City Council Agenda Packet 02-25-1980AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
February 25, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White.
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments -
1.' Public Hearing on Consideration of a Resolution Approving Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Monticello Scotwood Partnership.
2.✓ Public Hearing on Proposed Vacation of Public Street Southeast of and
Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello and the Proposed Vacation of 8th
Street lying Southwest of and Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello.
3.v Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions
of Monticello Sign Ordinance Requirements - Scotwood Partnership.
4. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Subdivision and Variance Request
for Lots 1 8 2, Block 30, for John Sandberg.
5. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Subdivision and Request for
Variances from Minimum Lot Widths on Lots 2 8 3, Block D, Upper
Monticello - Rick Cole.
6. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request to Operate a
Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone at 1209 Sandy Lane for Geraldine Vinar.
7. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request to Operate a
Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone at 1305 West Broadway - Barb Soucy.
B.,/Public Hearing on the Consideration of Conditional Use Permit and
Minimum Lot Size Requirements for Townhouses - Brad Larson on Present
Baptist Church Property.
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for an Overflow Weir - Northern
States Power Nuclear Plant.
10. ✓Review of Ordinance on Amortization of Non -Conforming and Prohibited
Signs.
11.✓ Approval of bills for February, 1980.
12. VApproval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 11, 1980.
Unfinished Business -
CNew Business -
CITY COUNCIL - 2/25/80
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT �• . r
1. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Resolution Approving Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Monticello Scotwood Partnershio.
Purpose of this item is to consider approval of the issuance of
$750,000 in commercial development revenue notes as authorized under
Minnesota Statutes 474.02 (Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act)
for Monticello Scotwood Partnership, to finance the cost of land acquisi-
tion and construction of a 36 -unit ScotWood Motel in Monticello.
Location is just east of the Perkins Cake & Steak and west of the VFW on
a site of approximately 1.29 acres (this includes .29 acres of a proposed
vacation and subsequent deeding to the Partnership of one-half of street
adjacent to the property (see item 2). Legal description of the pro-
perty, exclusive of the proposed vacation and subsequent deeding,is
Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7 of Block 3, Townsite of Monticello, City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
Proposed breakdown of the project costs is as follows:
COST ITEM AMOUNT
Land Acquisition and Site Development $ 74,000
Construction Contracts 611,000
Equipment Acquisition and Installation 71,425
Architectural & Engineering Fees 10,000
Legal Fees 7,500
interest During Construction 84,375
Initial Bond Reserve ---
Contingencies 15,000
Bond Discount 18 750
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,0 0
Of the above figure of $892,050, $750,000 is being requested for the issuance
of the commercial development revenue notes and the balance has to be equity
financed.
it should be pointed out that the proposed ScotWood Motel will be a franchise
of Brutger Companies, inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota. The actual owner of
the Motel will be Scotwood Partnership, a partnership made up of Willard J.
Murphy - St. Cloud, Minnesota; Patricia Pavak - St. Cloud, Minnesota; and
G. Marie Heil - Irvine, California. Mr. Murphy is a former school super-
intendent in Ely, Minnesota, and Ms. Pavak and Ms. Heil are his daughters.
Although it is a franchise operation, Brutger Companies will not continue
ownership. They have agreed to act as guarantor for the first five years
of the loan, which has a life of 20 years. In case there would be default
on the part of the partnership in the first five years, Brutger Companies
would assume the loan. Brutger Companies, Inc. has 28 motels currently
in existence, which includes six ScotWood's in the following locations:
Glenwood, MN.; Washburn, N.D.; Carlton, MN.; Litchfield, MN.; Cloquet, MN.;
Breckenridge, MN.
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
It should be pointed out that Gary Pringle and I met with the representative
from Brutger Companies, Jon Petters, along with Mr. Murphy and a represen-
tative from Juran 8 Moody - Jerry Hertel, who is the bond consultant on
the project. According to Mr. Hertel, the Industrial Development Act
is being used as enabling legislation to finance these bonds. However,
unlike Clow Stamping Company, in which case the bonds were sold to the
public, the placement of these bonds would be to one or two institutions,
most likely banks. This is similar to the arrangement that the Silver Fox.
Motel had when they were granted industrial development revenue bonds.
Mr. Hertel indicated that these type of notes are actually tax exempt
mortgages, and for a more elaborate presentation of what constitutes a
tax exempt mortgage, I have enclosed for your information a booklet put out
by the Minnesota Department of Economic Development on this subject.
Our City Attorney, Gary Pringle, has reviewed all the documents relative
to the matter, and will be at Monday night's meeting to give his legal
opinion on this subject; however, at this time, he sees no problem with
the request. Additionally, it is expected that Mr. Petters, Mr. Murphy
and either Mr. Hertel or another representative from Juran 8 Moody will
also be in attendance at Monday night's meeting. Reason for the request
for this type of financing is that the current interest rate for real
estate is approximately 13%, and according to representatives of the
Company, it is almost financially impossible for such a project to go at
such a high interest rate. Mr. Petters has indicated that ScotWood Motels
have previously received these type of bonds from other communities.
Depending upon the current market rate at the time they are actually sold,
it would appear that the industrial revenue type of bonds will be at
9 to 9�%.
Again, it should be pointed out that these types of bonds do not become
the liability of the City, and it is not, in fact, legal for the City
to use public monies in the case of a particular company going bankrupt.
The City's tax exempt provisions are used as the conduit to authorize
the issuance of bonds for financing this project on a tax exempt basis.
This same vehicle was used for the financing of pollution control equip-
ment on three occasions at Northern States Power Company; the Silver Fox
Motel; and Clow Stamping Company. Mr. Jon Petters did show me a site plan
on the proposed motel, and it appeared that all ordinance requirements
in terms of lots size, parking, etc., would be met provided that they
did receive one-half of the vacated street by deed as addressed in the
next agenda item. I have requested Mr. Petters to bring a site plan with
him for Monday night's meeting.
Procedure at this point is, if the resolution is approved, then the Partner-
ship would have to submit the application to the Minnesota Department of
Commerce, Securities Division, and If this is approved, then a final
resolution would be brought before the Council for their consideration
at a later date, similar to past issues of this nature.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of commercial revenue bonds
for the Monticello Scotwood Partnership in the amount
of $750,000.
REFERENCES: Resolution, brochure on Brutger Companies, tax exempt mortgage
booklet, and application for the approval of municipal indus-
trial revenue bonds. Additionally, financial information on
Brutger Companies and the partnership is available for review
at City Hall.
- 2 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
2. Public Hearing on Proposed Vacation of Public Street Southeast of and
Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello and the Proposed Vacation of 8th
Street lying Southwest of and Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello.
Purpose of this item is to consider the vacation of the above two segments
of streets .n Monticello. Mr. E.L. Bunday, who is selling lots 4,5,6 8 7,
Block 3 of Upper Monticello for the proposed ScotWood Motel, is requesting
that these streets be vacated and deeded to him or his assigns at the
determined price of $12,000. (see enclosed -letter -of -January -4; 1980 -from
Mr_.--E:G�Bu-hday-). It should be noted, however, that the ScotWood Motel ,
although interested in the entire portion of the street lying east of
Block 3, understands that the other half normally, under City policy,
is offered to the other abutting property owner which in this case would
be the VFW Club.
In regard to 8th Street itself, as you can see from the enclosed, the
remaining easterly portion which abuts Lots 4 8 5, would normally be
offered to Mr. Bunday, and the other remaining westerly portion abutting
Lots 1, 2 8 3 would be offered to the owner of those lots, which is
Perkins Cake 8 Steak.
It should be noted that the streets within the former City limits of
Monticello are owned by the City, so it is not only necessary to go through
a vacation of the streets, it is also necessary to transfer title since
the City still owns the streets after vacation.
Mr. John Sandberg, who had previously appraised the street east of
Block 3 in 1976 at $12,000, was asked to reappraise the same street along
with 8th Street, which lies south of Block 3. Mr. Sandberg appraised
the entire area for $12,000.' It should be noted that the entire area
constitutes 30,720 square feet. This would appraise out at approximately
39t per square foot. If the portion of 8th Street abutting Perkins were
sold to them and a portion of 8th Street abutting Mr. Bunday's property
were sold to him along with dividing the street east of Block 3, one-
half to Mr. Bunday and one-half to the VFW Club, the following would be
a breakdown of the square footage:
Mr. Bunday (ScotWood Motel) -17,010 square feet
VFW Club -10,420 square feet
Perkins Cake 8 Steak - 3,290 square feet
In talking with Jon Petters with Brutger Companies, Inc. on the proposed
ScotWood Motel, he has indicated to me that the present site layout, which
he will bring along with him, would necessitate ScotWood Motel purchasing
one-half of the vacated street. However, he did not indicate whether it
would be a possibility of still siting the motel on the property without
a variance if the vacation and subsequent deeding were not forthcoming.
It should be further noted that since this is a public hearing, all
abutting property owners, including Mr. Bunday, the VFW Club and Perkins
Cake 6 Steak have been notified of the hearing.
*On appraisal performed in 1976, Mr. Sandberg had not discounted the value
for the easements to be retained, and this resulted in the same appraisal
price despite an inflation factor.
- 3 -
I
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
In the past, when the City has had a hearing of this sort on a vacation of
of streets, it reviews the appraisal price, makes a determination of whether
it is going to vacate the street, and then offers the street to the abutting
property owners at appraised price. In the past, when one of the abutting
property owners is not interested in the appraised price, the City at that
point offers the entire street to the other abutting property owner.
It should be noted that one of the reasons for the appraisal price coming
in possibly lower than market value for other similar property is that
the property is still subject to easements for telephone and electric
utility lines since they are existing under the street, and as a result,
these utility easements would be retained and that portion of the vacated
street, 1f subsequently deeded, would not be able to be built upon in
terms of a structure, but a parking lot or grass area could be maintained.
According to the Statutes, after the hearing is completed, the City Council
must decide whether the action is in the public interest and it may so
act accordingly.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of vacating above streets, and if vacated,
determining price to be requested of abutting property
owners.
REFERENCES: January 4, 1980 letter from Mr. E.L. Bunday, Map showing
portion of streets to be vacated.
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL - 2/25/80
Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions
of Monticello Sign Ordinance Requirements - Scotwood Partnership.
Purpose of this item is to consider the request by the Scotwood Partner-
ship for a ScotWood Motel from Monticello Ordinances relative to sign height
and si4e requirements.
Following are the three variances being requested:
A. 180 square foot wall sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(2)
allows maximum of 100 square feet).
B. Pylon sign to be either 52 feet above Highway 25 at closest point,
or 65 feet high from base, whichever is less (Ordinance Section
10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(4) allows maximum height of pylon sign to be
32 feet above roadway).
C. 32 square foot directional sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -1-(h)
allows maximum of 10 square feet).
Enclosed, please find a letter from Jon Petters with Brutger Companies, Inc.
outlining their request.
For your information, regarding the height of the pylon sign, the present
Silver Fox Motel has a sign that is 60 feet high from its base, and Vance's
Standard has a sign that is 52' high from its base. Both of these were
previously approved' on variance requests. Although there have been other
requests for variances from the sign provisions, one of the reasons for
granting uses such as a motel and a gasoline station variances were that
these were uses that depend primarily upon the freeway and the highway
system for their trade.
One possibility regardirgthe three variances might be to consider the
variance for the pylon sign to be as high from an elevation standpoint
as the Silver Fox Motel, but not to grant the other two variance requests.
In this manner, the City may be more consistent with past variances
granted relative to developments that drew primiarly from the freeway,
but did not allow additional variances of wall signs or directional
signs. Jon Petters, with Brutger Companies, inc., will be most likely at
the meeting on Monday night, but I do believe that their main priority
will be the pylon sign height.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend denial of the three signs in question.
Although there were no objections presented to the Planning Commission from
surrounding property owners, the reason the Planning Commission voted for
denial was as follows:
A. Previous variances granted were not for establishments that abutted
right up against the Freeway, and it was felt that the fact that some
of these businesses were a distance from the Freeway, their particular
signs were hard to see and this 1s the reason why the variance was granted.
L
- 5 -
CITY COUNCIL - 2/25/80
B. All the signs on this particular side of the Freeway do meet the
Ordinance requirement and in fact, signs such as Perkins and
Kentucky Fried Chicken could even be higher without the necessity
of obtaining a variance.
Hearings for variances are held at the City Council level and require
4/5's vote for approval.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of 180 square foot
wall sign, height of pylon sign; 32 square foot directional
sign.
REFERENCES: February 11, 1980 letter from Jon Petters, Planning Commission
Minutes of February 19, 1980 and Map depicting location of
ScotWood Motel.
4. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Subdivision and Variance Request
for Lots 1 8 2, Block 30, for John Sandberq.
Mr. John Sandberg, current owner of a duplex on Lots l 8 2, Block 30,
Townslte of Monticello, has requested a subdivision of the property.
The property is currently zoned R-2 (Single 8 Two Family Residential).
The proposal indfertus a 68' �2' lot to be created fronting on
v .Linn Street with the duplex remaining on a 97' x 132' lot. 6900�
Reason for the subdivision would be to sell the smaller lot to Les Finn
✓ to build a single family residence.
To provide a little background, Mr. Sandberg had previously applied for
the same subdivision back in April 1977, along with a rezoning request
from B-4 to R-2. Because of the interest by all the property owners in
Block 30 for rezoning the entire Block to R-2, Mr. Sandberg withdrew
his request for the subdivision until the zoning issue had been resolved.
Since that time, the entire block was rezoned to R-2 from B-4 in 1978.
Since the time of the original subdivision request, the proposed
certificate of survey has been recorded into two (2) parcels, one
being 97' x 132' and the other 68' x 132', with the County Recorder.
It should be noted that although the lots have been separately recorded
with the County Recorder's office, the City does not recognize the fact
/j that there are two parcels until such subdivision has been approved by
the City Council of Monticello.
Since the City has never approved this subdivision, Mr. Sandberg is now
L requesting approval in order to sell the property as a buildable site.
As part of the request, variances are needed from the minimum width require-
ments of 80' since the lot is only 68' wide. In addition, the lot would
only be 8,976 square feet and require a 1,024 square foot variance from
the R-2 zone requirement of 10,000 square feet.
- 6 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
v/Also, the lot line as proposed would be 3.5' from the stairway of
the duplex, requiring a rearyard variance of 26�', from the minimum
requirement of 30', for the existing house.
No site plan has been submitted for the house proposed by Les Finn,
but indications are that sideyard variances may not be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend approval of the subdivision and variances.
There was some discussion on the type of precedent this might set in
allowing a variance from the minimum lot standards. However, there also
was a feeling among the Planning Commission members that possibly the
ordinance could be reviewed with the possibility of having those lots
that are closer to the downtown area require less square footage since
many of the people who live in this area are older and do not like to
maintain such a large lot. Although no site plan was presented, the
variance on the minimum lot size and lot width was recommended with the
understanding that there would be no further variances necessary at the
time of building permit application.
Hearings on variances are held at the City Council level - however, at
the time of the writing of this agenda supplement, there have been no
objections to the subdivision and variances.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Subdivision of lots and variances
from: A. Minimum lot width requirements.
B. Minimum lot size.
C. Minimum rearyard setback requirements.
REFERENCES: Copy of certificate of survey and map depicting location
of property.
Public Hearinq on the Consideration of Subdivision and Request for
Variances from Minimum Lot Widths on Lots 2 8 3. Block D, Upper
Monticello - Rick Cole.
Mr. Rick Cole has requested to subdivide Lots 2 (except W 10') and 3,
Block D. Upper Monticello, into two equal size parcels of 61' x 165'
each. The present lots are 66' x 165' and 56' x 165'.
The present property now has a home located on it which is situated in
the middle of the lots. Mr. Cole has indicated that he plans on
removing the existing house and building a new home on one of the lots.
Because the present house is situated on both lots, the City presently
recognizes this property as one lot of record.
The new lot sizes as proposed do not meet the minimum lot width require-
ment of 80' and would require variances of 19' each. The present size
of Lot 3 is 66' and although less than 80' requirement, it would be
"grandfathered in" as a buildable lot since it meets 75% of the 80'
C requirement. Lot 2 (56' wide) would presently not meet the 75% rule
and would not be a buildable lot unless variances were granted.
- 7 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
Along with the subdivision of property indicated above, Mr. Cole is also
requesting variances from the minimum sideyard setback in an R -B zone,
which is 20', to have the sideyard setback for each newly created lot
to be only 10' instead of the normal 20'.
P.LRNNiNGlCOMMISSIONiREGOMNENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend denial of this subdivision and variance
request. Primary concern of the Planning Commission was that they would
like to see a specific site plan indicating what would be put on the
two lots prior to granting the subdivision and variances. Mr. Cole
had indicated at the meeting that it was his intention to build a
single family home on the newly created lot. According to the lot owned
by Mr. Cole, which is 20,130 square feet, the lot would be adequate for
up to a six or seven -unit apartment house, depending upon the number
of one and two bedroom units. Since this area is zoned as R -B, a multiple
family dwelling could be built without the necessity of rezoning, condi-
tional uses or variances.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of subdivision request and variances from
minimum lot width requirements and minimum sideyard set-
back requirements.
REFERENCES: i'ap depicting location of property. Planning Commission
Minutes of February 19, 1980 meeting.
6. Public Hearinq on the Consideration of a Variance Request to Ooerate a
Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone at 1209 Sandy Lane for Geraldine Vinar.
Purpose of this item is to consider a variance request application filed
by Geraldine Vinar to allow her to operate a beauty shop from one room of
her home at 1209 Sandy Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Creekside Terrace).
According to Ms. Vinar, she would have no employees and no more than one
appointment at any time unless there might be an overlap of one person
leaving and a new appointment coming.
According to Monticello City Ordinances, a variance is required to operate
this business since the request does not fall exactly within the definition
of a home occupation. Specifically, the ordinance indicates that no mecha-
nical equipment shall be employed that is not customarily found in the home,
and no home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more
traffic than one car for off-street parking at ar.y given point in time.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend denial of the variance request. Various
objections were received from surrounding property owners including
Mr. d Mrs. Gilbert Stickfort; Mr. B Mrs. Earl Swan, Mr. 8 Mrs. Bill Burke
and Mr. Steve Johnson. Objections included the following:
A. Property owners in the area bought property that was zoned as R-1, or
single family;
- 8 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
B. Felt that this type of use would commercialize the area, specifically
in light of another request in the same general area in Agenda Item 7;
C. Allowing this type of use would create additional traffic and parking
pro blems.
The reasons why the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the
request are as follows:
A. Concerns of surrounding property owners;
B. There are areas that are properly zoned for such a use;
C. Felt this would give an unfair advantage to those beauty shops that
were operating out of a home as opposed to those that were in a business
location;
D. Concerned with the number of requests for beauty shops that have been
before the Planning Commission lately, and felt that a precedent would
be set with these types of uses and other home occupation uses.
Hearings for variances are held at the City Council level and a 4/5's
vote is required for approval.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a variance request to allow a beauty shop
in an R-1 zone for Lot 7, Block 1, Creekside Terrace.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting location of property. Planning Commis-
sion Minutes of 2/19/80 and petition from surrounding property owners.
7. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance Request for a Beauty Shop
in an R-1 Zone at 1305 West Broadway - Barb Soucy.
Purpose of this item, similar to the previous item, is to consider a variance
request for Barb Soucy to operate a beauty shop at her home at 1305 West
Broadway (Lot 9, Block 1, Doerr Estates).
As in the previous item, a variance is necessary for this type of use in
an R-1 Zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission voted to deny the request for a variance. Objections from the
property owners relative to the previous agenda item were also implied that
they would also be concerned about the request of Ms. Barb Soucy. Refer
to the request by Geraldine Vinar as to the reasons the Planning Commission
voted to recommend denial of Ms. Soucy's request.
Hearings for variances are held at the City Council level and 4/5's
vote is required for approval
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a variance request to allow a beauty shop
Cin an R-1 zone for Lot 9, Block 1, Doerr Estates.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting location of property. Planning Commis-
sion Minutes of 2/19/80 and petition from surrounding pro-
perty owners.
9-
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
B. Public Hearinq on the Consideration of Conditional Use Permit and
Minimum Lot Size Requirements for Townhouses - Brad Larson on Present
Baptist Church Property.
When Brad Larson came before the Council in January with his request for
rezoning the "Baptist Church Property" from R-1 to R-2 with the unani-
mous recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council requested that
he return on February 25, 1980 with more information about the conditional
use he would be requesting to build townhouses on that property, if rezoned.
Because of that Council request, Mr. Larson has submitted t-he-e+re4-o"d
..site plan" which shows the layout of the proposed development.
Mr. Larson is proposing to obtain a conditional use permit, as required
by Monticello ordinance, to build five 4 -unit townhouses. Each building
to be 46'U" x 96'0" and contain four dwelling units plus an attached
double car garage per unit, which would exceed the ordinance require-
ments for garages.
An association agreement, as required by Monticello Ordinance, would be
necessary for approval, and a recommendation for approval could be con-
tingent upon that document being provided. This agreement is binding on
all owners within the project and sets the maintenance requirements, etc.
for the commonly owned property.
The cul-de-sac which comes from the property onto Highway 75, does not
align with Sandy Lane across the Highway, so traffic from the project
would be discouraged from using Sandy Lane as a thoroughfare, as was a
concern of the people who brought in a petition against the rezoning
at the last Planning Commission and Council meeting dealing with this project.
A variance would be required for the square footage requirement since
the open area per unit is 234 square feet short of the requirement of
5,000 feet per unit, or approximately 5% short.
Mr. Larson is considering dedicating the street in this project (yet
unnamed) to the public. If that would be done, however, a subdivision
of property would be required, but at a leter date than this hearing.
Also necessary at the time of subdivision of property would be drainage,
landscaping and parking plans, which would need the recommendations
of both the City Planner and City Engineer at the time of proposal.
The proposal which is presently before you for townhouses and rezoning
1 Chas the recommendation of the City -Planner -
PLANNTNG_COMMI-S5iON-RECO1.4.1[t1DATTiIN: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit
and necessary variance from minimum lot size for townhouses. There
were several concerns from surrounding property owners including
Mr. Gilbert Stickfort and Earl Swan and Steve Johnson, which included
the following:
- 10 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
A. Traffic that would be generated because of additional density.
B. Mr. Stickfort was concerned that previously there was a promise made
on the past variance for a duplex which was granted to Mr. Vern Young-
berg on Lot 1, Block 2, Creekside Terrace on Sandy Lane (in reviewing
this matter, it should be noted that there was no variance granted but
a rezoning request was granted to Rezone the above mentioned parcel
from R-1 to R-2 to allow for a duplex. It should be further noted that
although the Planning Commission recommended that future rezonings of
this nature be on a scattered site basis only, the Council rezoned the
property in question without attaching any contingencies to the approval).
C. Concern was,for whether the sewer and water would be adequate to serve
this area. ((There-was_a--reference to the problems incurred at the lift
station on Chestnut Street, and actually, the problems that the -,City
incurred -with -the lift station was actually the -one -within the West
Bridge Park and the capacity of that lift station has been increased
since the City incurred problems with sewer -backup in the Front Street
area).
As part of their recommendation, the Planning Commission further recommended
that Brad Larson present a landscaping plan and front and side elevations
to the Council in order to give the property owners a better concept of
what would be built. Both the conditional use and variance require a
4/5's vote of the Council for approval.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for Townhouses as
proposed along with the variance from the minimum lot size
for townhouses as requested.
REFERENCES: Enclosed site layout and map depicting general location of
property, Planning Commission Minutes of 2/19/80.
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for an Overflow Weir - Northern
States Power Nuclear Plant.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has required that NSP place
an overflow weir at the end of the outlet channel where the warm water
Chat is discharged from the power plant flows into the Mississippi River,
thus preventing fish from going into the channel.
Monticello has adopted the Mississippi Scenic and Wild Rivers Ordinance,
and thereby, any such work, although it is a requirement in this case,
must be done as a part of a conditional use.
P ,NG,N: At their last meeting, there were no
objections to the request of NSP, and the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the conditional use permit request.
4%b�s-vote is'rtetp,Ssary-fe*-epprov81�oFe-Condltlondl useperrmmit request.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of conditional use request.
REFERENCES: Complete copy of requirements of Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources is on file at the Monticello City Hall. Planning
Commission Minutes of 2/19/80 meeting.
- 11 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
10. Review of Ordinance on Amortization of Non -Conforming and Prohibited
Signs.
Purpose of this item is to review the City of Monticello's ordinances
relative to prohibited and non -conforming signs to allow an opportunity
for input from those property owners, sign companies and other interested
parties.
Y.. „ .L ,< s.l-4hat At ow January 14, 1980 meeting, two representatives
of sign companies - Mr. Del Blocher and Mr. Jim Franklin - requested that
the Council consider the possibility of grandfathering in the existing
billboards which are currently prohibited by Monticello Ordinance and
required to be amortized out over five years, and furthermore, also
consider the possibility of allowing additional billboards. At this
meeting, the Council set up February 25, 1980 for review and discussion
of this item on the agenda.
According to Monticello City Ordinances, non -conforming signs must be
removed within five years after the adoption of the ordinance - which
was August 21, 1975.
It shoal9-be Psi„«� In addition to Billboards, there are various
types of non -conforming signs and they include signs that may be too
large, too high, too many signs, flashing signs, rotating signs, signs
in the roper location, etc. ;air Building inspnctor and zoning adminis-
trate ,—toren Klein, has taken a survey of the entire community, and has
compiled a list of non -conforming signs.whic.`. 's -:_-J-. Unless there
is an ordinance amendment, these signs will have to be brought into
compliance with the City's ordinance by August 21, 1980.
At the time of the adoption of the ordinance, hearings were held; however,
there was little opposition to the provision since the owners of
the signs may not have been aware that their signs would eventually become
non-conf orming. This ordinance was just part of an overall ordinance the
City adopted at the time. Two property owners, however, did present some
opposition at the time since they had billboards that were not erected
upon which they had lease arrangements. These two property owners - Howard
Gillham and Roy Lauring - were granted the right to put up these billboards,
but it was explained to them that these would be amortized like all other
billboards over a five year period of time.
All property owners that apparently have signs in violation of the ordinance
have been contacted and made aware that this item will be appearing on
Monday night's agenda - February 25, 1980.
For your information, the City of Monticello also had an ordinance that
prohibited overhanging signs from projecting over the right-of-way by
more than 18".. The amortization date for this item was initially
December 31, 1976, but the Council did extend the termination date to
June 30, 1977. This particular provision of the ordinance was initially
adopted in 1973, and this is the reason why the amortization period for
overhanging signs proceeded the present amortization of the other non-
conforming signs, and additionally, an allowance of only three years
was intially given. It should be further pointed out that all signs
have now been brought into compliance as a result of the City's over-
hanging sign provisions; although, initially, there were several complaints
from owners of the signs.
- 12 -
C
COUNCIL AGENDA - 2/25/80
If the Council feels that the ordinance does merit amendment to either
grandfather in some of the existing signs, a greater period of time to
be granted, or that the ordinance be amended in another fashion, it
may have the Planning Commission call for a public hearing since all
ordinance amendments require a public hearing at the Planning Commis-
sion level. Or, if the Council feels that the ordinance should remain
as is, no specific action is necessary. Each property owner does have
the right, however, to apply for a variance from the provisions of the
ordinance.
POSSIBLE ACTION: No action is necessary unless the Council would like
to have the Planning Commission hold a hearing on
amending the ordinance, and if so,a motion should be made
to have such a hearing held and the particulars relative
to any proposed ordinance amendment.
REFERENCES: List compiled by Loren Klein relative to non -conforming signs,
and Mr. Blocher's January 7, 1980 letter.
- 13 -
A
THE
TAX-EXEMPT
MORTGAGE
AN
INNOVATION
IN CAPITAL
FINANCING
Minnesota Department of Economic Development
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
An Equal Opportunity Employer
5/79/500
EVTRODUC ON
The tax-exempt mortgage is a relatively new concent
from the industrial development revenue bond
(IDR) lomt of financing. IDR financing was originally
conceived In order to stimulate economic growth
and development by providing funds at tax-exempt
interest rates for the construction of new facilities for
private enterprise. In general, EDR bonds are issued
by municipalities or their Instrumentalities (Industrial
Development Boards or Authorities) and the
proceeds are used to construct and equip new
facilities: repayment of the principal and interest on
the bonds Is secured by the income derived from the
muniripality leasing the new facilities to the private
enterprise. The holder of the bond also has a first
mortgage lien on the property. When such a ttansae
tion is properly structured under state and federal
law, interest Income on the bonds is tax-exempt to
the bondholders.
The use -of a"moapW loan fomrat t for this type of
financing malts It possible to attend the-mme tax
benefits to aonwntional real estate-lendars.-In the
case o1 a tax�nempt_mortipgc6_the.munhapaW
usually isss ias a 64i9l e_ "ohmead of multiple bonds
and secures -ft note fey ijiting.or-assigning a first
mortgage on the faeilitle rtte revenue agreement
between- the "municipality and the user of the
facilities may take the form of a lease, an installment
purchase contract or a loan agreement. Typically,
I
the user also guarantees payment of the mortgage
note directly to the lender. Again, the interest in-
come on the mortgage note is tax-exempt in the
hands of the lender.
Since the tax-exempt mortgage is a new concept to
many conventional mortgage lenders and
borrowers, Dain, Kalman & Quail has prepared this
booklet as an outline of the structure and benefits of
this highly desirable form of financing. We will also
provide you with some basic information regarding
the legislative background and regulatory implica-
tions of the tax-exempt mortgagb. Because the
enabling IDR and tax legislation un which tax.
exempt mortgages are based varies substantially
from state to state and can involve many legal and
financial complexities, the discussion which follows is
intended to be conceptual and general. Therefore,
the analysis of a specific proposal on the basis of the
infomtation contained in this booklet is not
suggested. If you need detailed information on a
st-;fic ptoject, please feel free to contact the Public
I'ira.. t Department of Dain, Kalman & Quail, 11()
Dain Tower, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402;
telephone. (612) 371.2950.
EVOLUTION
OF THE
TAX-EXEMPT
MORTGAGE
A tax-exempt mortgage ib similar to an Industrial
Devrktpment Revenue Bond with the exception
that, instead of speaking in terms of alnWng funds,
-'2.
average life; call features and the like, the tax-exempt
mortgage Is structured and presented In a manned
identical to that of,a'oomrentlonal mortgage loath
Struutuhig nn IDR fn a mortgage form was originally
rhe result of.a:destm.by mortgage Investors to avall
themselves of the higher after-tax yields Inherent in
tax-exemptilnvestrttents.7By using the format of a
tax:exempt-mbrtgage,'proleetswhich are legally eligi•
ble for IDR financing can be evaluated on the basis
of traditional mortgage loan underwriting principles.
When-IDR—bond-ftwidttg`IsFUcft c
stdresS
mortgage,-.eU-federeDy=tdia'rtcred.savings�nd-1 `
assodatlore and natty state4m.tin savings attd�
loan_assotdatldro:sia no►V_alloiwied.to.Dtindre9e_tftls
form of InueshnCFft Thls result %es confirmed in a
legal opinion issued by the General Counsel's Office
of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in August of
1975. The opinion concluded that a mortgage note
Issued by a municipality under the [DR procedures
qualifies as a mortgage loan which can be held by a
savings and loan association and that It Is "not perti.
nent from a regulatory standpoint' that the Issuing
body happens to be a municipality.
DKQ's experience in this field shaves that rapidly in-
creasing numbers of financial institutions including
Insurance companies, banks, as well as savings and
loan associations are participating in tax-axempt
mortgages. We anticipate that the volume of tax•
exempt mortgage loans will Increase dramatically
within the next year as more lending institutions
become increasingly familiar with this concept.
Financial institutions that keep abreast of this rapidly
developing field will find themselves participating in
a very active and profitable segment of their Industry
In the near future.
•3•
MES of PROJECTS
As indicated in the introduction, the tax-exempt
mortgage was made possible by federal and state
legiskition passed for the purpose of promoting the
economic development of interested municipalities.
The tax eumption is hinged upon a "public pur•
pose" being achieved through development of the
project. such as the creation of jobs or the enhance.
ment of the local tax base. Although the general
guidelines for determining the public purpose and
the technical structure of the financing are set by the
vddous stases, each individual community must
decide, in Its own discretion, whether or not a
proposed project will accomplish a beneficial pur-
pose
urpose for that community. As a result, it is not possi-
ble to present a definitive list of projects eligible for
wexernpt mortgage_ financing. The -Federal tax'
code,- haw,wer.-specifically-includes -industrial
fadlitick, arehouses, sports amnas, shopping cert.'
tete, mod cal facilities, convention centers, and even'
residential developments in its list of ellgible facifltles�
Many otIu,r tyles of facilities have also been finan-
ced under the tax exempt IDR procedures. It must
h: rememboied. however, that each municipality
makes its ouii judgment on whether a certain pro•
jert fulfills a public putpose for that pattielar com-
munity. The community makes this deter
urination when It approves a "pr,�llminary resolu•
tion", which is usually prepared and presented by an
Investment banker and bond counsel. Because of
DKQ's wide expenence In originating IDR bond
issue, w,e are famllat uith the types of projects
which have been appwved in th-i past by most
municipalities and that laws that apply In the various
stares of the Upper Miclwvst.
SIZE OF FINANCINGS
Concemed with the growth of tax exempt industrial
development financings. the U.S. Treasury. in March
of 1963, announced its intention to end the Federal
tax exemption on IDR obligations. When the U.S.
Congress threatened to overrule the proposed
regulations, compromising legislation resulted. Sub
seyuent amendments to the Federal Internal
Revenue Code provided for the limitations on the
sue of tax-exempt IDR financings as they exist today.
Tax-exentpr mortgagee under IDR -statutes can ;he
issued by a munkipality In_amounts'of'up.tn P
Million LssubsYaritla- Isll 01 the proceeds are."d
for the.acpulsition construction, remodeling or Im.
provement of land or deprcriable property: -Ilse
numbei of companies that may take advantage of
the $1 million tax exemption in anyone municipality
is unlimited, as is the number of municipalities in
which any one company may obtain tax-exempt
mongagc financings u! $1 million or less.
For issues in exress of $1 m!l!ion, remain additional
restrictions apply. Sinyily stated; a municipality can
pruvidn lar•.exempi finaridng of up to SS mlUlon an
behalf ul any burrowei, provided that capital expert
ditures of the borrower Wthin that municipality dur-
ing a thrcii-yftw period before and d th-,,-ge u
period after the flnartdng do not exceed $5 miDlon.
The rnorigage itseli is indudad in the capital epen-
ditures limitation. Once again, the number of
municils.ilities which can provide tax-exempt financ-
ing for anv one bnnower is unlimited. After the
capital limitation period expires, the
.ninv burrower can also obtain additional tax-
exempt financing from the same community for ex.
pansion or new projects.
-5•
A
FROM
A LENDER'S
VIEWPOINT
Hy (ar:tne_rimst.attnaetive leatgre-o1_a taxgxeirgi'(
;mortgage toe lender-Is.jlcldlNouhere in the con.
'venli6nalinorfgage market can a lender find quality
loans at such high after tax yields. The effective yield
to an investor on a tax-exempt mortgage Is essen.
tially a function of his Income tax rate as applied to
the interest rate to be paid by the borrower. The fully
taxable equivalent yields that an Investor may realize
.6•
Rate of Interest
Lender's Federal
i
Paid on Tar
Equivalent Taxable
Income Tax Rate
Exempt Mortgage
Yield to Lender
2U6
7'6
8.75`6
I{
8`G
low(,
25`6
711,
9,33%
ti16
IO67%
30'11
74,
10.00%
816
11.43`6
35'r,
74,
10,7616
i
x4,
12.314,
401,
716
11.674,
1+16
13.3316
ax16
TO,
13,4616
S%
15.384,
.6•
from a tax-exempt mortgage bearing an interest rate
of 7% or 8`G in various tax situations are shown
below at left.
With the Federal income tax rates increasing for
many types of financial Institutions, the advantages
of having tax-free income become increasingly im.
portant. In-ttddluan,-trdwtdd be nowdthat,-tri cat¢
states,.th�"inta —, ori a t;Mke)*pt mo�gC is
exempt from,atate Income.taxes or frarwhice tares
imp`ose`d on finendal iristitutlens. meking tFie
equivalent yields even higher. than those lndicated
above. J
Until recently, tax-free investments were available
only to bond investors. Now, through the use of tax-
free mortgages, the mortgage lender can show
drarnatic Increases in the after-tax yield of his
portfolio unthout sacrificing quality or departing from
his customary underwriting standards.
11w leaver interest cost to the horrower can also be
Oewed as added security to the lender. Sinoit-ip-
terest rats on.tax-uxempt mortgages tend to be lit a
range, of 1 %%' 2.%% lower.than on coirventionnal,1
financings. the bomyAer has less debt service to pay
a nd thus his ability to meet his obligatiuns is greater.
A
FROM
A BORROWEWS
VI£WPOIMP
As the yteid was the -most ateactRcr'feaune-oo-ft
,lender; the-Mterrst-rate-fa=pararnt7unt�to�
borrowcr.,With rates t WG2'•7'b below conven•
iio:ral mortgages, the tax-exempt mortgage is by far
the least expensive method of financing available to
most mortgage borrowers today.
The best way to look at the savings available to a
borrower through a tax-exempt mortgage Is to look
at the reduction in annual debt service and total
debt service savings over the life of the financing.
.8.
Interest
Annual
Rete
Term Debt Service
Conventional MOrignge
l$2.(X)0.(1(),11
91,`6
25p.+rs $214,000
'ra,-Exempt Mongnga
+07
8%
4wam 185,400
Ninu l :a+wigs in
Debt Smiee
$ 29.600
25 years
Total 5.itings in
17.-M Service
$715,000
.8.
This savings in debt seance can usually be added
directly to the anticipated cash flow from a revenue-
producing project. In other cases it may be the dif.
ference between an economically feasible project
and one that Is not financeable because of excessive
debt service requirements. 8ntrowers who «ish to
detennine the potential interest savings of tax-
exempt mortgage financing for specific projects
should contact the specialists in DKQ's Public
Finance Department.
13,!cause .he Icrtdet undenktries a tax-exempt
mortgage hosed on customary mortgage un•
derwniing principles, the availability of tax -five finan-
t ring is no longer restricted to highly chpltdllzed com•
(� parties. Alan,--f>ermr+e—thc--mxcxempt^nto—artV
rnottgaiNt ate privatety placed, it a Mr,rxue�s Anal•
ciaLmattan. retnaln-confldentlell
Because the tavcxempt mongdge i, technically a
municipal obligation, the issuance. Ae and tiansfer
of such obligations aw exempt frn,n the registration
wr,uitements of the r,Metal Securities and Ex.
Chang.! Commission and In most transactions are
atsn exempt from the tegistratnorr requirements un-
der state secunnes laws.
.g.
C
Reprinted with permlaelon.
Copyright • Dain. Kalman Q Qaall Incorporated. 1976.
No portion of rich hooWet may be reproduced by mit peaeoa or
organization for aoy purpose wkboat the eivress trditm patslaaloo of
Datn. Kelman ® Quall Incorporated.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE — SECURITIES DIVISION
APPLICATION
FOR APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND PROJECT
Date
To: +
Minnesota Department of Commerce
Securities Division
500 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
The governing body of Monticello County of Wright
Minnesota, hereby.app!ies to the Commissioner of the State of Minnesota, Securities Division of the
Department of Commerce, for approval of this community's proposed municipal Industrial Revenue
Bond Issue, as required by Section 1, Subdivision 7, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes.
We have entered into preliminary discussions with:
FIRM Scotwood Partnership
ADDRESS c/o Brutger Companies 1 Sunwood Drive P.O. Box 399
CITY St. Cloud STATE Minnesota
Stotoof Incorporation Partnership
t,
Anormy Attdrpr Dan Lanoue 13 North 11th Ave. St. Cloud, MN
56301_
Nam�of r'rojap Scotwood Motel '
This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): Operation and management
of the Scotwood Motel
The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general nature of
project). To finance the coat of land acquisition and construction of
36 unit Scotwood Motel
It will be located in Monticello
The total bond issue will be approximately S
750' 000
costs now estimated as follows:
Cost Item
Ary�utbt00
Land Acquisition and Site Development
S
Construction Contracts
611,000
Equip:.ient Acquisition and Installation
/1,425
Architectural and Engineering Fees
lu,uu0
Legal Fees
i, yu0
Interest during Construction
tlA "s7y
initial Bond Reserve
Contingencies
Ito, uuu
Bond Discount
18,750
Other
------
$892,050
to be applied toward payment of
Z
It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about April' 1 19 80
and will he completed on or about November 1 tg du , When completed, there will be
approximately 10-12' ' new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approximately
S 70,000 based upon currently prevailing wages. 11
The tentative term of the financing is 20 years, commencing June 1. J
19 80
The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by reference:
1. An opinion of bond, counsel that the proposal constitutes a projL4 under Minnesota Stat,
Chapter 474.02.
2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue
bonds
3.. A comprehensive statement by the mun;cipality indicating how the project satisfies the public
purpose of Minnesota Stat., Chapter 474.01. '
4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibility of the project
from a financial standpoint.
5. A statement, -signed by the Mayor, to the effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement,
the information required by Minn. Stat. Sec. 474,01 Subd. 8 will be submitted to the Depart-
ment of Economic Development
6. A statement signed by the Mayor, that the protect does not include any property to be sold or*
affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing
facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence.
7. A statement signed by the Mayor that a public .hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stet.
474.01, Subd. 7b. The statement shall Include the date, time end place of the meeting and that
all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views.
B. A copy of the notice of publication of the.public hearing.
We, the undersigned, are duly elected representatives of Monticello , Minnesota,
tnd solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final
-onclusion.
Signed by: (Principal Officers) .
Mayor
City Administrator
This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Commissioner or the state of the
`easibility of the project or the terms of the lease to be executed or the bonds to be Issued therefor.
)ate of Approval
(.pmmI1110��t 01 J0rY1i Ii/I I
Mlnnwou Deponmenl of coTmuu
I
.� 01 A1100.
MLS January 4,1980
8200NORIANDALEBOULEVARD
BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55477
612-831-3201
Mr. Gary Wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
Minnesota
Dear Sir,
I am the owner of Lots 4,5,687 Block 3 Townsite of
Monticello.
I request that that certain parcel of land owned by
the City of Monticello that borders said above desc-
ribed land on the East and South and is known as Vac-
ated Cedar Street and Vacated 8th Street , be sold
to me (or my agents/assigns) at the determined price
of $12,000.00.
The purpose of this acquisition would be to expand the
present size of Lots 4,5,687 for suitable development.
Yours truly,
J
E.C. Bunday
O Nod BY Wv
OS 0309 Nnbm Nand
p Min—pnl.,, MN WA37
K
_ 1
' � J" � ��_-.�, � i• 11 �...� !j"` -.Y �. •• . •C. •, ti`\
i.:rt ^r j .,� .J„�, :.,j�`� �. I• -. ,� a ` ti -.ti r'�.. '° r'.., i �'-+.."'t ...l,4rY •. „�.f :� i '"t•i a�
.l : •r'^. • r `��_� �:!.�.Y. ��}a Ir �'� \i� V V r• _ •.wi � • t I �, •r ••`� '�•+. "'•,Ilt'yC, le
. .. ' .� � �1. J)q �_ \�•���"�'� ti'� ` �, N_';� '"1.7:4.- •.••r .�,p � �•. Jrdf r A ',/ •r-(t�=.J•
L:' is j :.i - t • "^•�-r.•,,,f [ ) r � ^..� �' J• ., [•... A' •. %r •v . a. �:
.O'•. ; '=y •. + 40
. +� � f: �'.r. 1�+,,�t,s r 1. � r ..,u;rrt .,.sr• "p
J-2
\„
'•. ♦ _ •I. +����✓w4��w. �4`_•f�' rid �•• \. �er..�. ...-
HIGHWAY t ShJh`iQ i• t �..l 1.� .i.� ��Yf '/�1�.� j
S ' „"xAtA1s
NO. gq M` 1d•`H'.. `
MTUTRI
(19
(:a
UMT!! SUMVOOD DRIVE . BOX NO. 799 • ST. CLOUD. MINNESOTA 56.701 . TEL 612/252-62G2
February 11, 1980
Mr. Cary Wicber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Ne: Sign Variance - ScotWood Motel
Dea r Ca ry :
Thank you for the information which was needed to determine what variance
will be required for the signage of the ScotWood Motel. I have enclosed
the completed tppiication t'or Variance along with a check for $15.
Ihrt of our request for a variance asks for a total of 180 square feet on
the front of the building. This sign is the one pictured on the ScotWood
Frochure. The 180 square feet was determined by boxing ?n the total lettering
area. The actual square footage of the letters on the sign is less than 100
square feet.
1 ho1•c this will provide the information you rill need for the varivice
application. if I can be of any further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
`IIRUTGER COMPANIES, INC.
1
JZot C. Petters
Ject Adninistrator
JCl/kaf
File Iosules
cc: Janis Plumentals - Archltoct
Dave Anderson - 1JCl
Nancy Johnson - RCI
REQOE
ova*O-
ViSGBOtV151 pick
Cole
lls
Ott
NCE REQpES
%kote
ri S
44—
HIGHWAY
NO, 94
SIP
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 19, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Dick Martie, Loren Klein (ex -officio).
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Schaffer, Dave Bauer.
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 1979
and Special Meeting of January 11, 1980.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for
Northern States Power Nuclear Plant.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has required that NSP place
an overflow weir at the end of the outlet channel where the warm water
that is discharged from the Power Plant flows into the Mississippi River,
thus preventing fish from going into the channel.
Because Monticello has adopted the Mississippi Scenic L Wild Rivers
Ordinance, the request of NSP to install the weir must be part of a
conditional use permit, thus requiring a public hearing.
No comments were heard from the public, and therefore, a motion was made
by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to
approve the conditional use permit to Northern States Power.
3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - Bradley
Larson's Townhouses.
Previously, lir. Brad Larson was before the Planning Commission and the
City Council with his request for rezoning of the Baptist Church Property
from R-1 to R-2 for the purpose of constructing townhouse units on the
property. Because the Council requested that a site plan which would
show the layout of the proposed development be prepared prior to any
approval, Mr. Larson was now before the Planning Commission with a site
plan and asking for a conditional use permit for the townhouses.
Mr. Larson indicated that lie is proposing to build five 4 -unit townhouses
with each unit having an attached double car garage, which would exceed
Monticello Ordinance requirements. In addition, an association agreement
would be prepared binding all owners within the project to set rules and
maintenance requirements for the commonly owned property. The site plan
as presented shows a cul-de-sac coming from the property onto Highway 75,
which does not align with Sandy Lane across the highway so that traffic
from the project would be discouraged from using Sandy Lane as a thoroughfare.
-1-
,gT�trM 9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
In addition to the conditional use permit, a variance would be required
for the square footage requirement since the open area per unit is 234
square feet short of the requirement of 5,000 square feet per unit.
S -feral concerns from surrounding property owners, incluging Mr. Gilbert
Stickfort, Earl Swan and Steve Johnson were presented at the Planning
Commission meeting as follows:
A. That traffic would be generated because of the additional density of
the development.
B. Mr. Gilbert Stickfort was concerned that previously there was a promise
made on the past variance for a duplex which was granted to Mr. Vern
Youngberg on Lot 1, Block 2, Creekside Terrace on Sandy Lane, which
the Planning Commission, at that time, indicated that there would be
no further rezonings of this nature in the area, but should be on a
scattered site basis throughout the City. Mr. Stickfort felt that
rezoning this property and allowing a conditional use permit for
20 townhouses would be going against what was said a couple years ago
when the property in Creekside Terrace was rezoned for a duplex.
C. Property owners were concerned whether there was adequate sewer and
water to serve this type of development. It was noted that the
Property has been served by sewer and water across Highway 75 and
with the recent refurbishing of the lift station in West Bridge Park,
there should be no problem with the increased flow into the sewer lines.
D. Steve Johnson felt that additional requirements should be made of the
development for landscaping whereby the development should provide
trees or screening from adjoining single family residential areas.
I -lotion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondlrus and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use permit for the five 4 -unit townhouse
development. In addition, a motion was made by John Bondhus, seconded by
Dick Martie and unanimously carried to require Mr. Larson to present a
landscaping plan and front and side elevations of the proposed development
and structures to the Council in order to give the property owners in the
area a better concept of what would be built in the development.
4. Consideration of Variance Request - Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone -
Geraldine Vinar.
Geraldine Vinar requested a variance to operate a beauty shop from one room
of her home, having no employees and no more than one appointment at any
time, unless there would be an overlap of one person leaving and a new
appointment arriving.
The variance was requested to operate this business since this type of use
does not fall exactly within the definition of a home occupation. Specifi-
cally, the ordinance indicates that no mechanical equipment shall be
employed that is not customarily found in the home and no occupation shall
-2-
PLANNING OCMMISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one car for
off-street parking at any given time.
Various objections were received from surrounding property nwners, including
a petition presented by Mr. Gilbert Stickfort and signed by himself and
Mr. &firs. Earl Swan and Mr. 8 Mrs. Bill Burke, along with Steve Johnson.
The objections included the following:
A. The property owners in the area bought property that was zoned R-1
and should remain residential.
B. Felt that this type of use would commercialize the area.
C. That a beauty shop would create additional traffic and parking problems.
D. That commercial uses of this nature should be downtown where the property
is commercially zoned.
Part of the Planning Commission discussion on this item concerned whether
allowing such home occupation uses as a beauty shop might not be an unfair
advantage to those beauty shops that operate out of commercial establish-
ments downtown and also members of the Planning Commission felt that a
precedent would be set with these types of uses and other home occupational
uses.
Because of the concerns of the surrounding property owners and the possible
unfair advantage to the downtown shops, motion was made by Dick Martie and
seconded by Jim Ridgeway to deny the variance request for a beauty shop
to Geraldine Vinar. Voting in favor: Dick Martie, Jim Ridgeway.
Opposed: John Bondhus.
5. Consideration of Variance Request - Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone. -
Barb Soucy.
Barb Soucy also requested a variance to operate a beauty shop within one
room of her own home, also having no employees and no more than one appoint-
ment at any time. This property is located at 1305 West Broadway and is
Zoned R-1, single family residential, and is located approximately one block
west of the previous request of Geraldine Vinar.
Some of the same property owners in the area, including Creekside Terrace,
voiced opposition to this beauty shop request as they did in the case
of Geraldine Vinar. Their reasons were primarily the same, and as a
result, motion was made by Dick Martie and seconded by Jim Ridgeway to
deny the variance request for a beauty shop to Barb Soucy. Voting in
favor: Jim Ridgeway, Dick Martie. Opposed: John Bondhus.
- 3 -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
6. Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions of Monticello Sian
Ordinance Requirements - Scotwood Partnership.
A request was made by the Scotwood Partnership for a Scotwood Motel for
the following variances from the Monticello Ordinances relative to
sign height and size requirements:
A. 180 square foot wall sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(1b)-(2)
allows maximum of 100 square feet).
B. Pylon sign to be either 52 feet above Highway 25 at closest point,
or65 feet high from base, whichever is less (Ordinance Section
10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(B)-(4) allows maximum height of pylon sign to be
32 feet above roadway).
C. 32 square foot directional sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -1-(h)
allows maximum of 10 square feet).
The Planning Commission members discussed previous sign variances that
have been granted to such businesses as the Silver Fox Hotel, which has
a 60' high sign and Vance's Standard Station, which has a 52' high sign.
it was noted that the primary reasons for granting uses such as a motel
and a gasoline station these additional variances for height were because
their business depended primarily on the freeway and the highway for their
trade.
It was noted by the Planning Commission that previous variances were
granted for establishments that did not butt directly against the freeway
and it was felt that some of these businesses were a distance away from
the freeway and that their particular signs were hard to see, and thus
the reason for the variances being granted. in addition, it was noted
that all the signs on the north side of the freeway do meet the present
ordinance requirements, and in fact, signs such as Perkins and Kentucky
fried Chicken could even be higher without the necessary variances.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that due to the location
of the proposed ScotWood Motel being adjacent to the freeway, additional
height above 32' would not be necessary as their sign should be adequately
seen in both directiotis since they can put the sign next to the Freeway.
Additionally, concerns were raised over whether future motels or gas
stations located anywhere within the City Limits would be granted variances
just because of their type of business, if this variance was allowed
for the ScotWood Motel.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
cart -led to deny all three sign variance requests for the ScotWood Motel
since it butts next to the freeway now.
- 4 -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
7. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Variances - John Sandberq.
Mr. John Sandberg, current owner of a duplex on Lots 1 8 2, Block 30,
Upper Monticello, requested a subdivision of the property and variances
from minimum lot sizes in an R-2 zoning district. The proposed subdivi-
sion would create a 68'x132' lot fronting on Linn Street with the duplex
remaining on a 97' x 132' lot.
Mr. Sandberg indicated the reason for the subdivision would he to sell
the smaller lot to Les Finn so that he could build a single family resi-
dence near the downtown area. Mr. Les Finn indicated to the Planning
Commission that he does not desire a large lot for maintenance and upkeep
purposes, and because of his and his wife's age, they would prefer to be
closer to the downtown area.
The variances needed for this subdivision included a 12' variance from the
minimum lot width of 80', and also, a variance from the minimum square
footage of 10,000 square feet, since the lot is only 8,976 square feet.
In addition, the lot line as proposed would be 3�' from the stairway of
the existing duplex, thus requiring a rearyard variance of 26;' from the
minimum requirement of 30' for the existing house.
Committee members were concerned over the type of precedent this might
set allowing variances from the minimum lot standards, but also felt by
some of the Committee members that possibly some smaller tots closer
to the downtown area should be available for people who want to live
close to downtown and who are older and do not like to maintain such a
large lot.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus to approve the
subdivision as presented along with the variances as requested for
Mr. Sandberg's lot in Block 30 with the understanding that there would
be no further variances necessary at the time of a building permit
application by Mr. Les Finn. Voting in favor: Dick Martie, Jim
Ridgeway. Opposed: John Bondhus.
8. Consideration of Subdivision and Request for Variances from Minimum
Lot Widths by Mr. Rick Cole.
Mr. Rick Cole requested to subdivide Lots 2 (except the W 10') and Lot
3, Block D, Upper Monticello, into two equal size parcels of 61' x 165'
each. The present lot sizes are 66' x 165 and 56' x 1651.
The present property now has a home located on it which is situated in
the middle of the lots, but Mr. Cole indicated that he is planning on
removing the building and building a new home on one of the lots.
In addition to the variance needed from the minimum lot width of 80',
Mr. Cole requested that the sideyard setback requirements of 20' for
an R -B tone he reduced to only 10'.
PLANN ING COMMISSION M114UTES - 2,119/80
Although Mr. Cole indicated a single famil y home with a tuckunder garage
is planned for one of the lots, the Planning Commission was concerned )
about seeing a specific site plan for the two lots prior to granting
this subdivision and variances. It was noted that although there are
two lots, or two legal descriptions at the present time, only one of
the lots - that being the 66' lot - would actually be a buildable lot
and meet the 75% requirement of the present ordinances as far as lot width goes.
Planning Commission felt that without havi ng a specific site plan indicating
the single family home, approval of a subdivision as requested would leave
the lot open to other types of structures such as a duplex, etc.
Since a specific site plan was not available, motion was made by Dick
Martie, seconded by Jim Ridgeway and unanimously carried to deny the
subdivision request and variances.
9. Consideration of Changing Meeting Date.
The Planning Commission discussed changing the meeting date from the
Third Tuesday of each month to either the second or fourth Tuesday
of each month.
The primary reason for the requested change by the City Staff was that
the agenda for the City Council is now bei ng prepared as early as
Tuesday of the week preceeding the meeting . Normally, the items from
the Planning Commission go forth to the Ci ty Council at their next
meeting, and by preparing the agenda for the Council's following
meeting on the previous Tuesday, some of the items of the Planning
Commission will have to he brought to the Council not at their next
meeting, but at the meeting after that. It was noted that by changing
the meeting date to a different Tuesday, this would allow anything that
is on the Planning Commission agenda to go forth to the next regular
Council meeting without any delays.
Motion was made by John Dondhus, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously
carried to set the second Tuesday of each month as the regular Planning
Commission meeting date.
Motion was made h; Dick Martie, seconded by John Dondhus and unanimously
carried to adjourn.
Rick Wolfstel'le//��
Assistant Adml�iistrator
RW/ ns
- 6 -
y
I
"A
U� bottoit bur lot on Sandy Lana aftei checking, M., s¢c if U �C'p
znW-3d R 1. tam wanted a nice quiet '-1-44hbo(hood tb srtr, slur fallfly- Ic
W would I Me to keen it th,,;k vly,. ftf qrolr N%
nor orp frr. nst �qq�j N' nor
opunin r nt, hj:c pl,,cq" tit
aL bnnttlty p4r,10
R obsnns -
I t1ore trnPfEfa., :'3 h A h, I a I :' MI
gfid�jl•the 1'0 A, nC 6f ke chlin mht has,
wni. 11,1t.- oar fqb cover -a k6ctrtti"".-
i;hp- F. A ci 11 C, I, q, i4 4'0111;: -IJ!CSt` a -.1q 4 hot; P.ha ivisi;tt, %ncrc6.s(,
the. dOW A C113t-UM Qq t') -,vlf tO V L011, OcAiUU.7111 Cos.tr. 'Lhi-rk-
vw-1 brinjjin& more. tr-iff1c. e.,,h. --Aso snit'. nt. ;%rot,hdr
tirirl rht*nnLr to tli!—. Ili It gel en Siv i:nn Pis;
2ti tn rk i fit 41�oe t t1w oltr-4,11t
C:ij? qtx .... t. I r tit Cor 1:vr-kIn:f14,4
IV -tv
XAAP: havc, ;i ti,ifl Cl-* cNn kvh
ist, 'Zn 6•'u
bi V, 'Two
qqrt sI lwx tfbev "TT
ta'-f f m !'f. C'�e'vs 3"rit rill
'nso%yl, vK(Ir 4 ctw to "rr%48vo
ro T
!urn Nj.dwi w , h,%
JAI, vjt In;•nay
J.rjjo. lv,,s ot, urromc), ^h't yb
0 t), ut r n— blot".
vgr I .-141n Vii ret. -10N it, "r t7 ri v.
,tltrr nn o Qii "t
IF
in P
A
f7
RM
A
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - 14ONTICELLO CITY COUIICIL
February 11, 1980 - 7:30 P.N.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken flaus, Phil White.
Members Absent: None
I. Presentation by Howard Dahlqren Associates on Conceptual Site Plan for
the Oakwood School Block.
Mr. John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren 8 Associates, reviewed with the Council
the study recently completed relative to the development of the Oakwood
School Block. The presentation by Mr. Uban centered on the alternative
of removing the existing Oakwood School building and thus creating an
empty block that could be developed by the City to tie in the commercial
areas between the shopping center and the downtown district.
In reviewing this area and how it should be redeveloped, Mr. Uban indicated
that three concept plans for the block were presented for review. Each
of the schematic design concepts for the block showed basically commercial
and retail establishments located on the block in an effort to help tie
in the downtown area and the shopping center between the Walnut Street
and Highway 25 corridors. it was stressed that any of the plans would be
desirable by the City but would ultimately depend upon what type of develop-
ment or developer would have in mind for the area. It was noted that one
of the concepts included locating the new library proposed by the City on
the same block while the other two schemes indicated the future library to
be located on Block i7, directly south of the current Oakwood site.
After discussing the redevelopment plans as presented, a motion was made by
Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried that should the
City ultimately acquire this block from the school district and the library
situation is resolved, it would be the intent of the City Council to have
Lhc present Oakwood Building removed and demolished with the land being
used for redevelopment.
to regards to the siting of the future new public library, considerable
discussion was held on the possibility of the City acquiring additional
land from the school in Block 17 to add to the two parcels presently
designated for the new library site. Although the School does have
additional land available in Block 17, restrictions have been placed on
this property requiring that only school purposes or playground uses can
be used for this property. it was the concensus of the Council that
the City consult with the School District on Lhe possibility of obtaining
all or a portion of this property and also to consult with the previous
owner, Tom Bondhus, who has the restrictions on the property, in regards to
the possibility of releasing the restrictions in exchange for the City
developing some of the area into parkland atmosphere while using the balance
for additional parking requirements of the library.
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/11/80
In regards to the development of the Oakwood Block, no action was taken -
in regards to a desired schematic plan until the library issues can be
resolved as to the future site, etc.
2. Consideration of a Resolution on the Termination of/or Transfer of the
W. Worth Brasie Trust and Library Obligation.
City Attorney, Gary Pringle, recommended to the City Council that in order
to resolve the issue in regards to the school district transferring the
library ownership to the City of lionticello, both parties should proceed
to district court requesting that this matter be resolved. The reason
for proceeding with court action in regards to the library trust and
transfer is that there is difference of opinions made by the Attorney
General's office that a referendum would be needed for the transfer,
whereas, both the school district and the city feel that as long as
another governmental unit is taking over the library, a referendum is
not needed. it is hoped that by going through district court, a judgment
would be made by the Court determining what actions would be necessary
by both groups to resolve the issue once and for all.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution on the termination or transfer of the W. Worth Brasie
trust and library obligation either by a judgment from the district court
or by an opinion from the office of the Attorney General. (See Resolu-
tion 2/11/80 04 ).
3. Review of the Annual Financial Statements for the municipal Liquor Store.
Nark Irmiter, Liquor Store Manager, reviewed with the City Council the
annual financial statements for the liquor store operations for the year
1979. As part of the discussion, it was noted that sales increased over
13% over 1978 sales, and net income rose over $14,000 over the previous
year's figures. In addition, the high insurance cost were noted by the
Council Members and discussed with the manager, but no action was taken in
regards to switching insurance companies, other than the possibility of
all City's insurance requirements being put out to bids in an effort to
possibly lower the cost of liability insurance.
No action was taken other than review Of the financial statements with
the manager.
4. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Dan Bionigen, seconded by Phil White and unanimously
carried to approve the regular minutes of January 28, 1980 and the
special meeting of January 30, 1980.
ri
M
COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/11/80
5. Review of Committee Appointments for 1980.
It was noted that John Bondhus had accepted the appointment as a member
of the Planning Commission for 1980.
Previously the Council had recommended and appointed Kay Gauthier to the
Joint Recreation Board to represent the City, but Mrs. Gauthier had
declined the position due to time commitments. Also, at a previous
meeting, Rick Wolfsteller was added to the Joint Recreation Board as a
ex -officio member, and the Council discussed whether he should be given
voting rights in lieu of adding a replacement for firs. Gauthier.
Notion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Arve Grimsmo to appoint Rick
Wolfsteller as a voting member in lieu of being an ex -officio member:
Voting in favor: Fran Fair, Arve Grimsmo. Opposed: Ken Maus,
Dan Blonigen, Phil White. After further discussion, it was decided to
leave the committee appointments as previously approved, thus having
Rick Wolfsteller as an ex -officio member and only Ron Peters as the City's
representative able to vote on any matters concerning the Joint Recreation
Board.
6. Discussion on Notice of Termination of Garbage Contract.
On February 1, 1980, Yonak Sanitation gave notice to the City of Monticello
that they will he terminating their garbage removal contract as of
August 1, 1980, because of increased fuel and operating expenses.
As result of this notice of termination, motion was made by Phil White,
secoa nded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to prepare an advertise-
ment for bids for a new garbage removal contract within 60 days prior to
the August 1, 1980 termination date. The new advertisement for bids will
be prepared for Council review during May of 1980.
Meeting adjourned.
J
Rick Wolfsteller,
Assistant AdMinistrator
RW/ns
C
- 3 -
/ .1
I J 1
n
SANDBERG REALTY Farms
• Homes
rolrn s""aa°, aro4a ALS,
•
Phone 402714 17
Mantira!lo,Minnesate55W • Lakeshore
Metro 4?768F0 • SuSine55
Q1r+trea•
Fel.rt•ary 13, 3950
':r. Gary ',:i .',cr
City XhAni;trator
City of 'lontic-el3o
250 Cast Rroa'tway
'not ;-110, •1.7
55362
l:i:: Apprai ;a3 of Cc,lar itrrct rron Seventh
to Li -lith itreot
pnr ;nasi In ymtr 1,•t.t cr of rob1"rary ai h, I
have• apprai i • t I Iw above mcntione l property.
P1••a-w not to I hat the property i + zoned R -,l
and thu: approrinaia riir,tenaions are SOr3.;Ox23Rx,0.
I wn ,l 1 ai thi i 1 arto p•tt nn appraier: I va1•t0 or
X12,000 plit3 nsw3iments oti this proptrrty.
ZO v wo•:1•r r •t ain ra ;o ment right
7r T cr!n of any f•irther naaistanco, pl,,a w
Cal 1.
Sour: t r•r3y,
Jrtlt t .ice i ih,•r
/ ✓Jt "v d .0 • /S • If.
Aw
Fl�/rrPX 46 . /G. •r,— SING +-f
/G 11/5. u,M.. 40
/#ON 'd j 1 h 41s.
M
1
clo qo
3 �0 2t'r''
frp �t 5 5
27.,7ZD
Ce t
}?
54u^R`
U
11/2, s" '15t s'jj�a
V,4wtr°�
M�
ru
J
1
3'- ju
ypro
t ,
37
!?o/o
n
Phone 2952711 � DDDD Me.,o 333572 )
Citry 01 Monticello
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MINN. 55362
To: AlAVrnl Date yy�
FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
SUBJECT: ✓CI yN
d
MESSAgE/
/
%ylnY1L+-Li,
a'%7✓'7tb�o �►� /j2%7
-
��9�✓�
� t �
/�
�%�
• /-l�� Rill
L�YN
i
White — Mailing Copy Yellow — File Copy
MFI40RANDUM
TO: Loren Klein
FROM: Gary Wieber L
DATE: December 10, 1979
SUBJECT: Monticello Ordinances Reqardinq the Amoritization of Non-
Conforminq Signs
Monticello Ordinance provision Section 10 -7 -9 -(D) -(3)-(b) requires that
all non -conforming signs be removed within five years from the date of
the adoption of the ordinance, which was July 28, 1975, and became effec-
tive on August 21, 1975. As a result, certain signs must be removed by
August 21, 1980 to he brought into compliance with the Ordinance, or as
an alternative, a variance must he sought and approved prior to this
date.
As a result of this provision, I would request that you take a survey
of all signs in Monticello to determine which signs are non -conforming.
This would include all signs that are larger than the ordinance provision
would allow in their particular road classification zone, too many signs
per premise, too high a sign, off premise advertising signs such as
billboards, roof signs, signs that have moving parts or flashing inter-
mittent lights, or signs that are not allowed in their particular zoning
classification, such an an advortiaing sign within a residential zone that
is not in accordance with the ordinance.
I would ask that thin survey be done by January ll, 1980 in order that we
may present this as n list to the Council of those signs that have to be
removed by August 28, 1980. With this in hand, I believe the Council will
be able_ to make a better decision to determine whether they will attempt to
enforce_ the ordinance or decide to grant a grandfather clause to all existing
non -conforming signs which would give a lifetime provision to allow them.
Gw/ns
cc: 0-20-2
-ew—
COUNCIL UPDATE
February 25, 1980
1. Monticello Ford Site.
Since the Board of Appeals Hearing with Larry Flake and his attorney, I
have contacted Sam Peraro about any interest he may still have in the
building to see if there was some possibility through tax increment
financing. Mr. Peraro indicated that he would be back in touch with me,
but as of the date of the writing of this Council update, I have not
received word back from Mr. Peraro.
2. Resignation of Judy Alcott - Assistant Deputy Registrar.
Judy Alcott, the Assistant Deputy Registrar, who has been with the City
for over a year and a half has decided to terminate her employment with
the City of Monticello to spend more time with her family. Judy has
been a fine addition to the City staff, and her pleasant disposition
will certainly be missed by those who worked with her, both citizens
and staff members. At this time, a replacement for Judy is being
sought and it is expected that this position will be filled within two
to three weeks.
3. Bondhus Covenant on School Prooerty.
Mr. Tom Bondhus has been contacted relative to the possibility of the
City either putting a library on the property he has a covenant on,
currently owned by the School District, or the possibility of putting
parking on some portion of this property. it was further mentioned to
Mr. Bondhus that the City would be willing to possibly put a certain
portion of the property into park land since his covenant apparently
reads "for park and playground purposes only" relative to the restrictive
use of the property. Mr. Bondhus was not receptive to the proposals men-
tioned to him and would not consider the release of the covenant on his
property at this time.
As a result of the above, the City of Monticello probably has two alternatives
left relative to the library which can be located on the blocks granted to
them by the School District or possibly incorporating the library as part
of the overall Oakwood block. It would seem that the thing to do at this
time is to wait for a definitive decision from district court to determine
that the City, in fact, can take over the library obligation prior to
going any further on the location of a library and any additional possible
property acquisition.
GW/ns