Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 06-23-1980� N AGENDA I� REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL June 23, 1980 - 7:30 P. M. JJ 4 Q Mayor: Arve Grimsmo Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White. r f Meeting to be taped. ,I WIrN °& ` Citizens Comments -e L, �x a'\1. Consideration of Sign Ordinance Amendment Regulating Advertising Signs Greater than 200 Square Feet. 0 W IL'.te !.d 1k-5 2. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility A<< within an R-2 (Single 8 Two Family Residential) Zone as a Conditional Use. 3. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - ARC Day Care Center. a f� 4. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allo- the Division of Lots V� ,,\\%o Containing More than One Dwelling Unit for Purposes of Ownership. P5. Consideration of the Extension of Variance Requests by Scott's. Inc. to Continue the Use of a Mobile Home in a B-3 Zone. P6. Consideration of Request for Permission to Hold a Tractor Pulling Contest and One (1) Day Non-intoxicating On-Sale License - A Monticello Jaycee's. " 1. Consideration of an Acceptance of a Step iiI Treatment Works Grant r from the E.P.A. 8. Consideration of Extent of City's Involvement in a Comprehensive Community Education Joint Powers Agreement with the School District v` of Monticello. �\\ 9. Approval of Minutes - June 9, 1980 Regular Meeting, / 10. Approval of Bills - June 1880. Unfinished Business Wrightco Report New Business - 0 Consideration of Special Meeting to Interview Architects for Library- Review of 1979 Audit by Gruys. Johnson 8 Associates. e - �� �� c City Council - 6/23/80 AGE14DA SUPPLEMENT 1. Consideration of Sign Ordinance Amendment Regulati:iq Advertising Signs* Greater than 200 Square Feet. Presently, according to Monticello City Ordinances, advertising signs or billboards are required to be removed by August 21, 1980, unless the City Council amends this ordinance provision. An ordinance amendment has been prepared by John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, and reviewed by the Planning Commission for possible adoption. According to the ordinance amendment as prepared by John Uban, all adver- tising signs would be considered a non -conforming use and allowed to remain until such time as the parcel of land on which they were sited was developed, and at that time, the sign would have to be removed within 60 days. As a result of this provision, all existing advertising signs would have been grandfathered in and allowed to stay until such time as the property was developed. According to the conversation our Zoning Administrator, Loren Klein, had with Del Blocher, of Blocher Outdoor Advertising Company, which is one of the two companies which has the billboards which currently exist in Monticello, Mr. Blocher felt that the ordinance amendment was a fair amendment, although obviously he would have liked to see the present billboards grandfathered in forever, and also the possibility of allnwing further in the future. Another sign company, Franklin Sign Company, which currently does not have any billboards in the City of Monticello, obviously feels that the ordinance amendment should allow for additional billboards. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance amendment prepared by John Uban and decided to modify Mr. Uban's proposal by having the amendment apply only to advertising signs in excess of 200 square feet. The Planning Commission wanted to give further thought to the possibility of allowing advertising signs which currently exist that are less than 200 square feet to remain regardless of whether they were currently the principal use or not the principal use. For your information, it appears that all signs that are normally considered billboards or that are greater than 200 square feet now exist on lots that are undeveloped and therefore, currently are the principal use. However, in the case of signs that are less than 200 sq. tt., in some cases these signs are or, lots that already have another principal use. Additionally, the Planning Commission felt that there would be the possibility of allowing these signs that are less than 200 sq. ft. to continue and also to possibly allow additional signs of less than 200 sq. ft. to provide some type of direction for the traveler. C •An "advertising sign" according to the City of Monticello ordinance definition, is a sign that is an off -premise sign that advertises a particular product or place which is not at the site where the sign exists. City Council - 6/23/80 In addition to the question of advertising signs (off -premise signs), the Planning Commission also considered the requirements that would apply to all other non -conforming signs, that is signs that do not meet the current City ordinances because they are flashing, too high, too many signs, etc. Presently, the ordinance amendment requires these type of signs also be removed by August 21, 1980. it was decided that the Planning Commission would take this issue up at their next meeting and make a further recom- mendation to the City Council . Although the Planning Commission obviously isn't finished with their complete review of the signs as they pertain to the advertising signs which are less than 200 square feet, plus the on -premise non -conforming signs, it was decided that the major issue was the billboards, and this is the reason that the Planning Commission's recommendation is going forth to the City Council at this time, and at a later date, the recommendations from the Planning Commission as they apply to the other types of signs will be forthcoming. One additional element that John Uban is suggesting is that the sign company and the property owner had to sign an agreement according to which they will abide by the provisions of the ordinance, and this agreement must be on file by July 23, 1980, provided that the City Council adopts the ordinance amendment as suggested by the Planning Commission as of June 23, 1980. In this way, there is no question that the property owner and the sign company are aware of the provisions of the ordinance, and if the agreement is not sent back within the stated time, this sign in effect becomes a non -conforming sign which must be removed immediately. Ar, cx`a stivc --nount of ti,—..c has been spent by the City Planncr, the Planning Commission, the City Council and the Staff in struggling with the issue of signs, and I feel that the ordinance amendment suggested by the Planning Commission is a good one. In this fashion, it puts the owner of the property in the position where he at least has a choice to make whether to remove the sign or to develop the property, and additionally, does not require the signs come down at any certain definitive point in time. As a result, the City avoids the possibility of having to award compensation to those signs that have to be removed. It should be pointed out that I will have our Zoning Administrator, Loren Klein, review this matter with Gary Pringle, our City Attorney. to see if he sees any legal implications involved. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment which would allow advertising signs in excess of 200 square feet to exist until such time as the particular lot were developed. This ordinance amendment would read as follows:*, **Note: Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote Cof Council for approval. - 2 - City Council - 6/23/80 10-3-9: SIGNS B. Permitted and Prohibited Signs: 2. Prohibited Signs: (g). Advertising signs, in excess of 200 sq. ft., except those signs which were in place on or before June 23, 1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date, and which have an agree- ment on file with the City on or before July 23, 1980, in the form so designated by the City Administrator which is signed by the property owner and the adver- tising sign owner and notarized, may continue as a non -conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is developed, in which case, the non- conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official. REFERENCES: May 29, 1980 memorandum from John Uban, Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 1980. 2. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility within an R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Zone as a Conditional Use. PURPOSE: To consider an amendment which became necessary as a result of d request by the ABC Day Care Center (see Agenda Item N3) to allow a Day Care facility within an R-2 zone as a conditional use. Currently, Monticello Ordinances allow a day care home with up to five children as a permitted use in an R-1, R-2 and R-3 zone. Additionally, the ordinance presently allows a day care home with greater than five children as a conditional use within an R-3 zone. However, a day care home of more than five children is not addressed in an R-1 or R-2 zone. In reviewing this matter, it was felt that rather than rezone property in some cases to R-3 which would also allow a multiple dwelling up to 12 units, it would be better to not have to go to rezoning to allow such a use within an R-2 zone, but still have some control by means of a conditional use. This control would be exercised in the conditions that are contained within the ordinance itself, along with the fact that all conditional uses do require a public hearing and property owners will be notified within 350' of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter, and no objections to the ordinance amendment itself were expressed. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. This ordi- nance amendment would allow a day care center of more than five children as a conditional use within an R-2 zone, provided the following conditions are met: - 3 - C City Council - 6/23/80 A. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. B. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet. C. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance. D. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Section 10-3-6 of this Ordinance E. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. F. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Section 10-3-9 of this Ordinance. G. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. H. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare, Public Welfare Manual 11 31 30 as adopted, amended and/or changed are satisfactorily met. 1. A written indication of preliminary, pending or final license approval from the regulatory welfare agency is supplied to the City. POSSIBLE ACTION: Cor.sideiatior. of Ordinaace AmeiijuiciiL Lv allow a Day Care Center as a conditional use within in F 4 n R-2 zone, along with the conditions stated above.** OPC 1� .f REFERENCES: Planning Commission minutes of June 10, 1980. 3. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - ABC Day Care Center. PURPOSE: Consider a request by the ABC Day Care Center, which presently is operating out of the Oakwood School, to utilize the existing First Baptist Church on West Broadway as a facility for a day care center. As a result of the City of Monticello's purchase of the Oakwood School, along with its decision to remove the building, it has become necessary for the ABC Day Care Center to relocate. This application for a conditional use is to utilize the present First Baptist Church, which is in an R-2 zone, as a day care facility. According to Marcella Corrow, one of the owners of the ABC Day Care Center, the First Baptist Church is ideal due to the fact that it lends itself with little modification to a Day Care Center. For your information, the First Baptist Church is proposing to use the additional land ••Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote of Council for approval. - 4 - City Council - 6/23/80 they own adjacent to the present church for construction of a new facility. Initially, it was a thought that the present Baptist Church would one day become the parsonage, and a new church built; however, presently, the Minister of the First Baptist Church has already located to another residence and it is not necessary to have a parsonage right on site. For your further information, Mr. Brad Larson is no longer considering the development of Townhouses, which were previously approved by the City Council, on this site. In order for the City Council to consider a conditional use for the ABC Day Care Center, it will have been necessary to have the item in agenda item 2 approved prior to this particular request. If the Ordinance Amendment is not adopted, the only way the ABC Day Care Center could go into the present First Baptist Church would be to have the property rezoned to R-3, and then request a conditional use, and this is alluded to in the previous agenda item. At their Public Hearing, which was held May 20, 1980 on this subject, the Planning Commission received no objections to the proposal and recommended unanimously to the Council to approve of the conditional use request. All the provisions of the suggested conditional use permit will be met by the ABC Day Care Center if approved. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of conditional use permit for the ABC Day Care Center to utilize the existing First Baptist Church.— REFERENCES: Letter from Marcella Corrow. Q�j cU/v 4. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow the Division of Lots Containinq More Than One Dwellinq Unit for Purposes of Ownershio. PURPOSE: Recently, the City of Monticello received a request from Quintin I.anners to allow a two-family dwelling which would be owned by two individual parties to be constructed on two City lots. There appeared to be some question in reviewing the Ordinance of whether a variance was required at that time, and it was decided that a variance hearing would be held and a variance was granted, but ultimately, the Planner was asked for his recom- mendation of clarification of the existinq Ordinance and a possible Ordinance Amendment to allow this type of use in the future. Enclosed, please find the May 22, 1980 memorandum from John USan in which he indicates he feels that the present zoning ordinance could be interpreted to allow the approval of the division of lots containing multiple unit structures in order that the individual units be sold without the necessity of a variance. However, he did offer an ordinance amendment to more clearly address the issue, and such amendment would be added to Section 10-3-3, and would read as fnllnws: "Conditional Use Permits require 4/5's vote of Council for approval. -5- City Council - 6/23/80 (E) Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the prin- cipal structure containing the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the applicable zoning district. In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as specified in the Area and Building Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual or joint ownership. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this issue, and no objections were heard. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the adoption of an ordinance amendment in order that the matter be clarified. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to allow the division of lots containing more than one dwelling unit for purposed of ownership. •• REFERENCES: May 22, 1980 memorandum from Jgnb Uban and the Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 1980. Q4) 011� 5. Consideration of the Extension of Variance Requests by Scott's, Inc. to Continue the Use of a Mobile Home in a B-3 Zone. oi_manSE: Scott's. Inc. iseeue:ting a y-ian V•i:.. nuc the •ili t o—f n of their mobile home, which currently is situated just west of the , Monticello Ford Site at the 1-94 interchange. This request would necessitate the following variances be approved: A. Variance from the building code provisions since mobile homes do not meet currently building codes. B. Variance from Monticello's zoning ordinance requiring that all mobile homes be only allowed in an R-4 zone. C. Variance from landscaping requirements. D. Variance from hardsurfaced requirements. E. Variance from curbing requirements. F. Variance from provision that allows only one principal use on a par- ticular parcel. "Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote of Council for approval. 6- City Council - 6/23/80 To give you some further background in this item, Scott's. Inc. did in fact, at one time, own the land that the Monticello Ford site is now situated on. Scott's, Inc. did utilize the facility at the time for a brokerage office as explained in Bob Pederson's letter, which is enclosed and dated May 31, 1980. This use existed prior to the area being annexed into the City of Monticello, and normally would have been treated as a permitted, non -conforming use. However, two things should be mentioned, in checking with the Township Clerk at that time, Marge Goetzke, there was no record that the mobile home site was approved when it was in the Township; and furthermore, the mobile home itself was moved from one area to another,which is in vir,lation of Monticello ordinances. On May 14, 1919, the City Council did approve a variance to allow the mobile home to exist until January 1, 1980. In January of 1980, upon a request from Bob Pederson, the City Council extended the variance to June 1, 1980. Since an application for a variance was currently on file, the City Zoning Administrator has not enforced this particular provision until the City Council can deal with this item at the June 23, 1980 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their June 10, 1980 meeting, the Planning Commission decided to approve the variance requested, but not on a permanent basis, but rather to approve the variance to June 1, 1981, with the notation that they may be able to come in at the end of each one-year period and request renewal of these variances. in this way, the Planning Commission felt that the City would still have control because the variances would have to be renewed annually, however, at the same time it was con- sidered at the front end that there probably would be reauested a renewal of this permit each year so that the City is not surprised that the ordi- nances are not being adhered to. In light of the fact that, to a certain extent, the business existed prior to being annexed into the City of Monticello, I feel that it merits some consideration for granting the variance requests, but as previously indicated above, there appears to be a question if it ever was even approved by the Township. Additionally, there might be some merit in considering the var- iances relative to the landscaping and the hardsurfacing because of the type of operation that exists and the fact that it is only a temporary type or seasonal type of use during the year. However, on the other hand, the City Council may want to look at the fact that previous various extensions have been approved twice before with the understanding that the Ordinance provisions would be adhered to, and an analogy can he made between this type of operation and that of Robert Davis's auction house, whernhy the City Council indicated that they might be willing to grant a variance for a period of one year, but at the end of that one year that the hardsurface requirements and other requirements would have to be adhered to. In the Ordinance itself, relative to variances, it does address the issue of non -economic hardship, and that portion of the Ordinance reads as follows: - 7 - City Council - 6/23/80 "The City Council, serving as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, shall after receiving the written reports and recommendations of the Planning Condition and the City Staff, make a finding of fact and decide upon the request for a variance by approving or denying the same in part of whole where it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this Ordinance, or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water condi- tions of a specific parcel of land or lot, . . . . . . . . . Y ' In applying this standard to the variance in question, it appears that the (� issue is more an economic issue rather than a non -economic issue. Further- more, in the case of the Clearwater Truck Stop, which does have continual etruck traffic, hardsurfacing is present and it is not unusual for truck 9 %s stops to have this type of surfacing. Q J�\ ��% POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variances requested, n p and if approved, to what date they would be extended.** u REFERENCES: June 10, 1980 Planning Commission Minutes along with May 31, 1980 1 etter from Scott's, Inc. Consideration of Request for Permission to Hold a Tractor Pullinq Contest and One 111 Day Non-Intoxicatinq On -Sale License - Monticello Jaycee's. The Monticello Jaycee's, along with the St. Michael Jaycee's, have requested permission to hold a tractor pulling contest on Curtis Hoglund's property July 13, 1980 (Curt's Storage 8 Sales). in addition, the Jaycee's have asked for a one (1) day license to sell 3.2 beer at the event, which is scheduled from 1:00 to 5:00 P.M.. According to Dennis Holker, of the Monticello Jaycee's, Curt Hoglund has agreed to let the Jaycee's use his property for the contest. They plan to have seating available at the event and indicated that parking will be available on Curt's property. The St. Michael Jaycee's will be providing liability insurance coverages for the participants and spectators. Representatives of the two Jaycee organizations will be at Monday night's meeting to answer any questions you may have. All but fnur property owners along Mississippi Drive have been contacted by the organization, with apparently no objections to the event being held. "Variance requests require 4/5's vote Of Council for approval. - 8 - City Council - 6/23/80 ( The Jaycee's have indicated that they will be contacting the local Fire Department for possible use of the water tank truck for controlling dust, etc. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of granting approval to the St. Michael and Monticello Jaycee's to hold a tractor pulling contest and issuance of a one (1) day 3.2 license. 7. Consideration of an Acceptance of a Step IIi Treatment Works Grant from the EPA. PURPOSE: Notification has been received from the EPA that the City of Monticello has been awarded a grant in the amount of $4,149,300 and the 0 reason for this item on the agenda is to have the formal approval of the ��� ■ grant acceptance. V N For your information, the total project cost for the treatment works plus �t ,✓�01 the interceptor sewer that would run through the School property to the A intersection of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and Washington f �S \ \ Street is $5,532,400. Of this amount, the City's share would be 10%, or P ,' \ $553,240. Additionally, if the City of Monticello wishes to construct I) 0 the trunk sewer from Washington Street and the Burlington Northern V `l Railroad tracks westerly down 5�5 Street and eventually to hook up withp 1 the Chestnut Lift Station, there will be an additional cost of approxi- Q mately $1.000.000. of which the r.it.y of Mnntiratln i< tryi.ng to obtain Q v funding for. Currently, the EPA has determined that this would not ti qualify for funding, but the City of Monticello is pursuing the possibility �� S of designating this portion of trunk sewer as an interceptor sewer and thus 1 Y� fund eligible. 9A, -&HA. L, '$I L��el`�L � Iwl$L q� John Badalich will be at Monday night's meeting to review in more detail acceptance of the grant and the timetable. POSSIBLE ACTiON:I.Consideration of motion to formally accept the grant conveyed by the Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of $4,149,300 for updating the City's present Treatment Plant and installation of inter- ceptor sewer. L QA. 'a, 13 �l 1 8. Consideration of Extent of City's Involvement in a Comprehensive Community Education Joint Powers Agreement with the School District of Monticello. At a previous meeting, the City Council authorized the Mayor to appoint two members to an ad hoc committee to consider the formalization of a joint powers agreement with the independent School District #882 to provide a joint recreation program. - 9 - City Council - 6/23/80 As you may recall, the initial reason for adopting a joint powers agreement was for the comment in the audit report by the State Auditor's office, which read in part: "No written mutual agreement between the City of Monticello and the Indepen- dent School District 4882 for the operation of this Joint Recreation Program pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.15-.16 or 411.59 was found. We recommend the City Council, by resolution, adopt the program of recreation or establish a cooperative program with Independent School District 4882 pursuant to provisions of the aforementioned statutes." Since it was decided a more formalized agreement should be adopted with the School District to update the old agreement that was on file, it was decided that it would be also a good opportunity to look at the whole philosophy behind the joint recreation program. Mayor Arve Grimsmo has appointed Council Members Dan Blonigen and Fran Fair to serve on this committee, and these members have asked that this item be placed on the Council Agenda to determine the City's extent in such a program. At the last ad hoc co=ittee meeting, which consisted of the City's representatives previously mentioned, along with representa- tion from the School Board along with members of the Community Education Advisory Board, there was a discussion about the possibility of the City being involved in more than just the joint recreation program and being involved in the entire Community Education Program in terms of support. It was felt by the Council's representatives on the committee, Fair and Blonigen, that before they could go any further in discussing this, that these members should bring back the issue of the City's extent in community education to the entire Council. Basically, the choices would be if the City wants to get involved in: A. Joint Recreation Program - Summer only. B. Recreation Program throughout the year. C. Entire Community Education Program. Enclosed, please find a summary of the budget for 1980 and the Summer Recreation costs submitted by Duane Gates with the Community Education School, which totalled $11,460 and also the other recreation expenses during the year, which totalled $13,140. It should be noted that these costs totalled $24,600 and approximately another $20,000 has to be raised by the local School District to support the remaining portion of the community ed program that does not involve recreational activities. (At the last ad hoc committee, Shelly Johnson indicated that the entire commu- nity education budget was approximately $96,000, but reducing that by fees charged and State Aid,brings the total net cost to the School District to approximately $44,000). - 10 - City Council - 6/23/80 i have surveyed surrounding communities to get an idea of what funds they contribute, if any, to a joint recreation and/or community education program with their particular School District. Following is a list of communities that responded and the amount that they contributed: Becker $30,000 Morris 20,000 Buffalo 17,925 Sauk Rapids 13,315 Benson 10,000 Annandale 6,000 Cokato 4,200 Delano 2,500 Maple Lake 1,500 Big Lake 1,250 Additionally, communities of Albertville, Rockford, St. Michael and Jackson returned the survey indicating that they had no joint powers agreement with their respective School District. This is not to say that they do not, on their own, provide some kind of recreation program through the City itself. It should be pointed out that the City currently has in its budget for 1980 $3,500 for the Joint Summer Recreation Program. if it were not for the School District, the City of Monticello would easentialiy have the following choices: A. Adopt its own summer recreation program with the $3,500. B. Provide no summer recreation program. C. Utilize the $3,500 plus expand the summer recreation program. D. Provide a summer recreation program and decrease the activity that the City may want to provide. E. Reduce some other aspect of its current budget, such as the park fund, and provide in lieu thereof an expanded summer recreation program. Essentially, It appears that for the amount of services that the City receives through this joint summer recreation program, the City is getting by relatively cheap. However, Dan Blonigen would like to point out that the fact that the citizens of the City of Monticello, in effect, would be paying twice for summer recreation program - once through the School District tax levy and then again for any portion that the City of Monticello picks up. In effect this is true, however, the City may have to ask itself what level of services beyond the $3,500 it is expending would the City be providing and how much would this cost. On the other hand, the City of Monticello does constitute 75% of the tax base of Independent School District /882 and in effect is already picking up 75% of the program. 31 City Council - 6/23/80 Per the request of Dan Blonigen, 1 have reviewed the budget for 1980 for other similar types of programs that could be considered the City's effort that it does through its own programs, which would be the Senior Citizens Center and the Park Fund. The Senior Citizens Center fund for this year is $12,950, along with the Park program which is $34,890. Mr. Blonigen feels that this certainly is a part of the City's effort to provide a recreation program already. To get an idea on what the effect of any increase would be, Independent School District #882 prepared various comparisons, but in surnnary, it amounts to presently that a person with a $40,000 home in the City of Monticello is paying 41d per year, including homestead credit, for the City's contribution of $3,500, and a person with a $50,000 home is paying 58¢ per year, including homestead credit. For every $1,000 that the City may add, it would cost the resident of the City 12 additional cents per year for a $40,000 home and 17d per year with a $50,000 home. On the other hand, it would only save each resident of the School District 9t per year on a $40,000 home and 13t per year on a $50,000 home. Again, to a certain extent it depends on how the matter is viewed. Obviously, the above is a lot of facts, information and statistics, 1 feel if the City does ::ant any further input inlu what types of prugrdms are to be offered through the School District in terms of either summer recreation program, the entire recreation program or the entire community education program, it would be necessary for the City of Monticello to increase its share. On the other hand, if the City of Monticello is not interested in any phase but the summer recreation program, it might want to consider just that portion in writing an agreement that would be commensurate with that. POSSIBLE ACTION: While there isn't a joint powers agreement to be approved at this point by the Council, a decision should be made to the extent of the City's involvement in the following: A. Joint Recreation Summer Program. B. Remaining Recreation Program. C. Entire Community Education Program. REFERENCES: Sumner recreation costs for 1980 and recreation expenses during the year submitted by Independent School District 0882. - 12 - MIIIUTES i REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 10, 1980 - 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, John Bondhus. Loren Klein (ex -officio) Members Absent: Dave Bauer. 1. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Martie and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1980 Regular Meeting. 2. Public Hearing - Monticello Sian Ordinance. Mr. Bob Ryan, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, explained a letter from John Uban, dated May 29, 1980, regarding sign ordinance amendments allowing existing billboards to remain as a non -conforming use. Mr. Ryan explained a possible ordinance amendment which could be added to our present ordinance in Section 10-3-9 which would deal with permitted and prohibited signs, and be added as subsections thereto. 1 Also, a draft copy of an agreement form which could be used between the City of Monticello and the property and advertising sign owners was discussed. This form could give the City a stronger legal standing in the event that a property or sign owner did not want to remove the sign when the property was developed with another principal use. It was suggested that the forms be sent to the owners by certified mail with return receipt signatures kept on file at City Hall. In that way, the City could have a document that the property owners received the form. Basically, the discussion was centered around the existing billboard signs, that is, signs of over 200 square feet, being allowed to remain as they are in their present condition as the principal use of the property. It was further discussed that at the time that the property upon which the signs are located is further developed and another principal use or building is developed on that property, that at that time the existing sign would have to be removed. An ordinance amendment which stated the above could help prevent non -conforming billboards from being perpetuated indefinitely. On a motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie, all voted in favor to suggest the following sign ordinance amendment be added to ordinance Section 10-3-9: a q LS Planning Commission - 6/10/80 10-3-9: SIGNS B. Permitted and Prohibited Signs: 2. Prohibited Signs: (g). Advertising Signs, in excess of 200 sq. ft., except that those signs which were in place on or before June 23, 1980 and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date, and which have an agreement on file with the City on or before July 23, 1980, in the form so desig- nated by the City Administrator which is signed by the property owner and the advertising sign owner and notarized, may continue as a non -conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is developed, in which case, the non- conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official. (Excep- tions - bus benches or signs which advertise non-profit organizations). The Planning Commission also voted to recommend that it be considered that this be recorded as a deed restriction on those respective parcels of property, if it is possible to do that. The Planning Commission decided that at this meeting they would deal only with billboards or, that is, signs of over 200 sq. ft., and that signs that do not conform to the present ordinance would be dealt with after gathering more information at the next regular Planning Commission meeting, and that, if necessary, they would be willing to hold a special meeting to discuss further information. 3. Public Hearinq - Prnposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility_ within an R-2 zone as a conditional use. The present Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a day care home with up to five children as a permitted use in an R-1 zone, and allows the same as a permitted use in an R-3 zone, with a day care facility with more than five children as a conditional use in an R-3 zone. It was a staff recommendation that the Planning Commission and Council consider amending the present ordinance to allow a day care facility unit with more than five children in an R-2 zone as a conditional use, provided that It meets all the conditional use criteria as are required in an R-3 zone, as is discussed in Section 10-8-4-0. If this ordinance amendment were passed, it would then allow the ABC Day Care Center to reestablish themselves from the Oakwood School to the Baptist Church Building. At a recent Planning Commission meeting, it was recommended to the City Council that the ABC Day Care Center be allowed to move their facility into the old Baptist Church building, which is zoned R-2, and that request was approved by the City Council as it was recommended t0 them. _J -2- C Planning Connission - 6/10/80 Hearing no objections, on a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, all voted in favor to recommend a zoning ordinance amendment to allow a Day Care Center with more than five children as a conditional use in an R-2 zone. 4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Duplexes in an R-2 Zone to be O:vned by Two Separate Individuals. Upon a staff request, John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates, wrote a memorandum to Gary Wieber, which outlined how our Planner feels that the present ordinance could be interpreted to allow a duplex in an R-2 Zone which could be owned by two individual owners. Mr. Uban stated in his letter "we feel that the zoning ordinance as written should allow the City to approve the division of lots containing multiple unit structures, in order that the individual housing units could be sold. The total structure containing the units would then be subject to the zoning ordinance requirements. In effect then, the units would be built to and meet at one or more lot lines without the typical setbacks." Mr. Uban went on to state that if the City desires to more clearly address the issue of dividing lots of multiple unit buildings, that possibly the City should consider a suggested new language be added into a new provision Subsection E to Section 10-3-3. On a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, all voted in favor to recommend a new subsection E, which states the following: Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the principal structure containing the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the applicable zoning district. in addition, each cunduminium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as specified in the area and building size regulations of this ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by individual or joint ownership. 5. Public Hearinq - Subdivision, Rezoning and Conditional Use Requests - Quintin Lanners. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Quintin Lanners withdrew his request for a conditional use so this item dealt only with subdivision and rezoning. -3- 1.11q..5 Planning Commission - 6/10/80 This public hearing item dealt with two topics - Item A - a subdivision J request; and Item B - rezoning requests. Mr. Quintin Lanners is proposing to subdivide the present Don Christopher property, located directly west of Balboul Estates, into nine lots- Of these nine lots, his request is to rezone Lot 1 to R-3 and Lots 2 thru 9 to R-2. His request for rezoning lots 2 thru 9 would be based on his desire to build duplexes on each of the lots which would be individually owned by the people who reside within the unit, rather than to have them owned by one owner and have rental units. These duplex units would be the same as those which were recommended for approval at the last Planning Commission meeting for another lot owned by Mr. Lanners in another area of Monticello, and also would be done at the recommendation of our Ci ty Planner. The square footage of Lots 2 thru 9 range in size from 10,175 square feet, which meets the minimum lot size required in an R-2 zone, to 29,100 square feet, which is approximately three times the size of the minimum lot size allowed in an R-2 zone. At the time of the meeting, a comment back from Howard Dahlgren Associates was to recommend this subdivision and rezoning request because of the reasonable transition. Mr. John Badalich, of OSM, at the time of the meeting had not submitted a comment, however, his comments should be forthcoming before the next City Council meeting. 1 On a motion by Ed Schaffer and a second by John Bondhus, it was unanimously J approved to recommend approval of the subdivision request and to recommend approval of the rezoning requests, as regiested. 6. Review of the Home Occupations Ordinance. At a previous Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission dis- cussed the possibility of changing the definition of a home occupation to include more items, and also to make all home occupations conditional uses rather than some be conditional uses and others he permitted uses. On a motion by Dick l4artie and second by John Bondhus, all voted in favor to advertise for a public hearing at which it would be discussed to change the home occupations ordinance to include all the uses as conditional uses. 7. Discussion of Lawful, Non-Confominn Uses within Certain 2oninq Districts. Recently, there have been several complaints come in to City Hall about people who were grandfathered in with their businesses at the time the zoning was made to the entire City. One of those items which is receiving a lot of attention at this time is trucking firms who have parkin ej spaces at their residences. Apparently, those people who own trucks which are larger than allowed in residential zones are parking those vehicles in the residential zones and it is causing concern to the surrounding and abutting neighbors . After considerable discussion among the Planning Commission - 4 - C Planning Commission - 6/10/80 members, it was unanimously decided to recommend better law enforcement in those areas. 8. Discussion of a Letter from the Department of Interior on the Monticello island. Approximately four years ago, Howard Dahlgren Associates sent a letter to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, regarding a question about the use of Monticello Island, which is located just below the Highway 25 Bridge. At this time, the Bureau of Land Management is in the process of determining land use planning, and would like to know if the City has any plans for using the island. At one time it was discussed that possibly a small bridge could be built from Bridge Park to the island, and it could be used as a park annex, or a wilderness addition to the existing bridge park. On a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martie, a unanimous decision was voted to recommend no development of the island - to leave it as it is. 9. A Variance Request for a ,Business Development to Not Have Landscapinq and Parkinq Requirements Met. Bob Peterson, of Scott's, Inc. of Grand Forks, N.D., was present to make a request that he be able to continue to operate his brokerage firm from behind the Monticello Ford building, yet still on the Monticello Ford property, with a few variances that would be necessary. They are as follows: A. A second principal use on a particular lot. B. No landscaping requirements. C. No hardsurfacing requirements. His request was based on the operation of his business only being from July 28 through October 20; however, those dates can vary from 10 days either way. At the present time, they feel they cannot justify a per- manent building of their own because of the limited time spent in Monticello during that short shipping season. They feel that the facility they now have is able to handle their needs, which are: A. Easy access on and off the highway. B. Room for one to eight semi trucks at any one time, which stay from 15 minutes to one hour, or possibly longer. -5- � Planning Commission - 6/10/80 In Mr. Peterson's request, he is asking that they be allowed a permanent variance from those three items which were listed. On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, it was unanimously approved to recommend that the three variance requests from Scott's be granted on a one year basis with notation be made that they be able to come in at the end of each one year period and request renewal of those va riances . 10. A Variance Request for a Setback for a Pylon Siqn - Jim Maus. Jim Maus was present at the Planning Commission meeting and requested that he be allowed to put a new pylon sign on the present Stor-A-Way property and be allowed to erect that sign as close as possible to the property line. Monticello's present ordinance requires that Pylon signs use the same setbacks as a building unless they are granted a variance to do so. In the past, all pylon sign setback requests have been granted as requested, and that in mind, on a motion by Ed Schaffer and second by John Bondhus, it was a unanimous vote to recommend granting a variance to allow the pylon sign to be erected as close as possible to the property line on the cast side of the Stor-A-Way property without any overhang into the right-of-way. Meeting Adjourned. Loren D. Klein' Zoning Administrator LDK/ns F I I HOWARD 6ARLGREN ASSOCIATES ..comon.,�o CONSULTING PL'A NNEAS O N E G Q O V C L O TE—CE M-NEAPOLiS, MINNESOTA 55403 O.t•J�T-1lJO MEMORANDUM DATE: 19 June 1980 TO: Monticello City Council FROM: Robert Ryan RE: Suggested Deletion from the Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment The Planning Commission at their 10 June 1980 meeting reconrnended an amendment to the Sign Ordinance which would allow existing advertising signs (billboards) in excess of 200 square feet to remain as the principal use of a lot until such time as the lot is developed. The Ordinance as originally written prohibited advertising signs and allowed a five year amortization period. The original clause relating to advertising signs, Section 10-3-9 (B) 2 W. also contained the clause "(Exceptions: Bus benches or signs which advertise non-profit organizations)". This exception clause was also included in the proposed amendment. Since the Planning Commission meeting, we have reviewed these exceptions (that is, not including bus benches and non-profit organizations) further with the City Staff. Based on this discussion we would recommend that the exception clause be deleted from the Sign Ordinance Amendment. The exception clause was included in the amendment simply because it was in the original version. In addition, the City does not have any bus benches and existing signs advertising non-profit organizations would be allowed to remain as the principal use under the proposed amendment. Therefore, the exception clause is not necessary and should be deleted. HOWARD DAHLOREN ASSOCIATES CON SULTI NO P L ZN N I.. O N C G n o I C LAND , C — C C .+.„NC.PoL.5, —NCsof, 554o3 nye err eses MFMORA14DUM DATE: 29 May 1980 TO: Monticello City Council and Planning Commission FROM: C. John Man RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Allowing Existing Billboards to Remain as a Non -Conforming Use Based on our discussion at the 19 May 1980 Planning Commission meeting, we have prepared an additional alternative method for wiending, the Sian Ordinance which is presented following for consideration in addition to those discussed in our memo dated 20 May 1980. Basically, the proposal as described in this memo, would allow existing billboards to remain as non-confonninq uses until such time as the lot upon which the sign is located is subdivided , developed, or sold. The proposed amendment would allow property owners and sign companies the opportunity to continue to use their existinq billlnarde until such time as they proposed to use the land more intensively. This amendment should nlso help prevent non -conforming billboards from beinq perpetuated indefinitely. The proposed Amendment is tte,l to the fact that the billboard is the principal vise. of the lot of record. Ilecauso of thin fact, we have Also looked at file oxisting definitinns to sec if they are reasonably clone and accurate with respect to the proposed revision. it npponrn that the existing definitions are adequate to prevent undue rnnfuninn in interpre_tinq the proMned revininn. The Applicable, definitions Are shown below: Structure. Anything which is built, constructed, of erected; nn edifico or bui lding of any kinds or any piece rd work artifiCally built up and/or eomp.ine,l of pArts jni11.1 togathet in some definit.e manner whether t.empornry or pennnnent in character, Advertininq Sion. A 1,111board, pouter pnnal honed. I,ainte.l bulletin honrd, o r athor communicative device which is usod to Advertise prnductn, goodn, And/or services which are not exclusively related to the premine on which the sign in locn tad. I' L Y MEMORANDUM RE: Sign ordinance Amendments Page Tuo 1 Principal Use. The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses. A "principal use" may be either permitted or conditional. Accessory Building or Use. A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. Following then, is the proposed revision to the advertising signs section under Prohibited Signs in section 10-3-9 of the Zonino Ordinance. This relatively minor revision would handle billboards in the manner discussed at the 19 May meeting. Also attached is a draft copy of an agreement form between the City of Monticello and the property and advertising sign owners which the City could use. This form should give the City a stronger legal standing in the event that a property or sign owner did not want to remove the sign when the property was sold, subdivided, or developed for another principal u"— We would suggest that the forms be sent to the owners by certified mail with return receipt signatures kept on file at City Ilall. in this way the City would have documentation that the property owners received the form. Please feel free to contact us if you desire any additional clarification of these procedures. l «- MEMORANDUM RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Three 10-3-9 SIGNS (B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS 2. Prohibited Signe g. Advertising signs, except that those signs which were in place on or before • and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date and which have an agreement on file with the City on or before •• in the form so designated by the City Administrator which is signed by the property owner and tho advertising sign owner and notarized may continue as a non -conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is subdivided, developed, or the ownership changes, in which case the non -conforming advertising sign must be removed within ten (10) days after written notice from the Building Inspector. (Exceptions: Bus benches or signs which advertise non-profit organizations.) * There are two options for an effective date. one option would be to use the date that thin amendment is passed. This would Allow alI "xiatin9 hll ihnarda tc- be rendfathcrcd" is ..rdcr thilz provision. The other option would be to use the date of the earlier ban on billboards which would then not allow those billboards which were put up on a temporary permit since that time. •• we would suggest allowing thirty (30) days from the time of passage and official notification of the owners for them to nubmit their signed agreement. 1 MEMORANDUM RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Four -DRAFT- ADVERTISING SIGN AGREEMENT In accordance with the provisions of Section 10-3-9 (D) 2 (g) of the City Code of Monticello, Minnesota as amended on we, the owner(s) of the following described property and the advertising sign located thereon have received a copy of the provisions of this Section which read as follows: 10-3-9 SIGNS (B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS 2. Prohibited Siqns g. Advertising signs, except that those signs which were in place on or before and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date and which have An agreement on file with the City on or before in the form no desionated by the City J Administrator which is nigned by the property owner and the Advertising sign owner and notarized, may cnntinue no a non-conforminq une until such time ns the lot of record Above is subdivided, develo),ecl, or the ownership changes, in which cane tho non -conforming AdvorLising sign must be removed within Len (10) days After written notice from the Ruilcling Inspector. (Exceptions: Dun benches nr signn which advertise non-profit organizations.) we further certify that we have rend the Above. provisions And understand Lhn Implications with respect to advertininq nignn IOCALMl nn the followinq dencribed property: Lcgal Description: J MEMORANDUM RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Five Property Owner of Record and Address: Signature: Advertising Sign Owner and Address: Signature: Witnessed by Notary Public: Received on or bofore: ny: C. SEAL City Administrator l I I ntarted the ADC Day Care Center. approximately 2 years ago. The main problem in starting the day care center was in finding a suatabie facility and location. The Oakwood school gym met these needs. Here I visa in compliance with all the state's requirements. In these 2 years we have provided child care services on a dailey basis for working parents and also a Drop -In service for children who need the service on an irregular basis. During, this length of time we have provided service for at least 500 children of this community. At this time, we provide care for 20 Pro-Schoolers, 7 Toddlers, 4 Infants, and 7 School Age Children, for a total of 38 children on a dail.ey basis. Also, we provide cure for at least 15 children on a drop-in basis, per week. For the last year we have been concerned about a permanent location for the da;; care :n ardcr to hccp cpc.at:....:1. 11-4 . this time we have been actively sceking another quiteble facility. �.,a came across the lot Baptist Church a few months ago. At that time Brad Larson was considering the site for townhouaes and converting the prooent church building into a duplex. Apparently, the way the situation now stands is that the 1st Baptist church is keeping the land, and will be building a now church facility on this land. At one point, the prosont church building was considered to be converted into a parsonaCte, but this is no longer the case. 3 .. I The floor plans of the present church building are perfect for our requirements for a day care facility. The building meets almost all of the state requirements , which are considerable. The location is another advantage, being centraly located in town, and next to the Pinewood school because many of our children attend school there. This building is the only place we have been able to find which would meet the needs of the ABC DAY CARE CLN TER. Our only other alternative would be to close our program, which we would hate to see happen. tie feel that there is a treat need for our type of program in this community, which has been proven in the last 2 years. This year some of our children went to the pre-school screening for entering kindergarten, and we were told that they seemed more advanced and well prepared due to the fact that they had experienced a pre-achool pror,.ram which helps to roody them for kindergurten. Our stuff must meet qualifications Oct forth by the Dept. of Public '7elfaro. Also, when the staff come tb the day care, their whole day is geared to meeting the needs of these children. There are no other distractions for them which might arise in u home situation such as household chores, running errands etc. Therefore, I Leal this works to tho childo advantage as they know taht their needs of instruction, discipline, and love are being mot. The ASC DAy CARE CE14TER employs 9 women from our comminity, plus 1 man part-time who comes to us through thu Green Thumb Senior Citinon Program. Therefore, I am petitioning you to approve the noccasury Conditional Use Permit in order that we may purchase the lot Baptist Church for the ASC Day Ca Center. t L L HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES "Co"""" CONSULTING PLANNER 5 ONC O A O v C L w N D T C A A 1 C C 1-11E POL-5. 11NNE50TA 55-0 MEMORANDUM DATE: 22 May 1980 TO: Gary wicber, City Administrator City of Monticello FROM: C. John Uban RE: Dividing of Lots Containing More Than One Dwelling Unit for Purposes of Ownership Per your request, we have reviewed the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the above. The Ordinance as written implies that permitted uses and also conditional uses in the residential zones may be sold for condominiums provided they moot the lot area par unit requirements contained in Section 10-3-4-(8). The Zoning Ordinance requirements for the main structure would, of course, remain the same whether the units were owned by one party and rented or sold to individuals as condominiums. We feel that the Zoning Ordinance as written would allow the City to approve the division of Iota containing multiple unit structures in order LhaL LLu indiviJual 19C—bluy u),i La could uu auld. She Lutdl structure containing the units would then be subject to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. In effect then, the units would be built to and moot at one or more lot lines without the typical setbacks. However, if the City desires to mote clearly address the issue of dividing lots of multi -unit buildings for the purpose of selling individual units, we would suggest adding some clarifying language to the Ordinance. A clause could he added to Section 10-3-3- which would allow condominium units to have common walls, that is to be built at what is sometimes called a zero lot line, provided the total structure maeto the setback requirements and that oneh unit had the lot area required. Such language could be added in a new provision (L•') to Section 10-3-3- as follows: i (E) lots of multiple housing unit Structures may be 1 6. divided for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the principal Structure containing _ �r4•ti' ` the housing units shall meet thMetback diatances }1 of tho applicable zoning district. In addition, MEMORANDUM RE: Dividing of Lots Containing More Than One 22 May 1980 Dwelling Unit Page Two each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as specified in the Area and Building Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual or joint ownership. Please give us a call if you need any additional clarification. RR e SC®T Y9S Inc. P.O. Box 728 / Grand Forks, ND 58201 / Phone (701) 775'2577 May 31, 1980 City of Monticello P. 0. Box 777 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 ATTN: Cary Wieber Oenr Sirs: This letter is to make application for a conditional variance permit for an indeterminate length of time. This permit will enable Scott's Inc. to operate from a mobile office located on the Southwest corner of 1-94 and Highway 25, to the back side of the Ford Garage. Refer to enclosed diagram. Scott's Inc. is a truck brokerage_ business serving as a coordinator between a grower of potatoes and the buyer of his product. The potato crop grown in this area is npproxit:iately 7,000 acres, making about 6,000 truck loads. Of this 6,000 loads only nhout 5 percent or les,: stay in the AtArp of Minnecota. Thu6e potatoes are sold as far away ns: Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, New Orleans and any point in between. Most of this crop is moved in approximately 90 dnyn because there are only 3 or 4 farmers that have storage facilities enabling them to ship some of their product during the winter months. less than 2 percent of this crop to moved by the railroad, thus making a huge demand for truck transportation. If the former nells a load of potatoes to a receiver in New York City, this sale would depend on his being able to deliver his product. Since the former has neither the time nor the basic knowledge of where to find n truck for this fob, our service becomes vital to his survival. Not only does Ire need a truck, but usually the truck is needed in 1 to 2 hours from the timo of sale. Because of no storage facilities the potatoes go directly from the harvester into a truck. if no truck is available quickly it euuld cause a hardship for the grower because of un- productive labor. This crop must be moved before the fall freeze, and time is of great importance. Thus the more strategically located we are the better we can serve the farmers needs. With the increased operating costa of a truck per mile, a central location gives us the opportunity to have an adequate supply of equipment available at all times. "Your Truck Broker Since 1951 " S The sale of this product may also, and quite often is done by a buyer or broker in another state quite a distance from Minnesota. Thus making our location even more important since all these sales are made only if trans- portation is available. If the product can't be transported quickly, efficiently and with a great deal of regularity the buyers will buy the product from other areas, such as Alabama, Texas, Colorado, Michigan or Wisconsin who are shipping the same product at the same time. What the general public is not aware of is that this type of product is not hauled by the Common Carrier or freight company. It is transported by the Independent owner -operator. The knowled Ec of how and where to find this person can only come from years of experience. Our company has been in this line of business since 1952, in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and serving your area since July, 1964. We have been at our present location since 1972, and the facility we are presently using is a 45 foot mobile unit built in 1972 to our specifications for an office. At the present time we have not been able to rent a permanent facility in Monticello that can facilitate our needs: easy access on and off the highway, room for from 1 to 8 trucks at a time, from 15 minutes to 1 hour. At this time we cannot justify a permanent building of our own because of the limited time spent in Monticello for this short shipping - Gu, uffice presently being operated from July 28th through October 20th. These dates can vary ten days either way. Your immediate consideration for approval of this application is greatly appreciated. ^SinccrcI SCb t[' 9 Inc. Robert Pederson, V. Pres. Enc. RP:kj V A C M (L- C SUMER RECREATION COSTS - 1980 Salaries: T-Ball/Baseball/Softball/Basketball $3,577.50 Tennis 1,652.50 Pottery 210.00 Wrestling/Gymnastics 280.00 Swimming -(Assistant Community Ed - Director primarily responsible for instructing and coordinating pool activities 2,200.00 Swimming - Lifeguards (150 hre open swim) 1,900.00 Swimming - Red Croce Lessons 900.00 Salariee - Totals $10,720 Supplies b Equipment: Baseballs, Softballe, Bate, Helmets, Catcher guar, T -Ball stand. Tannic Balls. Pottery supplies 500.00 Supplies 6 Equipment - Total $ 500 Special Activities in Parki Story Talora (2 performances) 240.00 Special Activities - Total S 240 GRAND TOTAL $11,460 The above total does not reflect the overhead costs involved in maintaing an office and salaries for the Community Education Director, and Secretary. It also does not reflect the overhead for maintaining the swimming pool in term expense for chemicals, aupplios and custodial solarioe. Y G T RECREATION EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR Salaries: Pool - Lifeguards $3,100 Red Cross Instruction 200 Open Gym 300 Other programs ouch as skiing, special tripe, basketball, volleyball leagues etc. pay for the moot part the direct coat of having the program. Administration - (Base on 20% of Director, Aso't Director and Secretary time is spent on Recreational Activities) 20Z of above salaries 8.270 Salaries - Total $11,870 General Supplies: Supplies - (201 on Recreation) IGO General Supplies - Total 100 Special Evente: Events - (20%) 440 Special Events - Total 440 Transportation: Transportation - (202) 730 Transportation - Total 730 GRAND TOTAL $13,140 Other items in the Community Education budget ouch as tolophonu postage, promotion. etc. aro not reflected above. Also, sxpanso for custodial salaries and supplies aro not reflected above. l� 2) Levy of $18,000 Levy vithout Bonds - $486,025 Levy vith Bonds - $915,431 Kill Rate vith Bonds - 22.775 Tax Increase on Homes with the folloving Valuations. Tax Residential Valuation - Homestead Assessed Valuation Increases i $30,000 $ 6,480.00 $2.90 $40,000 $ 9,480.00 $4.25 1 �� $50,000 $12,480.00 $5.59 3.6 3 3) Levy of $24,000 Levy vithout Bonds - 492,025 Levy with Bonds - $921,431 Kill Rate vith Bonds - 22.924 Ta: Increase on Homes vith the folloving Valuations Tax Residential Valuation - Homestead Assaased Valuation Increases �' f Y 830,000 $ 6,480.00 83.87 $40,000 $ 9,480.00 85.66 ��v3 850,000 012,480.00 $7.45 Pl®aso Now The above figures do not include state paid 35j77 Uomeatoad Credit - 502 up to $550 maximum sso *� 23Z `i`'jQ9v I Cost Analysis for Increasing City Contributions for Community Education and'Recreation'Pro$ram J 1980-81 Background Information: Citv of Monticello Assessed Vaivation 40,194,876 1) Levy of $12.000.00 i Levy without Bonds - 0480,025 Levy with Bonds - $909,431 Mill Rate with Bonds - 22.626 Tax increase on homes with the following valuations. Ta: Residential Valuation - Homestead Assessed Valuation Increases $30,000 $ 6,480.00 $1.94 .97 $40,000 0 9,480.00 $2.84 1•`�'' $50,000 012,480.00 $3.73 �.o �- aI 1979-80 Currant Contribution 3,500 Mill Rate without Contribution 22.240 Texas paid by individuals with H.omea of the following Valuation Residential Valuation - Homestead Assessed Valuation Taxes uO/ia C, $30,000 $ 6,480.00 $ .56 e 040,000 $ 9,480.00 $ .82 y1 $50,000 812.480.00 61.08 Sy 1) Levy of $12.000.00 i Levy without Bonds - 0480,025 Levy with Bonds - $909,431 Mill Rate with Bonds - 22.626 Tax increase on homes with the following valuations. Ta: Residential Valuation - Homestead Assessed Valuation Increases $30,000 $ 6,480.00 $1.94 .97 $40,000 0 9,480.00 $2.84 1•`�'' $50,000 012,480.00 $3.73 �.o �- aI ,� MI NUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL June 9 , 1980 - 7:30 P . M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Faie, Ken Maus, Phil White. Members Absent: None Citizens Comments: Diane Jacobson, property owner in Anders Wilhelm Estates, representing herself and other property owners in the area, complained to the Council about the drainage problems they are experiencing in their rear yards on the east side of Anders Wilhelm Estates. Mrs. Jacobson indicated that after periods of rainfall, ponding occurs in numerous rear yards and the water does not drain as it should from the property. Ralph Munsterteiger, speaking for the developers of the project, agreed with the property owners determination that the drainage is a problem in the area, but indicated that the developers and builders are willing to do the work to solve the problem. Mr. Munsterteiger indicated that elevations were takcri of the area, and felt that an approximate 10" drainage ditch could be constructed on the back of the property in question to solve the drainage problems in the future. He indicated that this drainage swail could either be cunstructed on the rear yards of the affected property owners running in a southerly direction, or the swail could be constructed on a 12' area of the City parkland owned directly behind the property . After a lengthy discussion with the Council and the property owners, it was the consensus of all parties that a drainage swail be constructed by the developer on the 12' casement that should be at the back of each property owners lot for drainage purposes. In regards to the easement that should be recorded as Part of the development plat, motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White aid unanimously carried to have the City consultant the City Attorney to get a legal opinion as to whether the easement actually exists and whether the City can authorize work to be done in this area. It was noted that should the drainage swail be developed, the City Engineer will be supervising and inspecting the proposed drainage swail. 1. Consideration of Request for Banner, Sign, Closing of a Portion of a Street and Restriction on Parklmi — Church of St. Henry. A representative of the St. Henry's Church Fall Festival Committee requested that the City grant permission for the following items for their Fall Festival: 1 17 Council Minutes - 6/9/80 A. Banner across 4th Street. B. Temporary sign. C. Closing of one -block section of 4th Street between Maple Street and Minnesota Street. D. Restrict parking on Minnesota Street from 4th Street to Railroad tracks. E. Construction of temporary signs relative to parking close to the intersection. It was noted that the banner, if approved, would be erected on Saturday, September 13th and would be taken down Sunday evening after the close of the event on September 21, 1980. The closing of the one -block long sec- tion of 4th Street in front of the Church would occur only during the hours of the Festival itself to eliminate any traffic hazards in the area. Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve the five requests of the Fall Festival Committee for the St. Henry's Church. 2. Consideration of Awarding Contracts for the Purchase of a Debarking Machine and a Wood Splitter for the City's Shade Tree Disease Program. 11 Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the follow- J ing bids that were received at 2:00 P.M.. June 9, 1980, for the purchase of a log splitter and a debarking machine: SPLITTER QUOTES LS 500 20T SS 500 25T Coast to Coast $4,047.49 $5,450.00 Energy Shed, Brainerd 4,103.50 5,470.13 Energy Shed, Fridley 4,100.00 5,600.00• *Note: Includes estimate $100.00 freight and estimated $50.00 battery. DEBARKER BID Road Machinery, Bloomington, MN. 512,575.00 Morbark Ind., inc., Winn. Michigan 14,461.25 Mr. Simola recommended that the low bid for the heavy-duty SS 500 25T log splitter in the amount of $5,450 from Coast to Coast, and the bid from Road Machinery Co. for the debarking machine in the atrount of $12,575 be accepted. It was noted that half of the purchase price will be reimbursed by the State as part of their aid program for Shade Tree Disease program, and in addition, the City will be reimbursed by the State for each hour these pieces of equipment are utilized by the City. -2. i Council Minutes - 6/9/RO Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to award the contracts for purchasing the log splitter from Coast to Coast in the amount of $5,450 and the debarker machine in the amount of $12,575 from Road Machinery. 3. Review of Matters Relative to Providing Library Services in Monticello and the Oakwood Block. As part of the discussion held on the City providing future library services in Monticello, it was noted that the District Court in Buffalo has now taken under advisement the petition submitted to them for determination of whether the Worth Brasie Trust can be terminated. If the Court rules in favor of termination of the Trust, the City will then proceed with the purchase of the Oakwood School Block and also be responsible for providing library services in Monticello. Assuming the Court rules in favor of eliminating the Trust, the City will have to decide as to whether to build a new library, and also decide other issues in regards to the Oakwood School building such as remnval of the present building and selling of the Oakwood Block property. It was noted that should the City build a new library, the School District has made available lots 9 8 10, Block 17, located just south of the Oakwood Block, for the City to use as a future library site if they desire. Councilmembers indicated that this property should be studied to see whether a building of suitable size can be constructed on this property, and as a result, a motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to have the Mayor and City Administrator find six members from various committees such as the library, a representative from the Crcat River Regional Library System, mPm he.r of the Friends of the Library Committee, and other citizens to form a building committee whose task would be to study the possible new library building in the two block area in question. The Committee's assigned task would be to determine such things as possible size of the building, whether the library should also house the historical building, approximate cost of the building, etc. The Mayor and the City Administrator will be finding six members for this Committee by the next Council meeting. Motion was also made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Dlonigen, to have the City Administrator contact two architectural fines to make presentation of credentials to the City Council in regards to a new library building. 4. Approval of 14inutes. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Tuesday, May 27, 1980. Meeting adjourned. kick Woli'si.eller, Asst. Administrator - 3 - p L DARRELL L. WOLFF empty Sh-;N 4 Honorable Mayor City Council Monticello, Minn. 55362 Gentlemen: SH'ERIFF'S OFFICE Court Hmse — Wright County BUFFALO, MINNESOTA SS313 Taitpboee b82.1162 Non-Er.urpe.cy aw. No. 682.3900 8:00 a.m. - 4:20 p.m. James F. Powers, Chief Deputy 24 Nour E..V.—V Toleph- -_- Meao473.6673 MonMcsIW 2952533 -' Oelena 972.2924 Cakno 266fi454 June 12, 1980 Enclosed is the Sheriff's Law Enforcement report for the month of May, 1980. 576 hours of patrol service were contracted for during the period in which the following activities were tallied: I - Theft 5 criminal damage to property - pinball machines at Dino's Other World broken into - money taken 1 - Theft of bicycle - recovered 2 - Criminal damage to property - all 8 tires on 2 vehicles slashed - under Investigation 1 - Theft of wallet 1 - Attempted burglary of Figs -It -Shop - cleared by arrest 1 - Forgery b fraud at Wright County State Bank - warrant issued for arrest of subject Involved 6 case currently under investigation 1 - Burglary of residence - small amount of cash taken 1 - No pay customer at Dino's Other World 1 - Theft of 2 lawn mowers from storage shed - cleared by arrest of 2 juveniles S property recovered 1 - Criminal damage to property - vandalism to monuments at River View Cemetery 1 - No pay customers at Perkins 1 - Unauthorized use of motor vehicle at Haglund's Bus Company - cleared by arrest 1 - Property damage - vehicle drove over lawn 2 - Simple assaults - cleared by arrest 2 - Thefts of bicycles I - Burglary of Holker's Urive-In - cash 6 cigarettes taken - cleared by arrest 6 part of the items recovered I - Theft of 2 bowling balls d bags 6 shoes from Joyners Lones 1 - Theft of prescription drugs from Snyder Drug 1 - Vandalism at Could Bros Chevrolet - window broken out of pickup 7 - Criminal damage to property - windows broken out at the Times Office, Wrignt County State Bank. Independent Lumber, 3 residences 6 I vehicle 1 - Theft of gas from vehicle I - Theft of plastering tools 6 ladder from residence_ J SHER/FFT OFFICE ,A Court Hous*— Wright Canty BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313 Jame. F. Powers, Chief Deputy Talaphau 611.1167 24 Hou, Emwpney Ta40o,rs N—Emapmcy a- No. 68.3900 Metro 473-6673 a DARRELL L. WOLFF 8.00am.•4;30 p.m. Mmticalb 2952533 County Shorlfl Octane 9722924 Co=o 2863454 Sheriff's report for Monticello for May, 1980, continued: 1 - Shoplifting at Snyder Drug - cleared by arrest of 4 juveniles 1 - Property damage - subject put fist through wall at Roller Rink - cleared by mediation 1 - Burglary - tool box 6 tools taken 1 - Theft of canoe from yard 1 - Theft of billfold from vehicle 1 - Arrest for possession of loaded firearm in vehicle 3 - Arrests for possession of beer by minors 1 - Arrest for procuring beer for minors 1 - Arrest for contributing to delinquency of a minor 1 - Arrest for bench warrant 9 - Traffic complaints 9 - Suspicious vehicles 6 persons 5 - Public nuisance 6 disturbances 3 - Medical aids 4 - Animal complaints 1 - Civil matter 2 - Prowler reports , 3 - Alarms sounded - checked out o.k. 2 - Fires reported ♦ 2 - Harassing phone calls 1 - Child neglect - checked out 1 - Littering 6 - Domestics 1 - Attempted suicide 152 - Car d subject checks 55 - Citizen aids 70 - Motorists ua.r�u 21 - Accidents iro.estigated 8 _ n.--n .1 ,ora b.t - Traffic tickets issued: 1 - Driving while intoxicated 7 - Speed 1 - Careless driving 4 - Reckless driving 2 - Erratic driving 5 - Stop sign 6 signal 3 - Open bottle 2 - Improper lane usage 5 - Driver license vlolation 48 - Illegal parking 1 - School Bus stop violation Youwl 1•ruly, Darrell iJOlff, Sh;riif Billing: For the month of May. 19SU -- $ 6,378.66 ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM Consideration of Approval of Temporary On -Sale Malt Liquor License -Lion's Club. The Monticello Lion's Club is again requesting a temporary license to sell 3.2 beer on the 4th of July as part of the Independence Day cr.lehration. This celebration takes place in the Bridge Park, and this is where the beer would be sold. In addition to this location, the Lion's Club is also asking that the license include the allowance of sale of 3.2 beer at the Maus Foods parking lot on the 4th of July. This parking lot is the location prior to the parade of various antique cars that are reviewed by the public. The lion's felt that it would increase their beer sales if 3.2 beer were also available at this site. It should be noted that during the past years that the Lion's Club have been given a license, no incidents have occurred and they have been very responsible in assuring that no minors were served with 3.2 bear. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of temporary 3.2 beer license. C MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Wieber, City Administrator FROM: Loren Klein, Zoning Administrator DATE: June 23, 1980 SUBJECT: Proposed Monticello Siqn Ordinance Chanqe On June 23, 1980, 1 met with Gary Pringle, the City Attorney, regarding the proposed sign ordinance amendment regarding signs of 200 square feet or more, as were dealt with at the previously held Planning Commission meeting. The result was a recommendation from Gary Pringle that we change some of the language of the proposed Ordinance Amendment to more clearly state what he felt the intentions of that ordinance amendment were. Ordinance Section 10-3-9 SiGNS: Subsection B - Permitted and Prohibited Signs - Subsection (2) Prohibited Signs - (g): Advertising signs of 200 square feet or more, in place on or before June 23, 1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date, and which have an agreement on file with the City on or before August 23, 1980, in the form su deel9noLed by the City Administrator, which is signed by the property owners and the advertising sign owners and all signatures notarized, may continue as a non -conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is developed or improved, in which case, the non -conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official. LDK/ns C COUNCIL UPDATE June 23, 1980 Meeting Acquisition of Storm Water Ponding Area Under Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, Local Improvement - Special Assessments. A letter has been received in response to the City's request to the State Auditor's Office dated February 4, 1980, relative to the possible acquisition by the City of Monticello of a ponding area on the West Side of Highway 25 and south of Sandberg South. It is the opinion of the Office of the State Auditor that the City of Monticello cannot expend monies for the acquisition of land for storm water holding areas out of reserve funds and at a later date assess the cost of the improvements, including the initial acquisi- tion. Additionally, the State Auditor's Office feels that the City of Monticello cannot hold a preliminary hearing prior to acquisition and assess the improvement at a later point in time, possibly five to ten years dependent upon development. The best way to resolve this problem, according to the State Auditor's Office, is to require the developer to dedicate such land areas as necessary for holding, retention ponds, rather than for the City to in fact subsidize the cost of the development of the property. A copy of the letter from the State Auditor's Office is enclosed. 2. Library Committee. For your information, Arve Grimsmo has appointed the following members to a Library Committee: Mdrye Bduer Bud Schleif Bud Schrupp Loren Klein Ken Maus Caroline Ellison At this point, all of the above members have accepted the appointment with the exception of Marge Bauer, who is out of town, and Bud Schleif, who 1 have been unable to reach at this point. 3. Termination of the Worth-Brasie Trust. A ruling has been received by the District Court in Buffalo, Minnesota, that terminates the trust created by Worth Brasie. As a result, all of Irt the legal problems involved with the transfer of the library to the City of Monticello have been formally resolved. As you might recall, the closing date of this transaction was to be at the time all legal issues have been resolved, or August 31, 1980, whichever occurred later. it would appear Council Update June 23, 1980 f/ Page R2 now that the School District may have to lease for a period of time offices and space from the City of Monticello for an additional two or three months as provided in the purchase agreement. GN/ns �OIT p,t `V A,wv. 11. CAMs K S—m Am . June 3. 1980 T STATE OF MINNI'.tit)'rA urr•ICI: OF Tali S•I'A'fr: AUufrun SAINT PAUL 55155 Mr. Gary Wieber City Administrator City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 2842551 RE: Acquisition of Storn Water Ponding Area Under Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, Local Improvements, Special Assessments Dear Gary:•'�- In response to your May 15, 1980 letter, the answer to your question, "Can the City of Monticello expend monies for the acquisition of land for stnrm water holding areas out of reserve funds and at a later date assess the cost of improvemLnts, including the initial acquisition, by going through the proper procedures, including the necessary hearings under Chapter 429?", appears to be no. Of particular concern is the proposed plan would tie up, possibly five to ten years reserve funds obtained through general taxation. We question whether a City should Purchase property for which it has nu present need. in addition, we feel that the intent and spirit of Chapter 475, which controls public indebtedness, requires that if debt were issued by the City for any nortion of the acquisition, an election is required. The principal issues presented by special assessment matters concern (a) validity, i.p, whpthnr an imprnvemont, r,nnctitutPc an aggP—;AhlP special "benefit" or a general improvement requiring uniform tax support: (b) the method of apportioning improvements among benefited parcels: and (c) the legality of assessment procedures, i.e. their conformity with constitutional or statutory mandates. Your other question, "Is it possible under Chapter 429 to hold the preliminary hearing and then assess the cost at a later point in time - possibly five to ten years - and still live within the intent and letter of the law as spelled out in 429", appears to be addressed to this latter point. The answer to the question you pose is that it appears that the proposed action would at least violate the intent of Chapter 429. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -<>-a Mr. Cary Wieber June 3, 1980 Page 2. We think the key to questions such as yours, as with any qrowinq community. lies with good land use planning. in most cases a City should not have to own a ponding area. As a proposed alternative for the City of Monticello to consider is the power nranted under Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.358, Subd. 2., which provides in part: The subdivision regulations may require that in anprooriate nlots of subdivisions to be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses, or as nlanned develonment which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses, or any combination thereof, that a reasonable nortion of each nronosed subdivision be dedicated to the public for nublic use as oarks, nla 'vorounds, public open space, or storm water holdinn areas or ponds, or that the subdivider contribute an eauivalent amount in cash based on the fair market value of the undeveloped land, as defined by the regulations, provided that cash payments received under such regulations shall be placed in a snecial fund by the municipality and used only for the acquisition of land for narks, playorounds, nublic open space and storm water holding areas or nonds, develonment of existing nark and playground sites, nublic open space and storm water holdinq areas or ponds, and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public nurnoses. Thus the Legislature authorizes municipalities to require a develooer to install improvements which may be said to benefit neculiarly the land being develoned. As to such improvements, it may he noted that if they were made by the munieioality itself, it would he inconsistent with our general statutory thesis to recover the cost by special assessment upon the properties being benefited. Hence the dollar burden upon the oronerty is not significantly different whether the developer finances the imnrovement or it is paid for by the ultimate oronerty owner after it is installed by the muni eioality. We do not know what Monticello's canabilities for nlanninn under the orovisions of Cheuter 462 are, but would recommend tnat the City of Monticello contact their Penional Develonment Commission and obtain guidance through that office. The main problem with subdivision regulations or exactions is a nractical one. Subdivisions burdened by the requirements sometimes cannot compete effectively in the same market with subdivisions havinn facilities orovided by local government. However, as was noted above, the cost to the benefited oronerty under either method is the same. i hone the foregoing has been of assistance. Sincerely, THOMAS N. 111L6ERTsnN Legal Counsel z� lit