Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 02-23-1981L AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL February 23, 1981 - 1:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve Grimsmo Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White. Meeting to be taped. Citizens Comments - 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance from Home Occupation Uses Allowed in an R-2 Zone - Ken Larsen. 2. Consideration of Rezoning Land in Proximity of Former Dick Brooks Farm, Owned by NSP, from R-1 to I-2. 3. Presentation of Feasibility Report on 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Projects. 4. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request - Roy Carlson. S. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Land Reclamation - Milton Olson. 6. Consideration of Allocation of Funds Towards itonticello Chamber of Commerce Business 8 Industrial Development Committee. 7. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request - Monticello Public Library. 8. Consideration of Proposed Amendment to the City of Monticello's Park Dedi- cation Ordinance Requirement. 9. Consideration of Approving Building Code Ordinance Update and Amendment. 10. Approval of Bills - February 1981. 11. Approval of Minutes - February 9, 1981 Regular Meeting. Unfinished Business - New Business - Possible change in Council meeting date - April 28, 1981 Iws�oerd-eft , . • ' 3Ai . Council 2/23/81 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT Public Hearinq - 1. Consideration of a Variance from Home Occupation Uses Allowed in an R-2 Zone - Ken Larsen. PURPOSE: To consider a variance request by Ken Larsen to open a carpet store in an R-2 zone for parts of Lots 6, 7 8 8, Block 32, Lower Monticello. Mr. Larsen is vacating his business location in downtown Monticello, and wishes to run a retail carpet store out of his residence. According to Mr. Larsen, seven years ago he previously operated out of his home. According to Monticello City Ordinances, if a non -conforming use existed at the time of the adoption of the ordinance and was not discontinued for a period of six months, it would be grandfathered in. However, in Mr. Larsen case, he neither was operating out of his existing home at the time of the adoption of the present ordinance in 1975, plus the fact that that use had been discontinued for a period longer than six months. At the time of the writing of this agenda supplement, detailed information about Hr. Larsen's proposal had not been received from him yet, but according to the definition of home occupation, you would need a variance from that provision since it specifically prohibits retail business. Of additional concern would be that the home occupation definition does not allow any exterior signing, any internal or external alterations not customarily found in a residential dwelling, nor an occupation that generates more than one car for off-street parking at any given point in time, plus no other than the person residing on the premise shall be employed and no mechanical equipment shall be employed that is not customarily found in the home, and no more than one room may be devoted to home occupation use. It appears possible that Mr. Larsen would need a variance from all the provisions or at least some of these provisions. The only other alternative rather than granting the numerous variances indicated would be to rezone the property in order to allow this type of use. The Planning Commission is having a special meeting before the Council meets on Monday at 5:00 P.M. to consider this matter, and their recommendation will be orally presented to the Council. It should be pointed out that if a variance is approved, there should be definite conditions attached to it relative to the number of employees, signs, etc. that would in fact he allowed. It 1s also recommended that Mr. Larsen be required to sign an agreement with any conditions imposed by the Council, since. he has previously indicated that he will open up the retail store regardless of what action is taken by the City of Monticello. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request and if approved, an indication should be made of the number of signs, num- ber of allowable off-street parking that could take place, the number of employees that could be employed, the number of rooms that could be devoted to home occupation use, and whether any external or internal alterations could take place.(Note: variances require 4/5's vote of Council for approval). REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting location of property. Note: At the time of the writing of this agenda item, i had received a phone call from a neighbor in opposition with the indication that a petition would be circulated opposing this. Council Agenda - 2/23/81 2. Consideration of Rezoning Land in Proximity of Former Dick Brooks Farm, Owned by NSP, from R-1 to 1-2. PURPOSE: To consider rezoning those tracts of land purchased by NSP, including the former Dick Brooks farm, from R-1 (single family residential) to i-2 (heavy industrial). NSP has purchased the former Dick Brooks farm, located to the south of the present Nuclear Power Plant and to the north of Bill Seefeldt's Electro Industries. Additionally, NSP has purchased additional land in this area between the Mississippi River and Interstate 44. According to a rezoning request from NSP, they would like to have the former Dick Brooks farm rezoned to I-2 in order that this site can be used to build a new 22,000 square foot office building/training center. As part of this request, a larger area, including all that land recently acquired by NSP, was considered for rezoning from R-1 to 1-2. Rezoning the entire parcel as shown on the enclosed map would leave this entire area on the west end of town zoned as I-2. By being zoned 1-2, this zoning would be conducive to the zoning of the rest of the property which is owned by NSP and would not leave any areas of spot zoning, but rather would leave one large area for the same or similar zoning. On the other hand, once a particular parcel is zoned from R-1 to I-2, any current or subsequent property owner can be allowed to use the land as permitted in any I-2 zone, and as a result, the Council may want to con- sider just the rezoning of the former Dick Brooks farm, as opposed to the rest of the land recently purchased by NSP for 1-2 zoning. At their hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission received no objections, and decided to recommend rezoning of the entire area to 1-2. It should be pointed out there has been some concern with the improvements planned to the LISP facility, but not specifically with the rezoning, and in fact, one property owner, Bill Seefeldt, has indicated he would be in favor of the rezoning request. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of rezoning land previously purchased by NSP in the Dick Brooks farm area from R-1 to i•2.* REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area and Planning Commission minutes of 2/10/81. *Note: 4/5's vote of council is required for approval of this rezoning request. - 2 - Council Agenda - 2/23/81 3. Presentation of Feasibility Report on 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Projects. PURPOSE: To review the two feasibility reports handed out by John Badalich at the City Council's last meeting, copies of which are again enclosed, for improvements to The Meadows Subdivision Plat, and the proposed NSP Train- ing Facility on West River Street on the former Dick Brooks farm. Listed below is the proposed breakdown of estimated assessments on the 1981-1 improvement project, which would service NSP's Training Facility: TOTAL PROPOSED NAME ASSESSABLE FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT Northern States Power 1,250- $ 80,000 Edgar Klucas 730' 46,720 Bill Seefeldt (Electro ind.) 333' 21,312 Alano Society 187' 11,968 2,500' li§o 000 It should be pointed out that the .Assessable Cost on the 1981-2 improvement Project to service The Meadows would be assessed ,,,�1,10Q,0% against Mel Wolters, with the exception of $7,300 in oversizing the La38�'�aa#n, which has already been included in the assessment formula for the 1981-1 improvement project above. As a result, the total cost of the 1981-2 Improvement Project, which is $137,000, would be proposed to be assessed against Mel Wolters. One item that should be mentioned is that, as a result of NSP's request, the extension to The Meadows subdivision plat requires service to an additional nine lots for sanitary sewer that Mel Wolters did not initially petition. This portion of the $137,000 cost is approximately $29,250 based on 670 lineal feet of sanitary sewer. If the City Council were to go ahead with the 1981-2 improvement project but not the 1981-1 improvement project, as a result, Mel Wolters total cost would then be revised to $107,750. This cost is based on servicing 12 lots with full improvements of sewer, water, street paving and storm sewer, and two additional lots with all improvements except for storm sewer. in regard to the 1981-1 improvement Project, there has been some concern expressed by the other property owners proposed to be assessed. Ward King, Area Public Relations Officer for NSP, will be at Monday night's meeting, but he indicated that his company is studying the possibility of putting in their own private sewer and water system and to make a determination of whether this would be cost-effective. Mr. King did indicate, however, that possibly at a minimum, NSP would still be interested in the street paving portion of the project. Normally the street is not pavedby the City until all utilities are in, however, there could be the possibility of putting in a 7 -ton road instead of a 9 -ton road with the idea that the road would someday be torn up for tmpvements at a later date. According to our N� 1 q� �� �� • 3 Council Agenda - 2/23/81 r engineer, John Badalich, estimated cost for just the street paving portion could be in the area of $35,000, and as a result, the assessments indicated above for the 1981-1 improvement project could be about 20 to 25% of the figure indicated above for only street paving. Both of these projects were proposed to be assessed under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, and this provision requires that at least 35% of the abutting footage proposed to be assessed be petitioned for, which has been met in both the 1981-1 and 1981-2 improvement projects. At this point, it is up to the City Council whether to proceed any further with either one of these improvements, with the next step calling for a public hearing on the project itself. However, the Council may want to terminate the project, or if there is an indication by NSP to decrease the project to only cover street paving and eliminate sewer, water, etc., the Council can do so. One other item that the Council should be aware of is, to service the NSP building with City sewer, it will be necessary to obtain an easement from either Mr. Klucas or Mr. Wolters to reach River Street. If it is decided to go ahead with the project, this easement should be obtained prior to accepting bids on the construction of this project to insure the City has an easement before construction commences. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution ordering a hearing on the feasibility reports for the 1981-1 and 1981-2 improvement projects, plus any revisions in scope as directed by the City Council .• REFERENCES: Copy of the 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Project feasibility reports enclosed. •Note: It is proposed that this hearing be held in conjunction with the other improvement project to be considered for 1981, and that is the Cedar Street storm sewer improvement project. We have pre- viously reviewed the feasibility report on this improvement. - 4 - Council Agenda - 2/23/81 4. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request - Roy Carlson. PURPOSE: Mr. 8 Mrs. Roy Carlson, owners of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 46, Townsite of Monticello, would like to divide their parcel into two separate buildable lots. Currently, lir. 8 Mrs. Carlson have their residence on Lots 3 8 4, which are each 33' x 165', and Lot 2 is 66' x 165'. If this simple subdivision were approved, it would create two parcels, each would be 66' x 165'. One item of concern would be the setback of the house on Lots 3 8 4, making sure it is at least 10' or more away from the easterly line of Lot 2. According to the present Monticello Ordinance, in a new subdivision a lot must be 80' or wider to be a buildable lot. However, there is a provision which allows a lot of 75% of that 80' requirement, or 60' , to be built upon in the case where the lot was in existence prior to the initiation of the Ordinance in 1975. This is the particular case, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request contingent upon a certificate of survey being provided showing that the present structure on Lots 3 8 4 is at least 10' or more away from the easterly line of Lot 2. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of subdivision request. REFERENCES: Map showing location of proposed subdivision. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/10/81. -5- Council Agenda - 2/23/81 S. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for land Reclamation - Milton Olson. PURPOSE: To consider a request by Milton Olson to place land fill on the property he owns in the southwest corner of Oakwood Drive and Marvin Road just northwest of the Monticello Ford site, initially, ilr. Olson indicated a receptiveness to taking some of the debris and rubble from the Oakwood School, and while it appears now that S & L Contracting, which was the successful bidder on the Oakwood School project, may be using another site, there is still the possibility that the Olson site may be used. Regardless of whether this particular site would be used for the debris from Oakwood School, Milton Olson still indicated he would be needing a conditional use permit in order to adequately bring this area up to grade. According to Monticello City Ordinance section 10-3-7, any lot or parcel upon which 400 cubic yards or more of fill is to be deposited shall come under the controls of land reclamation and require a conditional use permit. This permit shall include, as a condition thereof, a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect adjacent land and also regulate the type of fill permitted, program for rodent control, pian for fire control and general maintenance of the site, controls of vehicular ingress and egress and for control of material dispersed from wind or hauling of materials to or from the site. A finished grade plan should be required as part of any permit, and also an indication of the time period in which this site has to be brought back to grade. In order to insure that the procedures will be handled properly, it is also recommended that a surety bond be placed in favor of the City of Monticelio to insure that the work proceeds in tine with the conditions set forth in the permit itself. This item will be brought to the Planning Commission at a special meeting on February 23, 1981 at 5:00 P.M., and their recommendations will be orally presented to the City Council at their 7:30 Meeting. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a conditional use permit plus any specific conditions attached to it, and the time in which the property should be brought to its finished grade, plus an indication of whether a surety bond would be necessary or not.• REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area. *Note: 4/5's vote of Council is roquired for approval of conditional use. - 6 - Council Agenda - 2/23/81 6. Consideration of Allocation of Funds Towards Monticello Chamber of Commerce Business & Industrial Development Committee. PURPOSE: To consider a request by the Business & Industrial Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce for $4,000 in funding to be allocated to the Committee. In 1980, the City Council approved an allocation of $5,000 towards the Chamber of Commerce's Business & Industrial Development Committee. The specific mission of this committee, as stated in their development plan, is to seek and support industrial , commercial , financial , professional and business growth in the Monticello community. In 1980, the funding from the City of Honti cello was used primarily for advertising purposes. In order to give the City Council a perspective on the activities and intent of the committee, enclosed you will find a 17 -page report issued by the Committee relative to their 1981 Pian. Listed below is the 1980 expenditures for the Committee , along with proposed 1981 budget and allocation of this particular budget: .7. 1980 EXPENDITURES 1980 1981 CHAMBER CITY TOTAL BUDGET Industry Day $ 854 S 0 $ 854 $ 1,500 Advertising 0 3,153 3,153 11,000 Travel & Entertainment 263 0 263 600 Postage & Supplies 0 64 64 400 Part Time Help 0 0 0 11000 Video Cassetts, TV Monitor, Assoc. Equip. 2,958' 0 2,958 0 Tapes & Photos 0 0 0 200 Other 0 0 0 300 $4,075 $3.217 S 7,292 15 000 Less: Allocation 7,215 5,000 12,215 Reserve Balance $3.140 51.783 4 923 'This item is proposed for donation to the City of Monticello and could be used for City purposes such planning and zoning, etc. PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF $15.000 BUDGET Unused Reserve Balance $ 4,923 Chamber of Commerce 6.077 City of Monticel to 4,000 TOTAL BUDGET . . 15 000 .7. Council Agenda - 2/23/81 As you can see by the above proposed budget, additional funding is being requested from the Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $6,077, and from the City of Monticello in the amount of $4,000. For your information, the City of Monticello did budget in their Planning 8 Development Fund, $4,000 to support this committee in 1981. Current Chairman of the Committee is John Bondhus, but due to a conflict in scheduling, John will not be able to make the presentation to the City Council at Monday night's meeting, but will have one of the other Chamber Committee members here to review this request with the City Council. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of allocation of $4,000 to the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Business 8 Industrial Development. REFERENCES: 1981 Development Plan enclosed. - 8 - Council Agenda - 2/23/81 7. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Reauest - Monticello Public Library. PURPOSE: Proposed location for the Monticello Public Library is zoned as R-2, and thus suitable for a library. However, a conditional use permit request is necessary. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, and there was no opposition or support from the general audience on the conditional use request. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of a conditional use permit request for part of Lots 1 and 2, Lots 9 8 10, Block 17, Townsite of Monticello. REFERENCES: Map showing location of the property within the City of Monti- cello, and Planning Commission Minutes of February 10, 1981. *Note: 4/5's Vote of Council is required for approval of conditional use. 1911Z Council Agenda - 2/23/81 8. Consideration of Proposed Amendment to the City of Monticeilo's Park Dedica- tion Ordinance Requirement. PURPOSE: To consider a revision of the park dedication ordinance contained in the Subdivision section, as suggested by the City of Monticello's Planning Commission. Currently, the park dedication for the City of Monticello requires all developers requesting platting contribute 10% of the final plat gross area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space or linear park and trail systems, or to contribute an equivalent amount in cash, and the form of contribution, whether cash or land or combination thereof, shall be decided by the City Council based upon need in conformance with the City's approved plans. In the past, the City of Monticello has determined that the cash equivalent would be equal to 10% of the assessor's fair market value of the property. The Assessor's fair market value of the property is determined to be as of January 2nd in the preceeding year, and this market determination is very low. Historically, the Assessor's market value per acre has been anywhere from $1,000 to $4,000 per acre, when, in fact, after development has occurred, residential property, for example, would be in the area of $24,000 per acre. This $24,000 is just an estimate, and based on four 1/4 -acre lots selling for $6,000 each, not including assessments. As a result of the utilization of the Assessor's fair market value, the developer is better off contributing cash as opposed to land. Additionally, some developers have proposed land areas which, to a certain extent, are unbuildable because of utilities or because they are wetlands. In order to remedy these situations, the Planning Commission unanimously is recommending the following ordinance amendment: 11-6-1: PARK OEOICATION REQUIREMENT A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358. Subdivision 2, the City Council of Monticello shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the City of Monticello to con- tribute ten (10) percent of the final plat gross area to be dedi- cated for use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space, or linear park and trail systems or to contribute an equivalent amount of cash, based on the conditions outlined below. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) and the specific area In case of land contribution, shall be decided by the City Council based upon need and conformance with approved City Plans. - 10 - Council Agenda - 2/23/61 B. in order to determine the park dedication requirement, an appraisal of the market value of the subdivision shall be provided by the developer. This appraisal shall include the appraisal of the entire subdivision, plus an appraisal of the area proposed in land if applicable. This appraisal shall be based on market value of the land as though it were already platted. C. City Council may accept appraisal ordered by the developer or may order own appraisal to arrive at the fair market value of the subdivision and any land proposed for park dedication. In either case, the developer is responsible for the costs of such appraisals. D. Park dedication credit should not include a wetland or Pondinq area necessary for the drainage plan of the particular subdivision. Underlined portions above indicate additions to present ordinance. At the public hearing which was held at the Planning Commission level, there was neither opposition nor support for this particular park dedication amendment. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amending subdivision ordinance on park dedication as indicated above.* REFERENCES: Planning Commission Minutes - February 10, 1461 meeting. *Note: Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote of Council for approval. Council Agenda 2/23/81 9. Consideration of Approving Building Code Ordinance Update and Amendment. As in the past, the State of Minnesota amends the Building Code every three years to bring it up to date. In October of 1980, the code under which we operated for the past three years, underwent a series of public hearings and then the result was the new Code which you are now considering. Basically, because the code was in effect previously, it will continue in force whether or not this new 1980 Edition is adopted, but from a legal standpoint, there is a basis for enforcement with the adoption of the new code. That is, if the new code weren't adopted, and a court case were to result from some problem, there could be a legal question as to Just what authority there was for enforcement, or who is liable for any resulting problems. Also, any new code for which application would be required, because of a new product, or altered material or product, would have an effective enforcement tool in the case where the new product was being used, or an obsolete requirement was necessary to be removed. In addition, the dates for the various other codes listed in Chapter 4 or the ordinances (Housing ',de, Abatement Code, etc.) would be changed to bring them into uniform -.aformity with the various other codes, and would then specifically designate a present code. The State Law actually mandates adopting the Building Code, which was the result of the hearings in 1980, but does not mandate that the Housing Code or Abatement Code, etc., be adopted. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider approval of this newly updated code change and the other dating changes throughout Chapter 4, REFERENCES: The proposed new sections of Chapter 4 dealing with the Code. - 12 TO TIM CITT COIDMCM old PlAl NVG IMIISStON, MpWTI=W,1WWSGrA We,the following residents of Monticello respectfully request that the application of len TArsen for a variance to allow a Carpet Store to be opened in an R-3 Zoms In parts of Lots e.y,and 8 Bloch 32,Lower Monticello-sddressf301 Washington St. be denied. Our Concerns are as follow (1) Third St sad the area in the vicinity of this address has traditionally been a residential area and we desire that it not be encroached upon or any further precedent established for any more future commercial development. (2) The values of residential properties of Homme Owners in the area will suffer by such commercial encroachments. (3) We am have the School Administrative offices in the ares so that any additional commercial uses will further compound the traffic and eougestion. (e) Many area& sore suitable for commercial uses are available in Monticello and in the interest of their orderly dove lopoeot.residential arise should no^ be .approved for this purpose. ADDRESS DATE 1,2-9 F %blit)' s% z -&-J9/ • i .. dam" " /'� �� s'2�fit: s4 tO % Z le., 7L `�r ♦` � � tri �: �z�u.. / S � ' _ �---s'�---�+'._-e''..1.- JL ?t 4, �7 q - E 144 THE FOLLOWING LETTER iS IN REFERENCE TO ITEM #1 on the COUNCIL AGENDA AND WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA SUPPLEMENT WAS PREPARED. _ 209 Washington St Monticello, Pin 5536? February 19, 1981 To Planning Commission Members and City Council Members Being unable to attend the meetings before the Manning Commission at 5j00 P.M., February 23, 1981 ani! the City Council at 7i30 P.N. February 23, 1951. 1 wish to voice my opposition to the matter of a variance allowing for a carpet store in a residental zone.. I feel we have enough traffic throu:,h this a.ea with the high school and administration offices. At this time, parking has been removed from 3r,' Street during school hours. With a business here, it will only be a matter of time till a•. on street parking permit is applied for. If this residental zone to changed to commercial, what is to prevent me from opening a jean shop on part of my lot, or in my garaLe, across from the school? You can not grant perminalon for one citize aqui not another, there- fore I believe this area should remain reelcential. Sincerely. 11 -Joan M. Dorn Uo-owner Skot'mo Family Store Om 9q VARIANCE REOUFST - Ken Larson for Carpet Store at his-residenca City of Monticello Monticello City Hall Monticello, MN 55362 HE: Application of NSP to He-7.one Property Gentlemen: We represent Mir. Edgar Klucas who owns twenty (20) acres imnediately easterly of the property N.S.P. is ro-zoning. We have no objection to the re -zoning, but it appears that the development of N.S.P.'s property Rmy require extension of city water and sanitary scuer to that property. There appears no way to extend these services without an casement Pram Mir. Kluca_s or subjecting his property to assessm_nts. Q1 his behalf, we will oppose any effort to assess his property. We will be willing to negotiate granting an ease- ment provided his premises are adequately protected fan assessments. We suggest, hwever, that the City Imy be approaching this rmtter backwatrds—it should be first determined wfiether the utility services an: required and how the same can be provided and then zone property in an appropriate nranner. JCdi : dms cc: Edgar Klucas I S.inceroly. . Nfl-W.AlY R I A ISCIN JIUms G. Metcalf N. Z ///olra,f &e.Car3on ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Bo. 446 313 we% B. oaawev Monticello. M'innewts 55362 JAMES G. METCALF TELEPHONE BRADLEY V. LARSON IG Q1 795 3232 METRO IG121 421 3393 File No. 527.4 February 23, 1981 City of Monticello Monticello City Hall Monticello, MN 55362 HE: Application of NSP to He-7.one Property Gentlemen: We represent Mir. Edgar Klucas who owns twenty (20) acres imnediately easterly of the property N.S.P. is ro-zoning. We have no objection to the re -zoning, but it appears that the development of N.S.P.'s property Rmy require extension of city water and sanitary scuer to that property. There appears no way to extend these services without an casement Pram Mir. Kluca_s or subjecting his property to assessm_nts. Q1 his behalf, we will oppose any effort to assess his property. We will be willing to negotiate granting an ease- ment provided his premises are adequately protected fan assessments. We suggest, hwever, that the City Imy be approaching this rmtter backwatrds—it should be first determined wfiether the utility services an: required and how the same can be provided and then zone property in an appropriate nranner. JCdi : dms cc: Edgar Klucas I S.inceroly. . Nfl-W.AlY R I A ISCIN JIUms G. Metcalf N. Z �•— �%f,�� ��o; Y � x s 8� N � a an �b N . g �•— �%f,�� ��o; 4 - MINUTES `i REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELIA PLANIIING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 10, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer, Dick Martie, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Loren Klein. Members Absent: None. 1. Approval of Minutes - Wednesday January 21, 1981 Reqular Planninq Commission. Motion was made by John Bondhus, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the above listed regular meeting. 2. Consideration of a Simole Subdivision Request - Roy Carlson. Mr. 6 Mrs. Roy Carlson, who own Lots 2 (66' wide) and Lots 3 S 4 (33' wide each), Block 46, Townsite of Monticello, would like to divide Lot 2 away from Lots 3 5 4, to make a separate buildable lot of Lot 2. Ono item of concern, was would the setback of the house on Lots 3 s 4, be 10' or more away from the easterly line of the newly created Lot 2. If that distance were 10' or more, there would be no problem. However, if that distance wore less than 10, a variance hearing would be rogaired if a new lot, that in Loot 2, were to be created as proposed. According to the existing Monticello Ordinance, in a now subdivision, a lot must be 80' wide or wider to become a buildable lot. However, there is a provision which allows a lot of 75% of that 80' requirement, or 60' wide, to be built upon in the case where a lot was in existence prior to the initiation of the present ordinance in 1975. That would be the case here. It was a staff recommendation to approve this request, contingent upon a certificate of survey being provided, showing that the present structure on Lots 3 s 4 is 30' or more from the easterly line of the newly created Lot 2. On a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded by John Dondhuo, all voted in favor to recommend approval of this simple subdivision request, contingent upon a Certificate of Survey showing the house of Lots 3 s 4 to be at least 10' or more from the easterly lot line of the newly created Lot 2. - 1 - ,�, 1/ , '7 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/10/81 1. Public liear inq - Consideration of 311 ApplieaLion for Rezoning - Northern , J States Power. NSP, owner of the land north of River Street, across from Electro Industries and the Edgar Klucas property, proposed rezoning that property from R-1 to I-2. The reason for proposing that rezoning roqucst, was so that 11S11 might be enabled to build a new 22,000 square foot office building/training center. That property is commonly referred to as "The Dick Brooks Farm". Although NSP only requested rezoning for a small triangular piece of pro- perty across from the Electro Industries/Klucas property, it was a staff recommendation that all of the property north of River Street lying between County Road 75 and the railroad track and the City limit be rezoned to 1-2 so the entire parcel of land which NSP now owns, which is -adjacent to the Nuclear Power Plant property, could be zoned I-2, and thus avoid areas of spot zoning. Although this Public Hearing dealt only with rezoning of the property from R-1 to I-2, there were several people, or their representatives, present at the meeting to request information about the possibility of proposed improvements which would be extenrIcri to the building site, should NSP build there. Jim Metcalf, attorney representing Edgar Klucas, indicated that in the past, the property known now as The Meadows, etc., was proposed for I-1 at a previous rezoning hearing, but was turned down, and remained as R-1. lie J also pointed out that sewer and water assessments would not benofit Mx. Klucas and the Planning Coamiouion should consider the fact that sewer and water and assessments might possibly follow up to a rezoning request. Albert Mayer, representing the Alano Society, stated that they had no objec- tion to the rezoning of that parcel of property so that the proposed build- ing could be built, but stated that financially they would not be in favor of any assessments which might be levied against them if improvements were to follow. Mel Wolters, representing himself an owner of The Meadows, wan present and expreaaed no opposition to the rezoning, but expressed a concern about assessments that might be made to The Meadows if possible further improve- monta were to follow the rezoning and a project were developed after the rezoning was completed. Bill Seefo ldt, owner of Electro Industries, had previously lot it be known to the Staff at City Hall Ont ha was in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Ward King, representing Northern Stales Power Company, was present and explained NSP's proposal to build Lilo office building/Lraining center. lie also stated that NSP would be willing to install their own private sewer and water system if the City were not to extend the sorvicos. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 2/10181 It was pointed out that the two issuers, that of zoning and that of improve- ments, were separate, and that improvements would be taken up at a future public hearing. On a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martin, all voted in favor of recommending granting the rezoning. 4. Presentation of information for a Future Consideration of a variance. Ken Larsen, of Larsen's Carpets, was present to discuss with the Planning Commission, his intent to move his carpet store from its present location at 128 West Broadway, to the garage behind his home at 301 Washington St. Mr. Larson explained that he had lost his lease and in order for him to continue in business, it would be necessary for him to move his carpet business to that location, at least for the time being. Because a public hearing notice had not gone out on this particular item and that this item was brought as a new business item, the Planning Commis- sion chose not to make any consideration for recommendation, but to suggest that Mr. Larsen bring his request before him at their special meeting at 5.00 P.M. on February 23, 1981. 5. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Conditional Use - Monticello Public Library. The building committue, for the proposed new Monticello Public Library, brought a proposal before the Planning Commission requesting that a condi- tional use be granted to Lots 1, 2 and part of 3, and Lots 9 6 10, Block 17 for the erection of a new public library. It is necessary to obtain a conditional use to build a public library in any zoning district. In the case of this proposed new public library building, Ulu total number of parking spaces would be provided, as wolf on all other zoning requirements. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and all voted in favor of recommending approval of this conditional use roquost. b. Public Hearinq - Consideration of Amendments to the Subdivision Park Dedica- tion ordinance. At a previous Planning Ccrmmisaion mooting, ordinance amendments were dis- cussed. Ordinance 31-6-1r Park Dedication Hoquirement, was discussed, and tho following suggestions weia made: (Those items underlined were the proposed additions to the ordinance) - 3 - ->,q,-%dil Planniny Commission Minutes - 2/1-0/81 11-6-1: PARK. DEDICATION REQUIREMLUT A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subdivision 2, the City i Council of Monticello shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the City or Monticello to con- tribute ten (10) percent of the final plat gross area to be dedi- cated for use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space, or linear park and trail systems or to contribute an equivalent amount of cash, based on the conditions outlined below. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) and the specific area in case of land contribution, shall be decided by the City Council based upon need and conformance with approved City plans. D. In order to determine the park dedication requirement, an appraisal of the market value of the subdivisiod'shall be provided by the developer. This appraisal shall include the appraisal of the entire subdivision, plus an appraisal of the area proposed in land if applicable. This appraisal shall be based on market value of the land as though it were already platted. C. Citv Council may accept appraisal ordered by the developer or may order own appraisal to arrive at the fair market value of the subdivision and any land proposed for park dedication. In either case, the developer is responsible for the costs of such, appraisals. D. Park dedication credit should not include a watland or ponding arca necessary for the drainagu plan of the particular subdivision. A motion by John 0ondhuu and a second by Dick Martio was unanimously approved to recommend approval of this amendment to the Park Dedication Ordinance. 7. Review of the Entire Zoning Ordinance (Title 10) . It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the review of the Zoning Ordinance should Lake places however, tiro Planning Commission members felt that rather than do it all at one meeting, that it should be done over a period of several mootinyu and that they would start this roviow at their next regular planning commission mooting. They indicated they would ontartain suggestions for 7.0ning Ordinance changen or amendmento from the staff . 8. Discussion of the Simplification of thn Variance Process. In light of the fact that the Council voted not to consider the ordinance amendment simplityiny the variance royuaaL that the Planning Cormniuuion had sent to them at) a result of their Wadnosday, January 21, 1981 mooting, the Planning Comminsion decided to hold a public hearing at their special mooting on 1'obruary 2.1, 1901 at 5.00 P.M. at which Limo thoy would discuss tho possibility of Sending an ordinance amendment forth to the Council which would eliminate the nood of going boforo the Planning Commission on a variance - 4 - Planning Commission Minutes - 2/10/81 r uest, thus hopefully streamlining the variance process. This item was e ided upon by consensus. Me tin adjourned. nil di, Lo n Klein, Zoning Administrator LDK/ns 5 �� `1. 7d / �Z y'+9P7 t( JMJ MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA c�s3s d6004. 6 G.O. "PR OVEMCNT SONO OF 1981 k /� SALE --Te.. 1/12/1981 POST SALEIA'x LEVIES V V 1SSU�5160,000 e $ ?ooeo /JC So B� 21.17 DATE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL 2�0Do�e B/ 1/1981 2256% 6,377.50 6, 277. SO 6,2]7.50 6,772.50 11q,-S•w /'idZ 2/ 1/1982 8/ 1/1982 6,277.50 6,272.50 2/ 1/1987 B/ 1/1987 15,000 6,2)7.50 5,677.50 21,272.50 5,677.50 17,465.00 /71j 2/ 1/1981 15,000 5,677.50 20,677.50 I6.355.00 //%! i 8/ 1/1981 5,122.50 51122.50 2/ 1/1985 15,000 5,177.50 20.127.50 75,245.00 8/ 1/1985 1,560.00 4.560.00 20.00 7/ 1/1986 B/ 1/1906 151000 1,560.00 1.990.00 19,560.00 7,990.00 11,1 2/ 1/1987 15,000 1.99D. 00 18,990.00 27,980.00 /9!r B/ 1/1987 1.417.50 7,117.50 71,825.00 1 2/ 1/1988 8/ 1/1988 15,000 71412.50 2,827.50 IB,/12.50 2,827.50 /Y/d �1 2/ 1/1989 15,000 2,827.50 17.821.50 70.6 55.00 B/ 1/1989 7.275.00 2.275.00 1/ 1/1990 15,000 7,375.00 11,275.00 19.470.00 e/ 1/1990 1,675.00 11675.00 /� Y1 2/ 1/1991 20,000 1.675.00 21,675.00 77.270.00 8/ 1/1991 875.00 175.00 2/ 1/1992 20,000 875.00 20,835.00 71,(.50.00 /9 Z. TOTALS 5160-00009 0000 5245 5215.500.00 DISCOUNT (PLUS) 57,4 NET INTEREST COST 587.900.00 (�/IL �7 p121V f-• � J-7Yr'0 / �Z y'+9P7 t( JMJ c�s3s d6004. 6 -6 G� B � 9sS /3935 Zoe 9s e $ ?ooeo /JC So B� 21.17 zm .Vow 6?0315) e 2�0Do�e .2lV5o 2256% / �Z y'+9P7 t( JMJ c�s3s d�Eo veiro �E4�ys 3 iso 73So 9sS /3935 672 7)) 6 VS9z 21.17 3 yo 6?0315) e -6- 2256% / �Z y'+9P7 ORR-SCIIELEN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PUBLIC,, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Rl-1 FEBRUARY 4, 1491 1. TYPE OF WORK: The general nature of the improver-ent is the construction of sanitary sever, public water and street paving and necessary appurtenances In the City of Mon- ticello. 11. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project Includes 1440 fort of sanitary sever pipe, 1320 feet of ductile Iron pipe enter main and 1740 feet of bituminous paving. All improvements would be extended to the north/south one quarter line of Section 4, T121N, R2 5W. 111. LOCATION OF WORK: The proposed project provides for the above listed Improvements to n.proposed Northern States Power Company training complex located on River Street just west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in the NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 4, T121N, R25W. The NSP property can technically be served by snnitary never from n point just east of Co. nd. 75 on River Street or from proposer) sanitary sever within "Thi- Mrndows- subdivision. The relatively shallow depth of the never In River Street would necessitate raising of lila roadway to provide front prolectlnn or nlift stntion to pump Into the r.xlgting sewer. The newer through "The ;.,lows" can hr rxtend,•d to provide gravity never by incrrosing the size from 10 Inch to 12 inch (this allows the line of n flatter Rrnde for the pipe). The sever extension through "Thr Mendovs" to the more drsirnhlr approach and in the recommended method. The watcrmnin Would he extended from Co. Rd. 75 along River SU', -et and It in proposed that River Street be paved to the vest edge of the NSP property. 1V. ESTIMATED COST: The construction cost antimntes for the. proposed ImprovemenIa and 22E IadIr,-ct cost are no follows: Sanitary Sever $ 49,b00 Water Main s 40,OOn Street Paving S 42,400 Indirect Cast 29,000 Tni,rl Project Coot S1b0,00n 3 The cost for sanitary sewer Includes the over -sizing cont of the sanitary , sewer within "Thr. Meadows" required to accommodate this project. V. _ PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED: The City shall decide at a later date the distribution of the assessment amongst the, three properties fronting River Street hotween the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and the north/south one quarter line or Section 4, T121N, R25W. The properties are as follows: A. Northern States Power Company: That part of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 lying snuth of County Road 075 in Section 4, T121N, R25W. Wright County Tax No. 155 500 041200. R. Seefeldt, William J. 6 M.L.: Wright County Tax No. 155 500 041300. C. Klucas, Edgar L.: Wright County Tax No. 155 500 041402. V1. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: The previously listed properties, if assessed on a front footage basis, would be subject to the following assessment: Lateral Sanitary Sewer: $23.7 5/ft. Lateral Water Main: $19.55/ft. Street Paving: $20.70 ft. The entire cost of the project would be. assessed . Vil. FEASIBILITY: Frnm an engineering standpoint, the. project Is feasible and can be nc- compllshed in conjunction with Improvement Project No. RI -2. 1 hereby certify that thin plan, npeeiftentlon or re- port wan prepared by me nr under my direct supervision and thaL 1 nm n duly Registered Professional Engineer under the lawn of the State of Minnesota. ��ohn P. Badeltch, P.E. 11nte: February 4, 1981 Reg. No. 4985 P. R. 2 O EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED SEWER j EXISTING WATER O PROPOSED WATER illlllillillllli M1 PROPOSED STREET •• •• •• w t PAVING N 1111111�IIIIIT1111.1141 _I jlliltllll(I 11IIItI111Y111lIYII 11 1llllrl811rlllfltllltl�lllllYl 111111{Ill IIIIUROOM m 11" m a" w r Fee qmk � � olk looL ool! O /,,D •t8 er, ncDc)' 9: 00 1759 ' 7 G 5 4_ 3 _) I HILL900!C R' E LST T • n' Y? t f Y 800, g\ M90 T —2e385 1022It4LB_ B ND ttit4 07 f \C w\ /SJhh--'�3 h V,�••V+4' ctry LL 12 .� 0 OrO.mp 'Title Shoot 01101. OM 6CNEtit Q.d% Oma wrtvocTw 7 . INC.IxC glill�s Ml�g1 A;: i�"c�.r. •... •t..l q �� mrowgr..aracan:uruns arc IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 81— 1 MONTICELLO , MINNESOTA ORR-SCBE LEN-MAYERON 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CITY OF MONTIC.ELLO. MINNESOTA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 81-2 FEBRUARY 4, 1981 I. TYPE OF WORK The general nature of the improvement Is the construction of sanitary sever, public water, storm sever and street paving and necessary appurtenances in the City of Monticello. II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project includes 1520 feet of sanitary sever pipe, 850 feet of ductile Iron watermain. 200 feet of concrete storm sewer pipe and 800 feet of bitumin- ous paving with concrete curb and gutter. All improvements would serve a por- tion of "The Meadows" subdivision. The sanitary sever is so designed to accept wastewater from Project No. 81-1. III. LOCATION OF WORK: WI proposed work is within "The Meadows" in the S 1/2 of Section 4, T121N. R25W and is located on Marvin Elwood Road north of Pratrie Road. 1V. ESTIMATED COST: The construction cost entimetes for the proposed improvements and 22Z indirect rout nre as follows: Sanitary Sever S $4,400 Water Main $ 18,400 Storm Sever $ 8.800 Street Paving S 10,400 Indirect Coat g 25,000 l Total Project Cost $t —000 1 3 ?wo An additional estimated amount of $7,300 will be charged to Project 81-1 and Is defined to be the cost differential between lO-inch sever and the 12 -inch sewer required to provide gravity sanitary Rover to Projee t RI -1. V. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED: All property 17 Dr assessed fi within "The Meadows" plat exrrpt for the ahnve mentioned charge against Project 81-1. Assessment for Sanitary Sower, Water and Paving: Lots 9-14. Slack I i Tots 1-2. Block S Lnts 1n -I5, Block 4 P. R. - I Assessment for Storm Sewer: Lots 10-14, Block i Lots 1 4 2, Block 5 Lots 11-15, Block 4 Assessment for Sanitary Sewer only: Lots 1-8, Block 1 Lot 1, klock 2 Those lots which are assessed for Sanitary Sewer only will he assessed for other improvements when they are constructed. V1. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: The previously listed properties will he assessed on a front footage basis for paving; on a unit basis for sanitary sewer end water; and on an area basis for storm sewer. The estimated breakdown is as follows: Lateral Sanitary Sewer (23 Units): $2,886/unit Lateral Water Main (14 Units): $1603/unit Street Paving (1200 Feet): $30.90/feet Storm Sewer (3.7 Acres): $2902/acre A typical lot assessment for a lot to be served by all utilities would he $8,512. The entire. cost of the project would he assessed. Vil. FEASIBILITY: From an engines!ring standpoint, the project is fensihle and can Ise ac- rompliahed as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. I hcrchy certify that this plan, specification or re- port was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am n duly Registered Professional Engineer under the, laws of the Slate of Minnesota. John P. Badalich, P.E. Date: February 4, 1981 Reg. No. 4985 P. R. - 2 ♦w 11 ? W, SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REOUEST ti Mr. & Mrs. Roy Carlson E:i7M r4- spa,. .4 7., I C2 V., LOT 1 4A' P(,gose' -�K LoT a LOT 1 LOs' I Lor 4 7 31 ugg LOT 6 NA \�\ poi 7 r!'•u p 'W '• �~� . `:c {;, s: i'•,; �,�;1J1`!.'f�/rJ f; /�• .J" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST ti Milton Olson to use property as -`' .• , t,i ,i. / . `;" '�} .J J�+ `� Landfill for Oakwood Debris �. .. r, r/. ,:� lir r �•�. ; I! 711 i NO 94 � � ; e` � r �'t s• ,`��. �'�., .."s"'Iy ., "til �(• rI G7 C3 ��`���Itt l� •r ` r H- Com, �.,� / • r � - ` i,.uw `..` i F`y'�...�„ . \`iiT . t i t. u. • as n - � ,t � .+�. � _... L..• __ • I �.4esr -,-'-_-~~~�-- - -'- . ^ 2 4-1-1 4-1-2 CHAPTER 1 BUILDING CODE SECTION 4-1-1: Intent and Purpose 4-1-2: Building Code 4-1-3: Organization and Enforcement 4-1-4: Permits, Inspections and Fees 4-1-5: Fire Zone Districts 4-1-6: Violations and Penalties 4-1-7: Effective Date of Ordinance 4-1-1: INTEIIT AIID PURPOSE: Azi Ordinance adopting the Minnesota Building Code;•providing for its administration and enforcement: regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and main- tenance of all buildings and/or structures in the City of Monticello: pro- viding for the issuance of permits and collection of fees. 4-1-2: BUILDING CODE: The Minnesota State Building Code, one copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator, has been adopted by Minnesota Statutes 16.851 (1977) as a uniform building code applicable throughout the State. Such code in hereby confirmed as the build- ing code of the City of Monticello and incorporated in this ordinance as completely as if set out in full. A. The 1980 Edition of the State Building Code adopts by reference the following codes: 1. 1979 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, identified as "UAC"; 2. 1970 Edition of the National Electric Code, identified As "NEC'; 3. 1978 American National Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumb- waiters, Eacalatora and Moving Walks, identified as ANSI A17.1 - 1978 and Supplumeot, ANSI A17.1a - 1979. 4. 1979 Minnesota Plumbing Cale, identified as KID 120 through KID 135. 5. "Flood Proofing Regulations", June 1972, Office of the Chief of F.nginecra, U.S. Army. 6. Minnesota floating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Hofrigelation Code, identified an SDC 7101 through SBC 8505. 7. "Design and Evaluation Criteria for Energy Conservation in New Buildinga, Additions and Iicm,xlelcd Elements of Buildings and Standards for Certain Existing Public Buildings", identified as 2MCAR Section 1.16001 through 2MCAR Section 1.16006. B. State of Minnesota Mobile Homs Installation Standardn 1977, Identified as 2MCAR 1.90450 installations and related definit.lona in 2MCAIt 1.90103. 1 4-1-2 4-1-3 9. Standards of Performance for Solar Energy System:: and Subsystems ` Applied to Energy Need of Buildings, 1977 Edition, identified as J 2MCAR 1.1G1O1 through 2MCAR 1.16108. B. In addition to those items listed above, certain Appendices, Standards and Supplemental Materials referenced in the Code are hereby adopted by reference as part of the Building Code of the City of Monticello and incorporated into this Ordinance as completely as if sat out in full, including but are not limited to the following: 1. Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters, identified as SBC Appendix "A" . 2. variations in snow Loads, identified as Minnesota State Building Code, Appendix "B". 3. 1979 Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 35. 4. Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendix "13". C. The following Appendices, Standards and Supplemental Materials are not a mandatory part of the Code but are adopted by reference for the City of Monticello and are incorporated into this Ordinance as completely as if set out in full. 1. Minnesota State Building Code Appendix "C". Abbreviations and addresses of Technical Organizations. 2. 1919 UPC Appendix, Chapters 12, 38, 48, 49, 55 and 70. J 3. Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendices C 1. D. 4. Flood Proofing Regulations, Sections 201.2 through 208.2. 4-1-3: ORGAMIF.ATIOG AND ENFORCE*'11T: The organization of the Building Department and enforcement of the cado shall bo conducted within the guidelines established by Chapter 2 of the Uniform Building Code 1979 Edition. The Code shall be enforced within the incorporated limit0 of the City of Monticello and any axtra-tarritoridl limits permitted by law. Extra -territorial limits shall be any area, incorporated or unincorporated, designated under a Joint Powers Agreement entered into by the City of Monticello and any other townshil)/villago/city/county. The Building Department shall. be the Building Coda Department of the City of Monticello. Tho Administrative Authority shall be a State Certified "Building Official" so designated by the Appoint Authority. The Appointing Authority shall be the City Council of the City of Monticello. - 4-1-4 i 4-1-7 4-1-4: PEP14ITS, INSPECTIONS AND PEL:S: A. The issuance of permits, conduction of inspections and collection of ( fees shall be as provided for in Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code. ' The permit fees shall be: TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1.00 to $500.00 $5.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $5.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00. $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $20.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $112.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 550,000.00. $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $187.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 5287.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00. $500,001.00 and up $887.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $1.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or inaction tl:aruoC. (Amended 8/1/79 069) B. Surcharge - In addition to tho permit Coo required by Itom A above, the applicant shall pay n surcharge in the amount fixed by law. 4-1-5: FIRE ZONE DISTRICTS: All areas within the City of Monticello shall be in Fire Zone 03. 4-1-6: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: The ponalty described in the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, Section 205 no amended, shall be in keeping with Minnesota Statutes G09.031 which provides for a maximum fine of $500 or imprioonment for 90 days, or both. 4-1-7: EFFiRCTIVE DATE OF ORDINAIICE: The affective data of this Ordinance shall l be i 4-2-4 4-2-6 (Ci) Minimum Land Area Requirements: The minimum land area requirements shall be as specified in the Zoning Code for the zoning district in ` which tho proposed multiple dwelling unit is located. J For each parking space provided in or under an apartment building, three hundred (300) square feet may be deducted from the total area requirements. (C) Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required in the Zoning Cede for the zoning district in which the proposed multiple dwelling is located. 4-2-5: TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS: Duplexes or double bungalows shall have to following minimum floor areas: One thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet per building with a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet on the first floor, seven hundred fifty (750) square feet for a one bedroom unit plus one hundred fifty (150) square feet for each addi- tional bedroom. Garages, breezeway and porch floor speeds ,hall not be credited in determining the required floor aro a of units or buildings. There shall he a minimum of five hundred feet (500') frontage between buildings or units having the same exterior appearance. 4-2-6: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE FALAILY DWELLINGS (A) Structural, Electrical and mechanical Requirements: In addition to Code provisions relating to construction of all buildings, the following provisions shall apply to multiple family dwellings: , 1. Unless architecturally treated and designed to appear as an integral part of a wall, no air conditiono r shall protrude from an exterior wall. i 4-3-1 4-3-3 CHAPTER 3 SWIMMING POOL REGULATIONS SECTION: 4-3-1: Adoption of State Regulations 4-3-2: Fees 4-3-3: Enforcement 4-3-1: ADOPTION OF STATE. REGULATIONS: The Minnesota State Health Depart- ment Regulations on design, construction, operation and mainten- ance of public swimming and wading pools and the Minnesota State Health Department regulations on design and construction of private fixed pools ordinance, one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator, is hereby adopted as the Swimming Pool Ordinance of the City of Monticello for the purpose of regulating the installation, alter- ation, maintenance and repair of all swimming pools and for all build- ings; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees thereof, providing penalties for violation of such Ordinance. Every regula- tion, provision, penalty, condition and term contained in this Chapter hereby adopted and made a part hereof as if fujly set out in this Chapter except as hrorinafter modified. 4-3-2: FEES: For fee schedule, see Building Permit schedule. 4-3-3: ENFORCEMENT: The Building Official, or other qualified and authorized representative of tho City Council shall enforco the provisions of said Ordinance. 1 4-4-1 CHAPTER 4 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE SECTION: 4-4-1: Adoption of Uniform Housing Code 4-4-1 4-4-1: ADOPTION OF UNIFORM HOUSING CODE: The Uniform Housing Code (1979 Edition) (ane (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator) is hereby adopted as the Housing Code of the City of Monticello for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public and owners and occupants of residential buildings. For purposes of Enforcement, the Mayor and Council Members shall be appointed to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Hoard. (2-17-78 U46) K 4-5-1 CHAPTER 5 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS SECTION: 4-5-1: Adoption of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings 4-5-1 4-5-1: ADOPTION OF UNIFORIA CODE FOR TRE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDII4CS: The Uniform Code the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (1979 Edition) (one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator) is hereby adopted for the purpose of providing a just, equitable and practicable method whereby buildings or structures which, from any cause, endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public or their occupants, may be required to be repaired, vacated or demolished. For purposes of Enforcement, the myor and Council Members shall be appointed to the Board of Appea.G, (6-26-78 05GA) C MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL February 9, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran fair, Ken Maus, Phil White. Members Absent: None 1. Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Assessment Rolls for the 1980-1 and 1980-2 Improvement Projects. The 1980-1 Improvement Project included sewer, water and storm sewer improve- ments to the mocarlund Plaza area, and the 1980-2 Improvement Project included street improvements, water and sewer along 14airie Road to portions of The Meadows and The Brothers Plats. The proposed assessments for the following project areas were as follows: PROPOSED i SSESS:4Et T 1980-1 Macarlund Plaza Area Macarlund Plaza $ 78,348.51 Curtis Hoglund 20,319.54 Maurice Hoglund 11,884.39 $110,552.44 1980-2 Prairie Road Extension Mel woltcru - The Meadows - Lots 20-24, Block 4 S 25,471.72 Lot 11, Block 2 2,951.20 Quintin Lan nerd - The Brothers 17,339.52 S 45,762.44 No comments were heard from affected property owners during the Public Hearing, and therefore, a motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken tonus and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution certifying the access- ment rolls t.0 the County Auditor for the 1980-1 and 19RO-2 Improvement Projects, as proposed. (see Resolution 1981 07). 2. Consideration of a Resolution to Order Repair or Removal of Buildinro. Under Minnesota state statutes, City Council, upon a proper finding, may order the owner of a hazardous building to correct the hazardous condi- tion or remove the ntructure. An ordur to that effect is normally isaued to the owner, and if it is not complied with, the municipality can apply to _ the DILriet Court for enforcement. Thr, nwne.r may contest the order, and if so, a trial in held as coon no pouoiblo an which time the Court upholds or diamianno tliu Cuuncil'a order. If the ordur is not contested, the Court - 1 - Council Minutes - 2/9/81 authorizes the municipality to proceed with the necessary repair or removal. There is, however, a provision which allows the owner of the property to sign a consent form giving the City the authority for the removal or repair. Mr. Mike Reber, of Minnesota Growth Exchangers, the owner of the Joe Culp property on the south edge of town, has received a notice and order for the repair or removal of the dilapitated buildings located on this property. Mr. Reher has indicated that he has no objection to removal of the buildings, and has asked if the Monticello Fire Department would be willing to burn the buildings. The Fire Department has indicated a willing- ness to burn the buildings and has applied to the PCA for the necessary burning permits. In order for the City to receive consent from Mr. Reber to allow for these buildings to be destroyed, a Council Resolution would be necessary that merely confirms the agreement with the owner giving the City the consent to remove the buildings. A motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution to order the removal of the buildings located on Mr. Reher's property and confirming an agreement with Mr. Reher for doing the same. {See Resolution 1981 48) 3. Consideration of the Award of a Contract on the Demolition of the Oakwood School Building. On Monday afturnoon, February 9, 1981, at 2:00 P.M., t.onty-three (23) bids were received from various contractors on thu demolition and removal of the Oakwood School Building. The bids ranged In price from $24,400 from S h 1. Excavating from St. Cloud, Minnesota, to a high of $125,351.50 from kycm'a i>xcavating. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council the references provided by S & L Excavating, and recommended that the contract for demoli- tion of the School Building be awarded to the low bidder, S 6 L Excavating. Motion wan made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to award the contract on the demolition and removal of the Oakwood School Building to S 6 L Excavating in the amount of $24,400 contingent upon the firm meeting all specifications. 4. Review of 1980 Liquor Store Financial Statements Liquor store Manager, Mark Irmitur, reviewed with the Council Members the 1900 Liquor Store Financial Statempnto. It was noted that salon increased approximately 17% over 1979 figures with the operating income increasing approximately 13.814 or up $11,268. The net income for the entire liquor store operation rose over 35%, which wan due largely to oarninga from investments, which showed a high rate of return for 1980. Council Minutes - 2/9/81 Ido action was taken by the Council other than review of the financial statements as presented. 5. Consideration of the Adoption of a Resolution Approving Procedures for Authorizing Change Orders in the Construction Contract for Updating the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and Consideration of Three Change Orders with Paul A. Laurence Company. City Engineer, John Dadalich, recommended to the Council that three change orders be approved by the City Council in regards to the construction pro- gram at the Wastewater Treatment plant. These three change orders with the Contractor, Paul A. Laurence Company, are as follows: Change Order qt. - amount of $1,467.00 - Purpose: provide a new exterior door in the north exterior wall of the existing control building, which is required for access to the basement pump room from the outside. Change Order 02 - amount of $5,200.00 - Purpose: temporary office/trailer for the engineer's field per::onnel. Change Order N3 - amount of $3,039.75 - Purpose: new reuidenLial domestic well for not) anti Marion Jameson. In regards to future change orders, expected at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, it was Lhe recommendation of the City Engineer, John 8acialich, and City Administrator, Gary uieber, that chango orders of the above nature may occur in the future, And it may become difficult to atop the entire project's construction for Cho City Council to meet and approve each change order separately. It wan recommended that one possible way to Proceed would be to have the City Council approve all change orders in excess of $5,000 Prior to any actual work being commenced, and Lhat change orders of less than $5,000 could be approved by Lhe City's authorized reprosentativo on this project, Arve Grimsmo, Mayor, along with the Engineer's approval. in this fashion, minor change orders would be implemented lmmediatoly wi thout delaying the work with larger change orders bLing approved by the Council prior to the actual work starting. In all cases, the Change Ordern would be reviewers and ratified by the City Council, even those of less than 55,000. it was noted that this anangemont was roviuwed with Lhe legal counsel of tho State Auditor'u Off ice, and in their opinion, such a procosa would be legal. Because it was mtlicil.1t.ed t.haL a project. of Lhiumagnitude may incur futuro change orders, and in an ufforL to insure t.h.it the work will proceed without delays, motion was made by Iran pair, seconded by Phil Whito and unanimously carried to adoPL a enoolution adopLing proeuduruu for authorizing change urderu to he approved by th^ authorized roprooentative, Arvo Grimsmo, along with the City Engineer's approval, for all change orders of lcuu than $5,000, and also to approve the three change ordora as presented by the City Engineer with Paul A. Laurence Company Previously whnittod. (Seo Resolution 1901 09) (See Chango Orders al, 2 6 3) . Council Minutes - 2/9/81 G. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase and/or Solicitation of Bids or Quotes for Fouinment in the Public Works Department. Public Works Director, Jahn Simola, reviewed with the City Council a list of equipment purchases recommended for purchase during 1981. The list of items requested were as follows: Jet Machine - $22,000 (inclules utilizing existing chassis on '72 Intl. Truck) Dump Truck - $16,000 (plow and wing from '72 Intl. would be used) Pickup Truck - $7,000 Hoist - $4,000 Picnic shelter - Hillcrest Park - $2,600 Landscape Rake - $1,500 Water Valve Exerciser - $2,200 After review and discussion on each of the items requested, a motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to authorize the. purchase of an A -Frame Hoist from Skarnes, Inc. in the amount of $3,970. Motion was also made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to purchase a landscape rake in an amount not to exceed $1,200. In regards to the proposed picnic shelter in Hillcrest Park, it was the consensus of the Council to table any action on this item until a program is developed to determine which park areas will be developed in the future. Motion wan made by Ken Maus, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to authorize up to $3,500 for the purchase of a used pickup for the sewer and water department. Motion was made by Phil white, ascended by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to prepare Plans and specifications and to advertise for bids for a new sewer jet machine and a now dump truck chassis to replace the '72 International Truck. It was the consensus that the present '72 international Truck chassis would be used with the now jet machine with the dump body and plow attactunentu to bo used on the new dump truck when purchased. It was the consensus of the Council to table any action at the present time on the purchaao of a water valve exerciser. 7. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to approve the regular council meeting minutes of January 26, 1981 as presented. I - 4 - Council Minutes - 2/9/81 B. Review of Feasibility Report on 1981-1 and 1981-2 Improvement Projects. John Badalich, City Engineer, presented the Council with a preliminary feasibility report for the proposed improvements within The Meadows Subdivi- sion and the extension of sewer and water to property owned by USP along West River Road. By Council consensus, the City Engineer was directed to review the feasibility report in detail at the next Council meeting. Meeting adjourned. Rick Wolfstell Administrative Assistant RW/ns C - 5 - COUNCIL UPDATE February 23, 1981 Meetinq Consideration of New Paqers for the Monticello Fire Department Our Building Inspector, Loren Rlein, is working with the Fire Department in reviewing possible alternatives to the present paging system that the Monticello Fire Department currently has. After this matter is reviewed by the Fire Department along with our Building Inspector, a report will be presented to the City Council for a decision. Any decision would be contingent upon similar approval from the Township of Monticello. Removal of Bob Dowlinq Home. John Simola is currently working with two or three interested parties relative to the removal of the Bob Dowling hone. One party has indicated a willingness to move the structure to another rite if he can find a vacant lot in the City of Monticello. Since there is no particular urgency to removing this house, it is recommended that John consider and pursue other offers on this house before a proposal is awarded. Intoroat Income - Investments. In 1980, the City of Monticello oarnod over $219,000 in interest income on investments. This amount does not include interest earned on unpaid special assocamonts. GW/ns C 4-1-1 CHAPTER 1 BUILDING CODE SECTION: 4-1-1: Intent and Purpose 4-1-2: Building Code 4-1-3: Organization and Enforcement 4-1-4: Permits, Inspections and Fees 4-1-5: Fire Zone Districts 4-1-6: Violations and Penalties 4-1-7 : Effective Date of Ordinance 4-1-2 4-1-1: INTENT AILD PURPOSE: An Ordinance adopting the Minnesota Building Code; providing for its administration and enfoicemenC: regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and main- tenance of all buildings and/or structures in the City of Monticello: pro- viding for the issuance of permits and collection of fees. 4-1-2: BUILDING CODE: The Minne::ota State Building Code, one copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator, has been adopted by Minnesota Statutos 16.851 (1977) as a uniform building code applicable throughout the Stnte. Such code is hereby confirmed as the build- ing code of the City of Monticello and incorporated in this ordinance as completely as if set out in full. A. The 1920 Edition of the State Building Code adopts by reference the following codes: 1. 1979 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, identified as "UBC'; 2. 1978 Edition of the National Electric Code, identified as "NEC'; 3. 1978 American national standard Safety Code for Elovatoro, Dumb- waiters, Eucalators and Moving Walks, identified an ANSI A17.1 - 1978 and Supplement, ANSI A17.10 - 1979. 4. 1979 Minnesota Plumbing Code, identified as MID 120 through f411D 135. 5. "Flood Proofing Regulat.iono", June 1972, Office, of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army. 6. Minnesota Heating, Vantilntinq, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Code, identified au SBC 7101 through SBC 8505. 7. "Design and Evaluation Criteria for linorgy Conservation in new Buildings, Additions and Rcmodeled ElemenLa of Buildings and Standards for Certain I:xistlnq Public Buildings", iduntifiud as 2MCAR Section 1.16001 through 2MCAR Section 1.16U06. U. State of Minnouota Mobilo Home Installation Standardt: 1977, identified as 211CAR 1.90450 inatallationa and related definitions In 2MCA11 1.90103. 4-1-2 4-1-3 9. Standards of Performance for Solar Energy Systems and Subsystems Applied to Energy Need of Buildings, 1977 Edition, identified as 2MCAR 1.16101 through 2MCAR 1.16108. B. in addition to those items listed above, Certain Appendices, Standards and Supplemental Materials referenced in the Code are hereby adopted by reference as part of the Building Code of the City of Monticello and incorporated into this Ordinance as completely as if set out in full, including but are not limited to the following: 1. Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters, identified as SBC Appendix "A". 2. Variations in Snow Loads, identified as Minnesota State Building Code, Appendix "B". 3. 1979 Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 35. 4. Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendix "B". C. The following Appendices, Standards and Supplemental Materials are not a mandatory part of the Code but are adopted by reference for the City of Monticello and are incorporated into this Ordinance as completely as if set out in full. 1. Minnenota State Building Code Appendix "C". Abbreviations and addresses of Technical Organizations. 2. 1979 URC Appendix, Chapters 12, 38, 48, 49, 55 and 70. 3. Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendices C 6 D. 4. Flood Proofing Rogulationa, Sections 201.2 through 208.2. 4-1-3: ORGAN12ATION AND ENFORCEMENT: The organization of the Building Department and enforcement of the code shall be conducted within the guidelines outabl.inhed by Chapter 2 of the Uniform Building Code 1979 Edition. The Code shall be enforced within the incorporated limita of the City of Monticello and any extra-torritorial limita permitted by low. Extra-territ.orial limita shall be any area, incorporated or unincorporated, docignated under a Joint Powers Agreement entered Into by the City of Monticello and any other, township/village/city/county. The Building Departmunt ohall be the Building Code Department of the City of Monticello. The Adminiutrative Authority shall be a Stato Certified "Building Official" oo designated by the Appoint Authority. The Appointing Authority shall be the City Council of the City of Monticello. 4-1-4 4-1-7 4-1-4: PERMITS, INSPECTI0NS AND FEES: A. The issuance of permits, conduction of inspections and collection of ( fees shall be as provided for in Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code. The permit fees shall be: TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1.00 to $500.00 $5.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $5.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00. $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $20.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $112.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thr_roof, to and including $50,000.00. $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $187.00 for the tirst $50,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $287.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50(),000.00. $500,001.00 and up $887.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $1.00 fur each additional $1,000.00 (Amended 13/1/79 069) or fraction theroof. B. Surcharge - In addition ,.o tho pu,.'mit fee required by Item A above, the applicant shall pay a surcharge in the tumount fixed by law. 4-1-5: FIRE ZONE OISTRICISt All areas within the City of Monticello shall bo in Fire. Zono 113. 4-14,: VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIESi The penalty doscribed in the Uniform Building Coda, 1979 Edition, Section 205 as amended, shall be in keeping with minneaotn .totutos 609.031 which provides for a maximum fine of $500 or imprisonment fur 90 days, of Loth. EFFr..CTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE: The affective date of this Ordinance shall ixt r M 4-2-4 4-2-6 (8) Minimum Sand Area Requirements: The minimum land area requirements shall be as specified in the Zoning Code for the zoning district in which the proposed multiple dwelling unit is located_ For each parking space provided in or under an apartment building, three hundred (300) square feet may be dedu^_ted from the total area requirements. (C) Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required in the Zoning Code for the zoning district in which the proposed multiple dwelling is located. 4-2-5: TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS: Duplexes or double bungalows shall have the following minimum floor areas: one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet per building with a minimum of one thousand (1,000) square feet on the first floor, seven hundred fifty (750) square feet for a one bedroom unit plus one hundred fifty (150) square feet for each addi- tional bedroom. Garages, breezeway and porch floor spaces shall not be credited in determining the required floor area of units or buildings. There shall be a minimum of five hundred feet (500') frontage between buildings or units having the same exterior appearance. 4-2-6: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE. FAMILY DWELLItdCS: (A) Structural, Clectrical and Mechanical Rcquirements: In addition to Code provisions relating to construction of all buildings, the following provisions shall apply to multiple family dwellings: 1. Unless architecturally treated and designed to appear as an integrnl part of a wall, no ari conditioner shall protrude from an exterior wall. C 4-3-1 4-3-3 CHAPTER 3 SWIMMING POOL REGULATIONS SECTION: 4-3-1: Adoption of State Regulations 4-3-2: Fees 4-3-3: Enforcement 4-3-1: ADOPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS: The Minnesota State Health Depart- ment Regula tions on design, construction, operation and mainten- ance of public swimming and wading pools and the Minnesota State Health Department regulations on design and construction of private fixed pools ordinance, one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator, is her©by adopted au the Swimming Pool Ordinance of the City of Monticello for the purpose of regulating the installation, alter- ation, maintenance anci repair of all swimming pools and for all build- ings; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees thereof, providing penalties for violation of such Ordinance. Every regula- tion, provision, penalty, condition and term contained in this Chapter hereby adopted and maeio a part hereof as if fujly set out in this Chapter except as hrerinafter modified. 4-3-2: FEES: For Eno schodule, Goo Building Permit schedule. 4-3-3: ENFORCEWNT: The Building Official, or other qualified and authorized representative of the City Council shall enforce the provisions of said Ordlinanco. 4-4-1 CHAPTER 4 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE SECTION: 4-4-1: Adoption of Uniform !Sousing Code 4-4-1 4-4-1: ADOPTION OF UNIFORM HOUSING CODE: Tho Uniform housing Code (1979 Edition) (one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator) is hereby adopted as the Housing Code of the City of Monticello for tho purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public and owners and occupants of residential buildings. For purposes of Enforcement, the Mayor and Council Members shall be appointed to the (lousing Advisory and Appeals hoard. (2-13-78 046) 4-5-1 CHAPTER 5 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS 13UILDINGS SECTION: 4-5-1: Adoption of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings 4-5-1 4-5-1: ADOPTION OF UNIFORM CODE FOR TUE ABATEMENT OF DA17GF.ROUS BUILDI14CS: The Uniform Code the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (1979 Edition) (one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Administrator) is hereby adopted fur the purpose of providing a just, equitable and practicable, method whereby buildings or structures which, from any cause, endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public or their occupants, may be required to be repaired, vacated or demolished. For purposes of Enforcement, the Mayor and Council Members shall be appointed to the Board of Appeals. (6-26-78 #56A)