company is requesting variances to allow three
driveway openings of 30', rather than 24' as allowed by the ordinance, and
to develop only 61 parking spaces rather than the required 64 parking spaces,
and additionally, a conditional use permit as provided in the ordinance to
allow loading docks both in the side and front yard of a corner lot. The
proposed location of the 30,625 square foot building is Lot S. Block 2,
Oakwood industrial Park (southwest of intersection of Chelsea Road and
industrial Drive).
Because of the truck deliveries, Clow Stamping feels it is necessary to have
30' driveway openings instead of 24'. (it should be pointed out that on the
1977-3 project, in many cases the City of Monticello did allow a wider drive-
way opening for industrial or commercial users).
According to the Ordinance on the loading docks, a conditional use permit is
required whenever a corner lot is involved and necessitates the loading dock
in a side or front yards. According to the ordinance, such conditional use
permits should be based on the following factors:
A. Loading dock shall not conflict with pedestrian movement.
B. Loading berths shall not obstruct the view of the public right-of-way
from off-street parking access.
C. Loading dock shall comply with all other requirements of this section.
it appears that the loading docks in question for Clow Stamping do meet all
the above criteria.
C•Note: Variances B Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
- 4 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission will meet prior to
the City Council meeting on April 28, 1980 at 5:00 P.M., and their
recommendations will be ready for the Council at Monday night's meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variances requested
and conditional use permit request for the loading docks in a side and front
yard.*
REFERENCES: Map depicting area, site layout available in building inspec-
tors office for review, and letter from Clow Stamping.
6. Consideration of a Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3 - Harold Ruff.
PURPOSE: Harold Ruff is requesting rezoning of a certain parcel of land from
R-1 to R-3 to allow for the development of multiple dwellings by Tom Maxwell.
This parcel of land lies east of Kampa Estates and west of the NSP maintenance
building and encompasses the area between the railroad tracks and County Road 39.
The entire parcel is approximately 3.94 acres.
Mr. Jack Maxwell, of Maxwell Realty, representing both Mr. Harold Ruff and
Tom Maxwell, indicated that a purchase agreement for the parcel is contin-
gent upon the rezoning, and he feels that the property should be rezoned
for the following reasons:
A. Subject property is located in a neighborhood that does not lend
itself to a single family residential zoning, because of the
Proximity of the NSP shop and the Bridgewater Telephone Company yard.
B. An apartment complex would act as a buffer between the industrial
property located to the east and south and the residential property
to the west of the subject. The railroad tracks and Pinewood Elementary
School lies to the north.
C. There is a good demand for apartments in the City, and this demand is
expected to be increased in the future with the interest rates rising
to a point whereby it is impossible for many potential buyers of single
family homes to qualify for mortgages, thereby forcing them into the
rental market.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of the rezoning request. It should be pointed
out that, as of yet, no objections have been received on the rezoning from
any property owners.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of rezoning request.*
REFERENCES: Map depicting area and Planning Commission Minutes of 4/8/80.
Rezonin9s
*Note: Variances/8 Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
-5-
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Parkinq Lot in a Planned
T Unit Development - McDonald's.
PURPOSE: McDonald's have requested a conditional use permit for the
development stage of the third parcel of land in the 1-94 Tri -Plaza, referred
to as parcel "A". It is the intention of McDonald's to develop Parcel "A"
into an overflow area for their present eating facility located on Parcel "B"
of the I-94 Tri -Plaza. The I-94 Tri -Plaza is just southeast of the inter-
section of interstate 94 and State Highway 25. Since this lot is within
a Planned Unit Development, it is necessary to obtain a conditional use permit
whenever development occurs on any of the specific parcels.
Reason for the request is that the parking demands realized by McDonald's
so far have indicated the necessity for additional parking during the
summer period.
In their proposal for development. McDonald's is requesting a temporary
variance from the landscaping provisions which require that $1,500 of
landscaping, exclusive of sod and/or seed, or 1% of the building permit
valuation be developed. (Normally, of course, where there is a building
involved, landscaping would go around the building itself.) it is the
intention of McDonald's, according to Mr. Al Inde, a representative of
the McDonald's Company, to coordinate the development of their landscaping
with the Freeway Standard Station, in order that the appearance of such
landscaping be uniform.
Mr. Inde did indicate that signs would be installed to direct traffic flow
and the lighting that would be installed would be consistent with that
presently used at the McDonald's facility. Mr. Inde further indicated
that although McDonald's is requesting a temporary variance from the
landscaping provisions that, as part of the parking lot development, sod
would be put in immediately.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance for
the landscaping.
Council may want to consider setting a definite period of time for the develop-
ment of landscaping similar to the request in agenda item i for the development
of the parking lot and require a bond be posted for 150% of the amount. It
would seem that a one-year period of time would be more than reasonable, and
a $2,250 bond would then have to be posted if the Council concurs.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of conditional use permit for a
parking lot on Parcel "A" of the i-94 Tri -Plaza and variance request from
landscaping provision. (Council may want to set a definite time and require
a bond be posted).*
REFERENCES: Map depicting the area, Planning Commission Minutes of 4/8/80,
and Site Plan.
•Note: Variances 8 Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
- 6 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Shop - Jay Morrell.
PURPOSE: Jay Morrell, owner of the Stor-A-Way building on south Highway
25, is requesting a conditional use permit to lease a portion of the
building for a tire shop. In a B-3 zone, a tire shop is listed as a
conditional use.
Additionally, Mr. Morrell is requesting two variances on the parking lot/
driveway area. Mr. Morrell is proposing to hardsurface a 40' area on the
south side of the building, which would allow access from the south side
since garage doors for the tire shop would be installed on this side of
the building. This 40' area is proposed to be hardsurfaced with concrete,
but Mr. Morrell is asking for an additional area to the south and west of
this new concrete parking area to only require Class 5 or gravel for
overflow parking. He is also requesting a variance to eliminate the
perimeter curb on the south side of this area since he may one day plan to
hardsurface additional area. The concept of temporary curb was mentioned
to Mr. Morrell, but he felt that since there would be a lot of truck
traffic in this area and a temporary type of curb similar to that installed
by Tom Thumb would he destroyed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Morrell
indicated that he would be willing to review the elimination of curbing
and hardsurface requirements at the end of a three-year period. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to allow the variance from the hard -
surface and curbing requirements and to grant the conditional use permit
on the condition that in three years, these requirements be reviewed for
possible installation at that time.
Similar to the request by Kelly Driscoll and McDonald's, the Council may
want to consider the posting of a bond in 150% of the estimated amount
to complete these items in three years.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denidl of variances requested
and conditional use permit for a tire shop, along with any bonding require-
ments and any stated period of time for which the area would be reviewed.•
REFERENCES: Plat plan, map depicting area, and Planning Commission Minutes
of April 8, 1980.
9. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Loadinq Dock in the
Side Yard of a Corner Lot in an 1-1 Tone.
Best -In -Webb Printing is requesting a conditional use similar to that
requested by Clow Stamping to allow a loading dock in the sideyard of a
corner lot in an 1-1 zone. This loading dock is part of the plans for the
current addition being completed onto their existing building,located on
the north half of Lot 3, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park.
L •Note: Variances 8 Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
- 7 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
Criteria for this conditional use permit is the same as indicated in the
agenda item 5 for Clow Stamping Company, and it appears that Best -in -Webb
does meet the criteria stated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: As with the request by Clow Stamping, this item
will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at 5:00 P.M. on April 28, 1980
and their recommendation will be brought forward to the Council.
b�' l
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of conditional use
�\ permit to allowa loading dock in a sideyard of a corner lot in an 1-1 Zone.•
/. REFERENCES: Map depicting area.
�( 10. Consideration of Resolution Orderinq Feasibility Report on the Extension of
improvements alonq Prairie Road.
PURPOSE: To Consider a petition filed by Mel Wolters, owner of Lots 20, 21,
22, 23 & 24, Block 4, The Meadows Subdivision plat, to extend sanitary sewer,
water and bituminous surfacing from its present termination point at the
intersection of Prairie and Hedman Lane, to a point approximately 330' west
along Prairie Road.
This improvement would allow Mr. Wolters to develop all the lots along
Prairie Road with the exception of Lot 11, Block 2, (see enclosed plat plan
layout with extension depicted.) The reason for not requesting these
a services and improvements all the way to Lot 11 is that it is the intention
.� of the developer to eventually go down Hedman Lane within The Meadows Plat
itself, to service Lot 11, rather than to come off directly from Prairie Road.
Procedure at this point would be to consider calling for a feasibility report
to be prepared by our Engineer, and at a later date, after the feasibility
report is completed, call for a public hearing since the proposed improve-
ment could be assessed not only against the lots in The Meadows Subdivision,
but also against land owned by Donald Christopher on the south side of
Prairie Road.
For your information, 1 have talked to Mel Wolters about the drainage pro-
blem within Balboul Estates and how the drainage of The Meadows Subdivision
could ultimately affect the same area. Additionally, I have talked to our
engineer, and it was agreed that building permits could be issued for those
lots that have sewer and water and bituminous streets available to them
with the stipulation being written on the face of the permit itself that
occupancy would not be granted until such time as the ponding area within
The Meadows is completed. It is the intention of Mr. Mel Wolters to
complete this ponding area this summer, and he is willing to agree to this
stipulation.
You may recall that initially, the drainage plan for this area - that is,
those lots being developed along Prairie Road - called for the drainage
on the westerly lots to go within the drainage ditch along the north side
of Prairie Road in an easterly fashion underneath the culvert into the
ponding area of Balboul Estates. Since the ponding area within Balboul
•Note: Variances 8 Conditional Uses require 4/5's
vote of Council for approval.
- 8 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/8D
Estates is already a cause for concern, immediate development of the ponding
area within The Meadows Plat will help to alleviate the situation. I think
this is a reasonable approach to still allow Mr. Wolters to obtain building
permits on these lots with the understanding and agreement that the ponding
area shall be completed prior to any occupancy taking place.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of resolution, copy of which is
enclosed, calling for our engineer to prepare a feasibility report on this
project.
REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan layout and resolution.
�' - 9
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
11. Consideration of Resolution Adopting Guidelines for Bonds Issued Under the
,y Authority of the Municipal Industrial Development Act.
H
PURPOSE: Consideration of the adoption of guidelines to be used by the City
Com of Monticello in determining whether to issue industrial revenue
bonds for any particular applicant.
Enclosed, please find a proposed resolution spelling out suggested guidelines
for the City of Monticello to adopt in its review of applications for
municipal industrial/commercial revenue bonds. Additionally, enclosed is
a proposed application form that any applicant would use that wanted the
City to consider municipal industrial/commercial revenue bonds for their
company .
These guidelines and application were formulated after the City Council
reviewed this item on March 24, 1980, and Council Member Ken Maus and I
met with representatives of Miller 8 Schroeder, the bond consulting firm
out of Minneapolis. It should be mentioned that I have additionally talked
with our CPA firm, Gruys, Johnson 8 Associates in Buffalo, Minnesota, for
their comments. While the CPA firm indicated that there are no cities
within Wright County that have adopted guidelines, I have sent them a copy
of the proposed guidelines as I did the bond consulting firm of Miller 8
Schroeder .
It should be noted that within the guidelines themselves relative to
items "C" and "D" on the enclosed resolution, a different ratio is set
for tax-exempt mortgages. This ratio has been distinguished from the
regular industrial revenue bonds since, on a tax exempt mortgage, the
bonds are secured by the real estate itself. As a result, Miller 8 Schroeder
felt that this was one area that the City could have a different set of
criteria, as opposed to straight industrial revenue bonds which do not have
a mortgage backing up the bonds as security .
Again, as previously mentioned, these would serve as guidelines, and in the
resolution itself, you will note there is a statement that the City does have
the right to reject any application or waive any of the guidelines. However,
in these cases, it is indicated in the resolution that the reasons for such
rejection or waiver of the guidelines shall be set forth in the official
minutes of the City Council. In this fashion, the City Council of Monticello
still has within their authority the right to reject or waive any of the
requirements; however, the reasons for the rejection or waiver will have to
be set forth in the minutes.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adopting resolution enclosed, or revi-
sions thereto.
REFERENCES: Copy of proposed resolution, along with proposed application.
- 10 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
12. Consideration of Certifying Water Hookup Charge and Service Line as Part of
1977-3 Street Assessment - Vera Diedrich.
r,
PURPOSE: Consideration of placing water service connection costs and hookup
charge for property owned by Vera Diedrich onto the outstanding assessment
balance as part of the 1977-3 project.
As part of the 1977-3 Street Improvement Project, a water service was installed
to the property line of Vera Diedrich's home at 612 West 6th Street (Lot 8,
Block S). Approximately 64 water services were installed as part of the street
project to empty lots and various homes which did not have a water service.
Reason for installing the services was to avoid tearing up the new streets
at a later date if the property owner decided to hook up to City water. In
addition, the $526.00 cost for each service was originally picked up by the
City as part of the ad valorem portion of the project and would be charged
to the property owner only if and when the service was used.
Also, as part of the Street Project, numerous old galvanized water lines
were replaced with copper services throughout the City, and letters were
given to the property owners explaining that there would be no charge for the
replacements.
Vera Diedrich received one of these letters stating that replacements would be
made at no cost, when actually, a water service was provided to her house for
the first time since she never had a service. Because of the letter, she
assumed there would he no additional cost for her service and recently had
the service hooked up to her house.
Because her service was new, she was billed a total of $608 for the water
hookup charge, which included $526.00 for the service. Mrs. Diedrich has
been quite upset over the billing, and indicated that she didn't know where
she could come up with that much money.
Because of the apparent misunderstanding created by her receiving a letter in
regards to no cost for waterline replacements, Mrs. Diedrich would be agree-
able to paying the hookup charge if it were placed on her taxes as part of the
77-3 street project assessment. This appears to be a reasonable solution to the
problem since a mistake was made in giving her a letter that indicated no charge
for the service.
The $608.00, if approved, could be added to her present 1977-3 Street Assess-
ment over the remaining 19 years.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adding the $608.00 for the water service
line as part of the 1977-3 Street Assessment for Vera Diedrich.
COUNCIL AGENDA - 4/28/80
13. Annual League of Cities Conference - June 11 thru 13, 1980.
PURPOSE: Consideration of authorization for City of Monticello public
officials to attend annual League of Minnesota Cities Conference from
June 11 thru 13, 1980.
This Conference is to be held in Duluth, Minnesota, and registration fee
is $65.00 per person, with motel costs to be an adaitional fee of approxi-
mately $25 - 35 per night for three nights.
In the past, the City has authorized all those Council Members who would
like to attend, along with the City Administrator.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of authorization of members of City
Council and City Administrator to attend Annual League Conference
June 11 thru 13, 1980. (Council Members wishing to attend should let
me know as soon as possible, so that 1 may register them and obtain
motel reservations).
REFERENCES: April 1980 issue of Minnesota Cities magazine covering the
agenda for the Annual Conference.
14. Consideration of Forming Ad Hoc Committee to Review Police Protection in
Monticello.
PURPOSE: At the request of Council Member Ken Muas, this item is on the
agenda to consider appointing an ad hoc committee to review police service
in Monticello. One of the possibilities to be included would be looking
at the alternative of having the City of Monticello provide their own
police protection.
It would seem that the Council, if they would decide to go ahead and
appoint this committee, would want to have some very specific guidelines
to be addressed by the Committee. One possible way to proceed is to
discuss the item initially at Monday night's meeting to determine what
types of areas of study should be included and to approve of the scope
of the study at our next regularly scheduled meeting on May 12, 1980.
Additionally, in talking with Council Member Ken Maus, it was thought that
members appointed to this committee should have an objective viewpoint
on providing police protection. in other words, it would not be well to
heavily weigh this committee with members who are currently in favor of
retaining the Sheriff's Department for police protection, or vise versa.
Additionally, it would seem that the City Council would want to establish
a time table when the study would be completed.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of appointing committee to review the
police service in Monticello and, additionally, to establish specific
guidelines for areas of study.
12 -
tmTICE OY 1.11111-1C IRAN I:, I
`
I:jtico in herchy g1v.ri that o pul,lia 11aarLn,1 wilt 1w• 1-1 1 ,1., .:1t• y�t'! yl C
f MumirelIn city council.•r1 00 April 14 1 /1 t�
at '/:!V p. Y. ill tht: M.1rt icello City Hall to cru;•i.ly. 11oe lu• 1,•..,,1 1 1�<<
>`y Il,
An applic..tiutl for variance to Open ,. buniuucr rt11, ut I- il,aji
to pauvide :urbang,ap harduurtaeed paakuri a" realu 1 it,-- ,
urdinance. Xs1 ,pie%
This 1,101—aty 1seNd �y�'and iu deueribed Ju 1.. t 1 I,I,rt 1••,
rigin..l pl•.t, Ca t ) cello.
eo
r ,
���u�
tc
,�i��tA.�� �V .moi.. -•o �GL�,Gt� ��t 22�ttOs► t
`�- ��ce/ �''�t-�,� Hv.•C, ,tic- �d !� y.e
LAI
L �• ,.,'tt •n�e(sllirssl .
Al
.• . n tel 1 , tcOt at lvcly Sell. I.
to t.• .•1,•, r. 1, 1 1 ••
11..1.u11,1 ..:uu .1aan
.t. •n d1 t ,n.1; .1InAny will Ir ACL:upt,•,1 .n al,,vv ....
11. 1. 1 4 tvfraenla•.1 •..u). t•r111 1 ud .. • ,
.40
USEKOO
Ad's
'Ar -DO"
HIGHWAY NO. 94
v,-
4Aryr isco
� 0VDRL AI
it
.40
USEKOO
Ad's
'Ar -DO"
HIGHWAY NO. 94
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April B. 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer, John Bondhus.
Dick Martie (came at 7:45) Loren Klein, ex -officio.
1. Review of Minutes.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dave Bauer and unanimously carried
to approve the Minutes of the March 18, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting.
2. Explanation of the 4/5's Vote Policy.
Gary Wieber explained the policy the Council has on a 4/5's vote for items
of variances and conditional uses. That policy is that if a variance or
conditional use comes before the Council and not 100% of the members are
going to be in attendance at the meeting where the 4/5's vote of the entire
Council is required, that person has the option of bringing their variance
or conditional use up a later meeting when the entire Council - that is
all five members - would be available to vote.
3. Public Hearinq - Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Shop - Jay Morrell.
Jay Morrell, owner of the Stor-A-May building on south Highway 25, would like
to turn a portion of that building into a tire shop which required a condi-
tional use permit.
In the redevelopment of that property, he is proposing to extend the hard -
surfaced area out approximately 40' from the building on the south side
to make access to the area where the major access to the tire shop will be.
lie plans to provide adequate off-street parking.
However, on the south side and west end of the new concrete parking area to
be created, he requested permission to eliminate the perimeter curb and place
additional Class 5 or gravel for overflow parking, which required a variance.
There was no public comment - either pro or con - and Jay Morrell had no
objection to reviewing the elimination of curbing and hardsurface requirement
at the end of a three-year period. On a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded
by Dave Bauer, it was unanimously recommended to allow the variance from the
curbing and hardsurfacing requirements and to grant the conditional use for
the Lire shop, and that in three years, the hardsurfacing and curbing require-
ment be reviewed for possible installation at that time.
4. Public llearinq - Conditional Use Permit for a Parkinq Lot in a Planned Unit
Development - McDonald's.
McDonald's have requested a conditional use hearing for the development stage
of the third parcel of land in the 1-94 Tri -Plaza, or Parcel "A". it is the
intention of McDonald's to develop Parcel "A" into an overload flow area for
their present eating facility located on Parcel "B" of the i-94 Tri -Plaza.
Because this lot is within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) it is necessary
to hold a public hearing on a conditional use permit whenever development
occurs on that parcel.
PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES - 4/8/80
In their proposal for development, McDonalds have requested that landscaping,
at least not 1001 of the landscaping, or E1 ,500 which is required by ordinance,
be considered not necessary by the granting of a variance.
A couple of additional items which were addressed were signs for directing
traffic flow and lighting on the new parking facility. Al Inde, a repre-
sentative of the McDonald's company, said that definitely signs would be
installed to direct traffic flow and lighting would be installed in the new
parking lot which would be consistent with that which is presently used at
the McDonald's facility. Mr. Inde indicated that if the variance on the
landscaping were granted now, that only sod would be put in and that land-
scaping would still be coming, but at a later date. Mr. Inde was asked if
he would be willing to bond for the landscaping that would be put in at a
later date, and he indicated that he would be willing to post the $2,250 bond.
On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, it was unanimously
approved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and approval
of the variance for the landscaping as requested.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Rezoninq Request - Harold Ruff.
Harold Ruff has requested that rezoning of a certain parcel of land be made
from R-1 to R-3. The parcel of land is that which lies between County Road 39
and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, lying east of Kampa Estates and
west of the existing NSP maintenance building. That parcel contains approxi-
mately 3.94 acres. Mr. Jack Maxwell, of Maxwell Realty, representing the
purchaser of that property who has a purchase agreement contingent upon
rezoning, stated that he had the following reasons why he felt that property
should be rezoned:
A. Subject property is located in a neighborhood that does not lend
itself to a single family residential zoning, because of the
proximity of the NSP shop and the Bridgewater Telephone Company yard.
B. An apartment complex would act as a buffer between the industrial
property located to the east and south and the residential property
to the west of the subject. The railroad tracks and Pinewood Elementary
School lies to the north.
C. There is a good demand for apartments in the City, and this demand is
expected to be increased in the future with the interest rates rising
to a point whereby it is impossible for many potential buyers of single
family homes to qualify for mortgages, thereby forcing them into the
rental market.
A motion by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer to recommend rezoning was
unanimously approved.
-•2 -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/8/80
Public Informational Meetinq on the Monticello Sign Ordinance
The purpose of this item was to review the Monticello sign ordinance as a
result of a request by the Monticello City Council. Of immediate concern
is the Monticello ordinance provision that requires that all non -conforming
signs, including billboards, flashing lights, rotating signs and signs that
may be too large, or too many signs, etc., be brought into conformance by
August 21, 1980, which is the termination date granted after a five-year
amortization period when the present City ordinances were adopted on
August 21, 1975.
One issue that the Planning Commission was made aware of is that there is
a possibility that the City of Monticello could be liable for compensation
to the sign companies based on the fair market value of their signs.
The meeting was open to the public for comments, at which tire the various
individuals spoke.
Al Joyner, who felt that directional signs are necessary in some form so
that people can find their way to a particular location they want to be
at.
Roman Brauch, board representative of the Monticello Country Club, spoke and
felt that directional signs were necessary for the same reasons as Mr. Al
Joyner in the previous comment.
Bill Seefeldt, who owns property on I-94 and also Electro industries, felt that
the intent of our ordinances is good. However, he also suggested as the pre-
vious two individuals that off -premise directional signs are necessary. Mr.
Seefeldt felt that advertising and individual informational signs should be
handled separately.
Wayne Hoglund, representing the Hoglund Bus Company, felt that a pylon
sign for each product line that a company handles would be favorable in the
form of a freeway sign.
Jim Franklin, of the Ben Franklin Sign Company, who has no billboard signs
in Monticello because of our present ordinance which would not allow him
to build them, would like to see the City adopt the sign ordinance policy
that the State has, which would allow billboard advertising within the
City of Monticello.
Mel Wolters, who has had problems with the size of signs in the past at his
Dairy Queen facility, stated that whatever is done, he hopes that a lot of
consideration is given and good information is taken before the ordinance
is altered or a new one is established.
Toni Brennan, who owns 1,800 feet along 1-94 within the City Limits of Monti-
cello, encourages the permission to use billboard advertising along that
corridor, and felt that it does not devalue anyone's property by having
signs there.
- 3 -
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/8/80
Vance Florell, of the Freeway Standard and Vance's Standard downtown, feels
that billboard and off -premise advertising along the major highway corridors
are essential to business and cited an example of how his business increased
in the Monticello community because of billboard and off -premise advertising
that he has done.
Bob Fousek feels that advertising and promotional signs should be allowed.
He feels that they are an asset to his business.
After discussion among the Planning Commission members with those who had
given testimony and among themselves on a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded
by Dave Bauer, it was unanimously approved to table the matter for further
study.
6. Consideration of a Variance Application and Extension of a Conditional Use
Permit for an Administrative Office Addition for Independent School District #882.
Independent School District #882 has made an application to add an adminis-
trative wing onto the west end of the existing Junior/Sr, high School. This
addition must be made as an extension of a previously granted conditional use
since the building is located in an R-2 zone, where schools are treated as a
conditional use.
The addition of this administrative wing does not require that any additional
parking spaces be provided, however, because by applying the present ordi-
nance requirements to the respective Jr, and Sr. High populations and the
number of total classrooms, only 103 spaces would be required, and there are
presently over 250 spaces provided, in addition to the proposed ten new
spaces.
The ten proposed new spaces, however, require a variance since parking in a
front yard or side yard in an R-2 zone is prohibited otherwise.
One item of concern of the Planning Commission members was that with all of
the present parking available on the school grounds, the number of students
and employees who do not utilize that parking but park along Washington Street.
Mr. Shelly Johnson, superintendent of schools, indicated that he is working to
correct that situation and thereby hoping to relieve the parking congestion
on the street.
Mr. Art Dorn, who lives across Washington Street to the west of the Jr. Sr.
High School, questionned whether or not it was necessary for those students
and employees to park on Washington Street, and requested that the Planning
Commission require that they park in the school's parking lot facilities rather
than on Washington Street.
A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Rondhus and was unanimously
approved to recommend the granting of the extension of the Conditional Use
and to grant the variance necessary for development of the parking lot in
the side yard.
- 4 -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/8/80
Consideration of a Variance from Side,yard Setbacks and Minimum Lot Size
Requirements and Request for Subdivision of Property - David Munson.
Mr. David Munson, who has purchased Lot 2, Block 11, has made a request for
a simple subdivision of lots. Because of the 4' of the west side of Lot 2
having been sold off to the abutting neighbor, the lot is now only 62' wide
rather than the 66' as was platted. The square footage of the lot is 10,230'.
Mr. Munson's request was to subdivide that lot into two parcels, one of which
would be 58' x 62' with 3,596 square feet of property, and one which would
be 107' x 62', which would be 6,634 square feet of property. Both of these
lots would then be less than our present ordinance requires in an R-3 zone.
One lot would be only 35% of what square footage is required, and the other
would be only 66% of what square footage is required.
Mr. Munson has also requested that he be granted a variance to add 10' to
the west side of the existing home on the 58' x 62' lot, which is the southerly
lot of the proposed two new lots, which would bring him within 8' of the
west property line, which should be a 20' setback according to the ordinance.
Also, Mr. Munson would, if the subdivision is granted, like to build a
duplex on the 107' x 62' north portion of the lot. This would require a
variance because that lot would be only 6,634 square feet, as opposed to
10,000 square foot requirement in an R-3 zone.
Because of the extensive amount of variance from the lot size requirements,
Ed Schaffer made a motion, seconded by Dick Martie to deny all of the
variance requests with all voting in favor to recommend that denial.
8. Consideration of a Variance Request from Parkinq Ordinance Requirements -
Kelly Driscoll.
Mr. Driscoll is considering opening a bicycle sales and service store on
Lot 10, Block 6, Original Plat, which is zoned B-4 and would like a variance.
from Monticello's curbing and hardsurfacing parking requirements.
Since he would only be leasing the property rather than owning it, and
because he is not completely sure of the Monticello market, he has asked
that the City consider allowing him to open for a year, as an example, to
find out about business in Monticello and at the end of that period, review
whether or not he could put in those required improvements or make whatever
arrangements might become necessary.
In terms of the number of parking spaces, that property meets the parking
ordinance in area and additionally, there are sufficient trees to cover
the landscaping requirement. A motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded
by Ed Schaffer to recommeng granting the variance, contingent upon Mr. Driscoll
coming back at the end of a one-year period to review his variance request
again. All voted in favor.
- 5 -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/8/80 ,
9. Consideration of a Rear Yard Variance Request - Mel Wolters.
Mr. Mel Wolters, who is proposing to build an office building on Lots 9 8 10, -�
Block 5, which is zoned B-3, would like a variance to build within 10' of
the rear property line where a normal 30' setback would be required. However,
in order to meet better parking requirements and to better utilize the property,
Mr. Wolters has submitted his proposal for the variance.
One item that was considered was allowing up to 50% of the parking spaces to
be for compact cars, as was also suggested by our City Planner. The
Planner had previously recommended that a 25% consideration for compact cars
be used, but with the rapid increase in the number of compact cars, the
Planner now recommends we consider allowing 50% of the parking spaces for
compacts, which would allow for more spaces and better use of our lots as
the amount of compact cars increase and the standard size vehicles is reduced.
Mr. Wolters also stated that he would like the variance from the setback
because of the terrain of the property, the building could then be used as
a part of the retaining wall, which would be necessary in order to develop
that property.
A motion by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus was unanimously approved
to recommend a 20' rearyard variance.
10. Miscellaneous.
Several members of the youth hockey association were present to request that
the City consider an ordinance which would allow temporary various types of
sales in which the local youth hockey organization could raise money to fund
the youth hockey program. This request was prompted because the youth hockey
was selling fertilizer out of the back of a pickup on a vacant lot on the corner
of 3rd and Pine, and was stopped from making those sales because our present
ordinance does not allow that type of sale. After some discussion, the Plan-
ning Commission voted not to take any action at this time but to further study
the matter.
Mee i�g Adjourned.
Lo en D. Klein
Zoning Administrator 8 Building Official
LDK/ns
- 6 -
k
Poa�
i
V
30 F}
4�
k
"✓ NOTICEC W PIIBLIC IICAk1NU
NQLiCe to herelry giv,m that a public hoarinel will IN: held Ly tl.,: City
Monticulla Lii
__. y.%
at 7:30 11. M. in the Monticello City hall to connider the follo-inu mz,(t,:x:
1. An application to build a duplex on a 6,634 sq. ft. lot
IN 4 of Lot 2, Block 11, original plat), in a x-1 zone
where 10,000 sq. ft. is required for a two family dwelling.
2. The applicant would also like a variance. to build an
extension onto an existing building on the Sb of Lut 2,
Block 11, original plat within 8 ft. of the sideyard
property lino where a 20' setback is required.
3. Both item 01 and 42 would be contingent upon approval
of a variance to subdivide Lot 2, Block 11, original plat
into two parcels of the following size:
A. IIS of Lot 2, Block 11 into a parcel of 6,634 uq. st. 1-1 i
B. SS of Lot 2, Block 11 into a parcel of 3,596 sq. ft.
Present ordinance would require each new parcel to be at
leastt/It 10,000 sq. ft. each.! /
.,
�• L� L i' " 1• JLL:y'i-
r'`
JOHN NyfEUY(i 1- t � L
4I1 r. 61N EtaE£ 0:r.* J
II 1 mautIGE4t0,
Y f
PLEASE NOTE: This is the same public hearing which had been
scheduled for the April 14, 1980 City council
mo tinn.
roc
Monticello -Big lake Community Hospital
April 15, 1980
Mr. Gary Wicber
City Administrator
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Gary:
The Monticello -Big Lake Community hospital District has
reviewed the lndependlit_Sehool District 882's request for:
A. Variance to allow parking on Washington
Avenue Ischcol propert,v in close proximity
to surras /hi(;h( shoal aclmitiistrativc
officeSVI(l l i i I J
B. Exp iaision of a eoadit_ianal use to allow an
addition onto tha'pieseat school facility
for administrative offices.
The hospital District Board of Directors supports the above
requests.
Sincerely,
Gene Freed
EXCCUtIVC Director
GF-.cs
)15 C. Broodwoy Monticeliom1 55362 (612) 295-2945
NV.
I .-
VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE
ISD #882
.........
. ir
I
a
b'rs,o�a �'>; `� 1. t u�• � �:. �; , .
- .--•-•/fir - -. _.........--- - . �.---- --- . .; .. -- r•r J ;.
-------f -- -- - 't J
Ki-j. — iv Ghlc'
� — �-- I-•----... .. ...:.... _ ..._ion':?' ... '. -�I
� — C
o I �. tom+ • I:_.' •sv�PW �, ~`'lv�c . � �:y � -c�r,� - �
I --.U.aap
I �
I
1 ,i
i�ltxdj�
I I 1,rt n r.G
im
•'� •�J �I, "j� ,• �rr�' �\. -al-/. `iT r• •%t'�' 'F'tt/ -:�± [�^ `e.. 'l.
4.•-! �:\ �"W • !l . '•fir/ �i � 4 91 fI[��J'� l t. ` . k q 3;, aQ � < �,,,ti` ,� . •
' Y : � ,J • „t Pit '�`•yj! -• R♦♦1•(^+• �•,iC' *. \'✓°�
St&47
�
• v
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT r.
Best -in -M bb
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT b VARIANCES
Clow Stamping Company
St&47
BOX 23C STAR ROUTE ■ MERRIFIELD, MINNESOTA 58465 ■ TELEPHONE: (218)765-3111
r7 Wq�,�,_fCf �rnS 6�
April 14, 1980 Fr�Ket��8U0
WINKEL14AN ENTERPRISES, INC
Attn: Duane Schultz/Keith Schupp
PO Box 1144
St Cloud, Minnesota 56301
TO: CITY OF MONTICELLO
SUBJECT: Parkinq Spaces - Proposed Clow Stampinq New Facility
It is our understanding that the City Building Code of Monticello
slates that we need 64 parking spaces. We at Clow Stamping Company
have three shifts, two during the week and one which is the week-
end shift. Operating in the fashion that we have at present, a
maximum of 25 people are at the plant at any one time and estimate
a maximum of 40 people at the plant at aoy one time before expanding
the building.
We do not feel any additional parking is beneficial to this Company or
the building project In view of the high building and maintenance
cost. We do have future parking space designated should the space
be needed for expansion.
We respectfully ask a variance from this ordinance to 48 spaces.
Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated in this matter.
Respectfully yours,
CLOW STAi4PING COMPANY INC
Stephen Paumen
Director of Operations
SP:klf
5
\,k4
Irr.
IQ
i
151
J
yv4v ]L'y4
�CAJ24
cvsna`
'STAwcwpD Sw0mw
'
'-- ----' '
�r4,uoN* cSIA^�'
ucjl/.c /^^sn'
INt N,t:AUUW,*a
EX IH)J/ow of
NK •� •reset &,Odr"c B/r,d
'f3esRFAe.N� — Td/G v164J
�, o0
+ e t w "� •
t r. ; tea • r a i t i 1"h •.
M •
'ri��WJ• / t f t e ei �IO ",i 40 �� as �p� ; Im.r r.i,a w.�wr••,r
Z"INN �� •�o O n f .•; + rJ�f ,
4Op.,`
1 'r^• : '. �r y'I• t "%` + t t lam; , �r It `h�a .,' i•;;' �.� ' g TER,M/MAr�fa/
. ��� • I,t �.fi • a� ", r • w4•�. 1r't� •�'�`, �.�•�`,� .� i• 4I � Oil/JI/N� .,
t%''i• 4 • . brf.►�'.�''� �j•.,4,4
%: "�1 :i • nl• '9-• r �a_ � •, i�,ar•� ~•. sCcv tt !✓ITrlt � .
°11 .�' �� T11� ..+.', ,, ." r w...l�, ,iy•��, 1 / f3/T, 3,vrAaNG
10
t 1� io4�1, ! iti:� / t�✓ip •a.�,•�—r.r. i M'1 ita r + •
r•� � t. 1�� tl 1 � n li� n � rt � � � � H � e �Y + U 'N 9' -
�1 n I • I
,( a--' r r t 1I III■ y i 2fIG rO.O - L `.
em
.•^ •r• "ria.•
. Baa•
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
FEASIBILITY REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Prairie Road from its
intersection with Hedman Lane westerly along Prairie Road approximately
330 feet with sanitary sewer, water and bituminous surfacing, and to
assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of
the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to
John Badalich for study and that he is instructed to report to the
Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a prelimin-
ary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to
whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some
other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended.
Motion by seconded by
to adopt this resolution:
Voting in favor:
Opposed:
C
Resolution adopted this 28th day
of April, 1980
Gary iiieber
City Administrator
!o
RESOLUTION ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR DONDS
ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY Or THE
MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
�• WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 474, Municipal industrial
Development Act, authorizes municipalities to issue industrial/Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the Municipal Industrial Development Act is to promote,
attract, encourage and develop economically sound industry and commerce; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello, Minnesota desires to preserve and expand
the quality of commercial and industrial development in the community and make
financing available under the Municipal Industrial Development Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello, Minnesota desires to establish minimum
guidelines to insure, to a reasonable degree, that the intent of the Municipal
Industrial Development Act is fulfilled;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CiTY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, to
establish the following guidelines:
A. Copy of the last five certified annual audits, if available, should
be provided. If a company has not previously had a certified audit,
a copy of the unaudited financial statements should be made available.
B. Realistic financial forecast for the next three years prepared by a
,A/- a public accountant.
C i C. Ratio of long term debt to equity after issuance of proposed bonds
should not exceed 2 -to -1. (This ratio should he 4 -to -1 in case of
tax exempt mortgages).
D. Net earnings before taxes and depreciation should cover long term
requirements by 2 -to -1, including long terin lease corniitments that
are not capitalized. (This ratio should be 1.25 -to -1 in case of tie
tP exempt mortgages).
, !L 1. An applicant shall supply information requested on the City's appli-
cation form and any other information as required by the City. Appli-
cant to pay costs incurred by the City for consulting legal services,
consulting professional services, publication costs, etc. UeposIt
of $500 required at time of application with balance to be returned
or billed and paid before approval Is final.
Application for Industrial/Commercial Revenue Bands shall be considered by
the City Council within three weeks after filing of ,application and providing
necessary information. Basis for approval shall be the applicant's demonstrated
ability to meet the above -referenced guidelines. However, the City Council of
dont icrllo reserver. the right to reject any application or waive any of the
,guidelines referenced above. Such rejection or waiver of criteria shall he
docunrntea in the official Minutes of the City Council.
RESOLUIIOa ADOPTED on a motion by secondea
by dated April 28, 19110.
VOTING IN FAVOR:
COPPOSED:
Gary Wieber, laity Administrator
/f
T
DATE SUBMITTED
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL REVENUE BOND REQUEST FORM
1. Company Name Phone R
Address
State of incorporation
Contact Person
2. Type of Business
Products or Services
3. Site Location
4. Nature of Project
5. Current and Projected (5 -years) Employment: Current Projected
Amount Anticipated Payroll Increase
G. Present Gross Earnings or Sales of Company
1. Projected Gross Earnings or Sales within: Two -Years Five -Years
CB. Size of Proposed Structure or Expansion Square Feet
9. Estimated Project Cost: Estimated Size of Bond Issue:
Land S $
Buildings If bond issue is less than estimated project
Equipment costs, indicate balance of anticipated pro-
ject funding:
Other (please provide detail)
10. Fiscal Consultant/Underwriter/Purchaser
Address
Contact Person
11. Legal Counsel
Address
CContact Person
12. Anticipated Type of Offering (check)
Public
Private Placement:
1) Institutional Investors
2) Individuals
Phone N
Phone 0
13. Nature of Bond Security and Revenue Agreement (check)
A) Lease and Mortgage with Guarantee
8) Loan Agreement with Mortgage
C) Mortgage
D) Other• (specify)
•Please note any unique financing arrangement, e.g. letter of credit, lease
arrangement, unsecured loan, etc.
14. Bond Rating Contemplated (if appropriate)
15. Proposed Term of Issue
16. Anticipated Interest Rate
17. Has the company utilized tax-exempt financing elsewhere in Minnesota or in
other states?
No Yes
If "Yes" specify when and where
18. Please provide maturity schedule showing principal and interest payments.
19. Does your company meet the guidelines established by the City of Monticello?
Yes No
20. If the answer to number 19 is "No", please explain the guidelines not met below
or on a separate sheet.
. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FILING FEE: $500.00 upon submission of the application to cover the. City's
Consultinq legal and professional fees, publication costs, etc.
Fee is based on actual cost incurred by City and any additional
amount due should be paid before approval is considered final
and any unused portion shall be returned.
0
® Miller &
l' Schroeder
`-MEPSORANDUM
Date: April 17, 1980 Re: Monticello
To: G. M. Rogers
From: D. C. Frederiksen V:
We generally structure tax-exempt mortgages at a 75 to 80 percent
loan to appraised value ratio. Our coverage ratio is generally
1.25 to 1. We arrive at our coverage ratio based upon projections
of what revenues the property might produce. These are traditionally
real estate underwriting guidelines and although we appreciate
financial strength of the obligor, the general purpose nature
of the property is of more interest to us. We examine more care-
fully the track record of the developer than we do care about the
audited financial statements.
I have done 100 percent financing using tax-exempt mortgages in the
case where the appraised value is considerably more than the cost.
DCF/gj
C
9RANCu uprlce_s
('hf.,9 910]7
Ixm ,1n.p..l V1,..1, iu�l• IM
71.1,9x991 1 �
ulhbrw�l. Illinni. mmx
95,nN. NLL. Sulo- u9
nlxl nnx..91.
S_ F.. n,C W.
!!D 4n. .
"""L Sul. Ixm
11151 9n In '
Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc.
170 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER. 7000 XERXES AVE. SOUTH. MINNEAPOLIS. NUNNESOTA 55431
T )LI. reel: nuc sr_.mA 9m-eu:..mnx T11, nlxrun I9r,l -111 R SIMLS u 121ulu
April 21, 1980
Mr. Gary Wieber
City of Monticello, Minnesota
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Proposed Guidelines for Issuance of IDRs
Dear Gary:
The following represents a consensus view of several members of
our professional staff regarding your proposed guidelines. Our
statements are referenced to your letter designations and should
be read in conjunction herewith.
1. In (B) you suggest that a CPA's opinion be obtained
regarding a Company's ability to meet debt service.
Typically, a CPA will "opine" only on financial
statements so there could be considerable disagree-
ment as to the form of this requirement. The City
may wish to limit new venture projects to private
placements.
2. (D) and (E) are somewhat inconsistent in that (D)
relaxes the guidelines for tax exempt mortgages,
whereas (E) requires additional cash flow for tax
exempt mortgages. (See attached memo of David
Frederiksen, Vice President, Miller s Schroeder Mort-
gage Banking Dept.)
3. In (E), the long term requirements should include long
term lease commitments that ore not capitalized.
Mr. Gary Wieber, City Administrator
April 21, 1980
Page Two
CWe believe that you have overall designed a reasonable set of
policies relating to the City's issuance of industrial revenue
bonds. We have also enclosed a copy of Brooklyn Center's guide-
lines which contain certain additional policy statements. We
hope that this will assist you in developing your final guidelines.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
WMG/dls
Enclosures
M
C
Yours
�n//I-
very truly,
01-4
William M. Goblirsch
Financial Vice President
Brooklyn Center Industrial Development Bond Review Guidelines
� U
The City of Brooklyn Center, by virtue of Minnesota Industrial Developnent,� /
Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, has been granted the power to issue
revenue bonds, referred to as industrial development bonds. Brooklyn Center
has expressed its support for the use of such bonds, but reserves the right
to approve or reject projects on a case-by-case basis. The followinc; shall
serve as a guideline for the City of Brooklyn Center in the issuance of
industrial revenue bonds or mortgages and shall serve as a guideline for
developers seeking City approval.
1. The City of Brooklyn Center will not issue industrial development
bonds merely to assure the rapid develocment of the City's un-
developed properties.
2. It is the City's intent to issue industrial revenue bonds in order
to promote, attract, and encourage the development of economically
sound commerce.
3. Industrial development bonds will be issued to preserve and develop
an adequate tax base to finance necessary public services and to
encourage employment opportunities for the citizens of Brooklyn
Center.
4. Emphasis will be given to the redevelopment of blighted areas in
conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
5. It is the intent of the City of Brooklyn Center to seek, in the
opinion of the City Council, "quality" development projects.
6. Neither the property owner nor the applicant shall have any out-
standing taxes or assessment delinquencies in the City of Brooklyn
Center at any time during the previous twelve (12) months.
7. The applicant must demonstrate conclusively, and the Council must
concur, that the project is in compliance with the City's Compre-
hensive Plan and all other existing codes.
B. If authorized, industrial revenue bonds must be privately placed
and not offered for public sale. This approach is used to assure
that any buyers are fully informed and aware that industrial
revenue bonds sold are not backed by the full faith and credit
of the City of Brooklyn Center.
9. Industrial development bonds authorized by the City of Brooklyn
Center must bo placed within twelve (12) months of the City
Council's approval.
10. If the applicant is a governmental or govornmontally sponsored
organization, the project must:
a. be in compliance with the City's Comprehensivo Guido Plan and
other existing codooi
-2-
b. the applicant must demonstrate, and the Council must concur,
that the project has specific benefit.to the citizens of
Q Brooklyn Center.
i 11. The applicant must meet all requirements established by State
Statutes for industrial revenue bonds. In addition, the project
must be of the type which the City wishes to attract or an existing
business in the City the City would desire to expand. Desirability
shall be measured in terms of:
A. significant number of full time jobs for the City;
b, the project shall not contribute, in the Council's opinion,
to increased traffic volumes detrimental to adjacent land uses
or other detrimental side effects;
C. the retention of employment which might otherwise leave the
community;
d. the project will have a sustaining; long-term value to Brooklyn
Center.
In order to meet the requirements of this policy, it will be required that
industrial revenue bond applicants and prospective developers provide the
following:
1. - The applicant shall select qualified financial consultants and/or
underwriters as well as legal counsel to prepare all necessary
documents and materials. The application shall be accompanied by
the applicant's letter of intent and the financial analysis by the
underwriter regarding the economic soundness of the applicant as
well as the financial consultant underwriter opinion regarding the
financial strength of the applicant, the feasibility of the project
and ability to sell the bonds.
2. The applicant shall furnish a description of the project, a prelim-
inary site and building plan, a definitive description of the project
and proposed financing in such form as shall be required at the
time of application.
3. The applicant shall not commence any part of the construction of the
project until the City has approved the application for financing.
4. The applicant must submit the request on the forms provided by the
City of Brooklyn Center and submit written documentation of the
applicant's compliance with the requirements of Brooklyn Center's
Industrial Development Bond Policy including Brooklyn Center's
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the applicant mist agree to pay
for -any fiscal, legal or any other City Council approved costs
Incurred in analyzing or processing the application. At the time
.� of application. the applicant must pay $2,000 to cover expenses
' associated with the City's review and processing of the application.
Legal fees incurred by the City of Brooklyn Center will be billed
separately and aro not included in the $2,000 application fee.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 14, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Phil White.
Members Absent: Ken Maus.
Continuation of Public Hearing on 1980-1 Improvement Project.
The public hearing on the 1980-1 Improvement Project, consisting of sewer,
water and storm sewer improvements along East County Road 75 and East
County Road 39, plus the proposed installation of utilities to serve
Macarlund Plaza was continued from the March 24, 1980 Council Meeting.
The hearing was previously continued due to the fact that current
market conditions made it impossible to sell bonds for financing such
improvements, and additionally, there was a concern from one of the proposed
property owners to be assessed, Maurice Hoglund, relative to the future
development of his property.
Since the previously meeting, John Badalich, City Engineer, had prepared
preliminary revised cost estimates of serving Macarlund Plaza only with
sewer and water and storm sewer and eliminating portions of sewer and water
along East County Road 39 and County Road 75. These services would be
provided to the Macarlund Plaza development by coming from Mississippi
�. Drive, and in addition, would also serve approximately three or four
services for a piece of property owned by Maurice Hoglund north of his
present house. The revised cost estimates for extending sewer and water
from Mississippi Drive would add approximately $22,700 additional cost to
the Macarlund Plaza apartment complex.
Although Maurice Hoglund was not present at the meeting, he did inform the
City Staff that he would not be in favor of the previous project extending
sewer and water along County Road 39 and County Road 75, but would be in
favor of the alternate proposal of sewer and water coming from Mississippi
Drive that would also serve the parcel of land he owns north of his present
house.
Because more detail would be needed from Maurice Hoglund as to how he would
plan to develop his parcel of land north of his house, the City Engineer
recommended that he would have to consult with Maurice Hoglund on how
he would plan to develop his parcel before actual plans and specifications
could be prepared for serving the area with sewer and water. He indicated
that some type of plat would have to be submitted or easements would have
to be obtained to provide the new sewer and water services through private
prnpert.y.
As a result, motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and
unanimously carried to continue the public hearing on the 1980-1 improvement
project for Macarlund Plaza for a maximum of 45 days in order to give the
developers and the consulting engineer time to work out the proposed plat
and how services could be routed..
S
COUiICIL MINUTLS - 4/14/80
2. Consideration of Approval of Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor On -Sale License
to the Monticello Slow -Pitch Softball Leaque.
The Monticello Slow -Pitch Softball League requested a 3.2 beer license for
on -sale purposes from May 1, 1980 to October 15, 1980. A similar license
has been granted in previous years, and there hasn't been any particular
problems with the issuance of this license.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to approve issuance of a non -intoxicating 3.2 beer on -sale
license to the Monticello Slow -Pitch Softball League from May 1st until
October 15, 1980, at an annual fee of $62.50.
3. Quarterly Meetinq of Department Heads.
Discussions were held with the following Department Heads in attendance
at the Council Meeting:
Representative of Wright County Sheriff's Dept. 8 Don Hozempa, Sargeant
Karen Hanson - Senior Citizens Director
Paul Klein - Fire Chief
Loren Klein - Building Inspector 8 Civil Defense Director
John Simola - Public Works Director
Gary Wieber - City Administrator
Mike Melstad - YMCA Detached Worker Program
Mr. John Simola, Public Works Director, reviewed with the Council the
progress on obtaining a $40,000 grant from the State Highway Department
for improvements to Ellison Park scheduled for sometime in 1980 or
1981. Of the S40,000 grant, the City's share would he approximately
$4,800, and improvements would consist of a new boat launch facility,
with blacktop parking lot and driveways, along with upgrading and
replacing park furnishings and remodeling of the restroom facilities.
Mr. Simola also reviewed with the Council the City's progress in obtaining
area farmers willing to accept the sludge from the disposal plant. it was
noted that although no contracts or agreements have been made with the area
farmers, a pilot program will be started this year whereby sludge will be
applied to three farmers who are willing to accept it on their fields.
Because of the soil condition at these three farms, additional land would
still be needed that has a more sandy composition to enable the City to
have adequate land available for disposal. If future sites cannot be
located to provide an adequate area for sludge disposal, funding from the
PCA and EPA could be applied for that would enable the City to actually
purchase their own property for sludge disposal. It was noted that all
other possibilities must be exhausted before the EPA and PCA will even
consider funding for actual purchase, and it would be a long and tedius
process if the City engineer did actually apply for funds.
A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to accept a low quote of $1,600 from Ulteig Engineers in the
amount of $1,600 for the purpose of smoke testing the sewer lines within
a 4 -block downtown area to determine if and where the infiltration of the
sewer lines is taking place at. chis smoke testing of the downtown area
will lake place sometime in the fall of 1980.
COUNCIL 141NUTES - 4/14/80
Mr. Simola also noted that quotes have been received from nurseries and
landscaping companies for tree replacements under the Dutch Elm Disease
,- Program. Quotes were received from four interested parties to supply
sir. different varieties of trees of certain diameters planted at a price
ranging from $59.33 each up to a high price of $140.00 each planted. It
was noted that two quotes came in within pennies of each other, and due
to the fact that the lower quote had a smaller diameter tree for one
variety and would charge additional $2.00 per tree for staking if needed,
motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen to award the
tree replacement contract for 1980 to Fair's Market at $60.00 per tree
planted and staked. Voting in favor: Phil White, Dan Blonigen, Arve
Grimsmo. Abstaining: Fran Fair.
In discussions with the Senior Citizens Center Director, Karen Hanson,
quotes were received in regards to installing a Mansord Roof over the
front of the present senior citizens building. Building Inspector, Loren
Klein, indicated that three quotes have been received ranging from $1,275
to 51,600 for the specified improvements.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to approve installation of the Mansord Roof over the Senior
Citizens Center for the low bid of $1,275. It was noted that additional
outside lighting would be installed by the Public Works Department at the
time the Mansorf Roof is constructed.
C
In discussions with Paul Klein, Fire Chief, it was noted that the budget
amount of $1,400 for 1980 for schooling and training by fire department
personnel will more than likely be exceeded. Mr. Klein felt that the
budget was below what is necessary to keep up adequate training for the
fire department personnel and requested that additional funds be appro-
priated next year.
4. Consideration of Approval of Assiqnment of Securities for Deposits.
the purpose of this item was to accept securities pledged by two of the
City's official depositories - the Wright County State Bank and the First
Nasional Bank of Minneapolis.
These pledge of securities are necessary from the First National Bank and
the Wright County State Bank whereby these two depositories assign various
securities in pledge of collateral for the investments the City has in
either checking accounts, daily savings accounts or other certificates of
deposits at these banks.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the security agreements and the securities pledged by the
Wright County State Bank and the First National Bank of Minneapolis.
(See Exhibit 4/14/80 01).
3 -
/S
COUNCIL MINUTES - 4/14/80
5. Consideration of Final Payment to Arcon Construction.
As part of the 1977-3 permanent street improvement project, the City
Council reviewed a request for additional items submitted by the contractor
and approved a portion of the extra items requested in the amount of
$7,930.73. In addition to these items approved previously, the contractor
also requested that additional amounts of $9,954.00 for the payment of
additional wearing course installed on the streets and $5,251 for the
replacement and repair of curb and sidewalk also be approved for payment.
Along with these two extra pay items, Arcon Construction was asking for
another $6,693 for differences that their records show for quantities
actually installed by their company and those reflected by our engineer.
As a result, Arcon Construction Company was originally asking for addi-
tional items totalling $21,898. The City's original initial offer to
Arcon was to accept their request for additional monies relative to
the payment of the wearing course and replacement of curb and nutter, in
the amounts of $9,954 and $5,251, respectively, but ignore the request for
additional monies based on quantity differences, and also, to deduct from
these two amounts expenses incurred by the City because of the frozen
watermain and repair that amounted to $7,311. As a result then, the
City would recognize their request for additional items amounting to
$15,205, but credit against this $7,311 for costs incurred by the City,
or a net payment amount of $7,894. Arcon Construction Company r•:as :tilling
to initially split their request in half to $10,949, but finally, an
agreement was reached whereby the City and the Contractor both would agree
to additional items totalling $9,475 as a compromise.
11
J
in order to eliminate litigation proceedings which could be costly both
to the Construction company and the City, it was the City Engineer's
recommendation that this amount be paid as final payment along with the
$13.000 originally withheld until these items were settled.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried
to approve the compromise settlement agreement of $9,475 as final payment
for all extra work to Arcon Construction Company as part of the 1977-3 project,
plus the $13,000 amount withheld previously. Total final payment would
amount to $22,475.
6. Consideration of Setting Up Special Meeting on Workshop Session with
the Planning Commission on Monticello's Sign Ordinance.
The Planning Commission previously held a public informational meeting on
April 8, 1980 to get input from concerned property owners and sign repre-
sentatives in regards to the City of Monticellu's current ordinance which
would eliminate highway billboards and other non -conforming signs by
August of 1980. In light of the input received from concerned property
owners and other sign company representatives, the Planning Commission
requested that the City Council meet in a special meeting with the
Planning Commission to review the direction the City ,^.lane on Pursuing
in regards to any revisions to the Current ordinance, etc. It is Intended
that the City Attorney and also the City Planner would be present at this
meeting to help receive their input in regards to legalities and future
ordinance amendments, if any are contemplated.
- 4 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 4/14/80
It was the consensus of the Council that a special workshop session will
l be held on April 24, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. to review the sign ordinance.
7. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the March 24, 1980 Council Minutes as presented.
8. Miscellaneous Equipment Purchases - Public Works Department.
As part of the 1980 Budget, John Simola, Public Works Director, recommended
to the Council that a 1978 model Dynapac roller and new Homelite tamper
be purchased in the amount of $4,535. This amount would be approximately
$900 over budget, but it was the public works department recormendation,
after reviewing the used equipment available, that the additional $900
would be well spent. Also, as part of the budget, quotes were obtained
for a weed and fertilizer sprayer for use in the parks and tree sanitation
program. Three quotes have been received ranging from $2,575 to $4,075'
for a self-contained trailer mounted sprayer to be pulled behind the
City's existing tractor and garden equipment. It was the Public Works
Director's recommendation that either the sprayer for $2,575 or the one
for $2,934 be purchased, but the Public Works Director had not had an
opportunity to view both models as of yet. Motion was made by Phil White,
seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the purchase of the 78 model Dynapac
roller and new Homelite tamper in the amount of $4,535.00 and also to
purchase a weed fertilizer sprayer, the actual model to be determined by
the Public Works Department after reviewal.
i
Meeting adjourned.
Rick Wolfstetler
Assistant Administrator
RW/ns
-5-
COUNCIL UPDATE
April 28, 1980 Meeting
1. GARBAGE DISPOSAL CONTRACT (Gary Wieber).
As you are aware, the current garbage haulers for the City of Monticello
have served their written notice on the City of Monticello that they do
intend to terminate their contract as of August 1, 1980. On our next
Council agenda for May 12, 1980, proposed contract will be submitted
to the Council for approval to be bid upon May 26, 1980. This will allow
prospective garbage haulers over 60 days prior to the start up of a
contract.
2. BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD (Loren Klein).
When the Building Code Appeals Board met on Thursday, February 14, 1980,
it was determined that both Larry Flake and the City of Monticello
would obtain independent property appraisals of the old Ford Garage
property at 249 West Broadway. At that time, the City engaged
Jack Maxwell, of Maxwell Realty, to appraise the property both as
it stands today with the buildings, and also, what the value of that
property would be if the buildings were removed. Larry Flake also
obtained an appraiser to give him the value of that property using the
same method.
When the City received the appraisal from Mr. Maxwell, it was forwarded
to Gary Pringle, who in turn forwarded it to Mr. Mike Merrigan, who
is an attorney for Mr. Flake.
After reviewing both appraisals, Mr. Merrigan contacted Mr. Pringle and
said that he would be in touch with him in the future to discuss the
appraisals at length.
As of this date, they have not had their meeting to discuss those
appraisals.
3. County State Aid Highway R75 (Broadway) (John Simola).
On the afternoon of April 22, 1980, the Public Works Director discussed
the condition of Broadway with Larry Koenig, the Wright County Engineer.
Mr. Koenig assured the Public Works Director that the County would be
attempting to blade off the ridges left from crack sealing by mid-May.
No further action will be taken until it is known whether or not this
repair operation will be successful.
c