Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 07-28-1980AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL ✓ July 28, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve Grimsmo Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Ph it White. Meeting to be taped. a _� Citizens Comments P 1. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a Pylon Sign within a Front Yard - Jim Maus. P2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Lot Width Variance - Kenneth Larson. i1 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance Request for Sideyard C� Setback - Udene Slinde. ^, P4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Sideyard Setbac k Variance - Quintin Lanners. P5. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Rezoning o f Christopher Property - Quintin Lanners. p �6. Consideration of Approval of Final Pi at for Macarlu nd Plaza. Y A 7. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications for the 1980-1 and 1980-2 improvement Projects, to Serve Macarlund Pla za and a Port on of Prairie Road. Q Do �.'04S 17 K-10" Q8. Consideration of Subdivision Request for John Sand b erg in Sandberg's Riverside Addition. P9. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Conditional Use for a Church - t�' First Baptist Church. 0. Consideration of Sign Ordinance Amendment. J 11. Consideration of Planned Unit Development for 36-Unit, Section 8 Sub- sidized Housing, Variances and Subdivision - Lots 1 2 and Portion of 3, ow Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace - Reinert Homes, inc. 11 �12. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments Regulating Home Occupations. t� 13. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request Gary Corrow. 14. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request - St. Peter's Lutheran Church. 15. Consideration of Approval of Simple Subdivision Request for the 1% Assembly of God Church. `16. Consideration of Approval of On-Sale ilon- Intoxicati ng Liquor License - Friends Cafe. �17. Consideration of Approval of Architectural Contract with McEnary, Krafft Birch 6 Kilgore, Inc. ,i� �18. Approval of Bills - July 1980. �? 19. Approval of Minutes - 7/14/80 Regular Meeting. % Kx,Qy Unfinishedd Business Mew Business - �-.b. M19 - 1.10/e1 1S".M• lb Council Agenda - 7/28/80 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a Pylon Sign within a Front Yard - Jim Maus. PURPOSE: Request has been received from Jim Maus to erect a sign within the front yard for the present Stor-A-Way building on Highway 25 in Monticello. According to the Monticello City Ordinance, all structures cannot be built within the frontyard setbacks without a variance. Normally, structures are considered to be buildings, but technical reading of this provision could be construed to also include signs, etc. As a result, all recent requests for signs have been required to adhere to the setback requirements that apply to the building, unless a variance is requested. Jim Maus would like to put the sign as close as possible to the property line for his proposed tire shop. This sign would conform to all other aspects of Monticello Ordinances regulating signs. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their meeting on June 10, 1980, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance, since previous pylon setback requests have been granted. The Planning Commission did indicate in their recommendation that the sign should not overhang into the right-of-way, however. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of variance request to allow a pylon sign within a frontyard setback. (Variance requests require 4/5's vote of Council for approval.) Council Agenda - 7/28/80 2. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Lot Width Variance - Kenneth Larson. PURPOSE: Previously, a request had been made by Mr. Kenneth Larson for as simple subdivision of property. Fir. Larson received approval at the May 27, 1980 Council meeting to subdivide the E-51' of Lot 6 and all of Lots 7 6 8, Block 32, Lower Monticello, into two equal parcels, each of which would be approximately 82�' x 183', or 15,097'5 sq. ft., approx- imately. However, now Mr. Larson would like to request a variance to have one of the lots 75' in width, which would require a 5' variance from the City's minimum lot width requirement of 80'. Reason for the request is that apparently Mr. Larson already had an agreement drawn up for the sale of this property, and has built a chain-link fence on the property line, which would create a 75' lot and the remaining lot would be 90' in width. Consensus of the Planning Commission at their July 22, 1980 meeting was to recommend approval to the Council of the variance request. Even though this was a newly created subdivision, it was felt it does exist in the older part of the City where some of the lots are only 165' x 66' in width. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of variance to create a lot that is 5' less than the City's minimum width standard of 80'. (4/5's vote of Council is required for approval of variances). REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of certificate of survey showing the newly created property line as requested. C -2- Council Agenda - 7/28/80 3. Public Hearinq - Consideration of Variance Request for Sideyard Setback - Udene Slinde. PURPOSE: Consider request by Udene Slinde for a 5' sideyard variance to bid a double attached garage to his home on Lot 3, Block 3, Anders -Wilhelm Estates. At the time the house was initially built, there was 31�' between the house and the north property line (the side to which the garage is proposed to be added). Since the time of its construction, it has been purchased by a new owner who would like to have a double garage attached on the north side of the house. Since this is a variance request, the public hearing is held at the Council level, and at the time of the writing of this agenda, no objec- tions have been received from abutting property owners. At their July 22, 1980 discussion of this item, the Planning Commission, by consensus, recommended approval to the entire entire Planning Commis- sion board to eventually be brought to the City Council. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of 5' variance request. (4/5's vote of Council is required for variance approval). REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan. / - 3 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Sideyard Setback Variance - Quintln Lanners. PURPOSE: To consider a 5' variance for Quintin Lanners to construct a 22' attached garage on Lot 3, Block 1, Kampa Estates. Mr. Lanners indicates that at the time the basement was dug at this dwelling, he made a mistake in that the stakes were located in the wrong place and consequently, the basement was dug 7' too far west, and thus, it is necessary to have a variance of 5' in order that a 22' garage can be attached to this house. According to Mr. Lanners, this mistake was not discovered until recently when the proposed garage footings were about to be dug. The reason he indicated that it was not discovered until recently is that the basement was dug this past winter and the garage was left to be built after the ground had thawed. Mr. Lanners indicated further that he has reduced the garage size due to the mistake to 22' instead of 24'. It should be pointed out that Mr. Quintin Lanners is the abutting pro- 10�v/ perty owner of the adjacent lot. N At their July 22, 1980 meeting relative to this item, it was the con- Of sensus of those members present to recommend approval to the ful 1 P Planning Commission meeting for forwarding to the City Council. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request for 5' sideyard setback to build an attached garage. (Note: 4/5's vote of council is required for variance approval). REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan. - 4 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 5. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Rezoning of Christopher Property - Ouintin Lanners. PURPOSE: To consider request of Quintin Lanners to subdivide and rezone the present property owned by Mrs. Don Christopher. Quintin Lanners is proposing to subdivide the present Mrs. Don Christopher property, located directly west of the Balboul Estates, into nine lots. Of these nine lots, his request is to rezone Lot 1 to R-3 and Lots 2 thru 9 to R-2. His request for rezoning Lots 2 thru 9 to R-2 would be based on his desire to build duplexes on each of these lots, which would be individually owned by the people who reside within the unit, rather than to have them owned by one owner and have rental units. These duplex units would be the same as those which were recommended for approval at a previous Planning Commission meeting and approved at a previous Council Meeting for another lot owned by Mr. Lanners in another area of Monticello, and also would be done at the recommendation of our City Planner. The square footage of Lots 2 thru 9 range in size from 10,175 sq. ft., which meets the minimum lot size required in an R-2 zone, to 29,100 sq. ft., which is approximately three times the size of a minimum lot allowed in an R-2 zone. At the time of this meeting, a comment back from Howard Dahlgren Associates was to recommend this subdivision and rezoning request because of the reasonable transition between the Freeway and the R-1 zoning. John Badalich, the City Engineer, has not submitted his comments at this time; however, if they should be forthcoming before the meeting Monday night, they will be delivered to you separately so you might have time to review them prior to the meeting. One concern expressed by Mr. Badalich was adequate provisions would have to be made for drainage. At this time, it appears that Mr. Lanners will propose a cash contri- bution for park dedication. At the last Planning Commission meeting upon which any action was taken on this subdivision plat, it was unanimously approved to recommend approval of the subdivision request and to recommend approval of the rezoning requests as requested, contingent upon comments from John Badalich, City Engineer. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of subdivision and rezoning requests on this plat. (Note: rezoning's require 4/5's vote for approval). REFERENCES: Plat plan available for review at City Hall. Comments from John Badalich will be delivered separately if received prior to Monday night. -5- Council Agenda - 7/28/80 6. Consideration of Approval of Final Plat for Macarlund Plaza. PURPOSE: To consider the approval of the final plat proposed by Curtis Hod, consisting of 9.4 Acres. A preliminary plat was reviewed by the Plenning Commission and sent for- ward to the Council and approved at the City Council's October 22, 1979 meeting. This 9.4 acre plat includes an area proposed for townhouse development for 30 units, and the remaining plat is scheduled for commercial development, which is compatible with the zoning of this area. According to Monticello City Ordinance, City Council approval is necessary for the final plat. The final plat is essentially equivalent to the preliminary plat approved, and I have forwarded a copy of the final plat to John Badalich, with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates, for his comments. Park dedication has been proposed in land with any remaining balance to meet the City's 10% requirement proposed in cash. I will review the proposal by the developers for this item and review with the Council Monday night. Additionally, it will be necessary to obtain easements for sewer, water and storm sewer for this plat, and the approval should be contingent upon receiving the necessary easements al so. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of final plat contingent upon receiving deed to land dedicated for park purposes, along with amount due for the balance of the park dedication fee requirement, plus the necessary easements for utilities. REFEREiICES: Final plat available for review at City Hall. - 6 - Council Agenda - 1/28/80 7. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications for the 1980-1 and 1980-2 Improvement Projects, to Serve Macarlund Plaza and a Portion of Prairie Road. PURPOSE: To consider the approval of Plans and Specifications that have been prepared by our engineering firm. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 8 Associates, for the extension of storm sewer, watermain, and sanitary sewer along with the appurtenant street work for Macarlund Plaza, and additionally, the extension of 700' of 10" sanitary sewer, 550' of 6" watermain and 500' of bituminous street paving on Prairie Road. Both of these items have previously been the subject of public hearings as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. These Plans and Specifi- cations have been completed for some time but have been delayed in being brought forward to the City Council until a final plat of Macarlund Plaza was presented, which also is on Monday night's agenda, and additionally, a matter of the rezoning and subdivision plat approval for The Brothers Plat could be resolved, and this item also is on the agenda for Monday night. As you may recall, with the extension of Prairie Road, the owners of the property at that time. Mr. 8 Mrs. Donald Christopher, were opposed unless they could sell the property and have it developed. In the mean- time, Mr. Christopher has passed away, however, Mr. Quintin Lanners has an option on the property contingent upon receiving the necessary approval from the City Council. Total cost of the improvement of Macarlund Plaza is estimated to be $106,100 and the cost of the extension of the Prairie Road improvements would be $61,080, for a total project cost estimate of $167,180. Addi- tionally, at a later date, there could be the possibility of servicing in addition to Prairie Road, the Brothers Plat itself with services, but �\ this could be within the scope of a change order on this project. In talking with John Badalich, he advised the City consider the project at this time although it is relatively late in the year to start a con- struction project, but John felt because of favorable construction costs, the City should go forward, although it would be summer of 1981 before the project would be complete in terms of paving and restoration work. - 7 - C._ Council Agenda - 7/28/80 According to the subdivision ordinance, there is a provision that reads as follows: "Prior to the making of such required improvements, the City Council shall require the owner or subdivider to pay to the City an amount equal to the minimum of 25% up to 100% of the estimated total cost of such improvements including not only construction, but all indirect costs." Purpose of this provision was to require a financial commitment on the part of the developer since the City of Monticello would, in effect, be borrowing money to construct such a project. However, in practicality, it is hard to enforce especially where a developer may request improve- ments and in order to get to his particular plat, other parcels of land have to be served with the utilities. In other words, it is pretty hard to get 25% of the total cost of the improvement project when, in effect, some of the people who have been served with sewer and water may be actually opposed to the project or may be neutral, but certainly would not be willing to come up with a 25% front end cost. Also, if a developer requests an improvement and is served entirely to his parcel, it is probably not really fair to have him come up with front end money because it is practical in one case and not practical in another. As a result, I would recommend that we waive the front end requirement in both cases. The Ordinance could still be left as is and if, after a time, the City decides it might have some merit in some cases, it could apply it. However, in the future, you may want to consider amending the ordinance. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project 1980-1 and 1980-2. The approval for the1980-1 project to serve Macarlund Plaza should be contingent upon receiving the necessary casements for the utilities and consideration of waiving front end costs. REFERENCES: Copies of the Plans and Specifications are quite thick and elaborate, and as a result, were not sent out, but are available for review at the Monticello City Hall. Council Agenda - 7/28/80 9. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Conditional Use for a Church - First Baptist Church. PURPOSE: To consider a request by the First Baptist Church to build a 6,000 sq. ft. church on their property along County Road 75 in Monticello, along with a subdivision to split the parcel they now have into one parcel for the Church and another parcel for the existing Church which would possibly be resold for a Day Care Center, which was pre- viously approved by the City Council. According to the plat plan, copy of which is enclosed, there is sufficient space in the subdivision for both the newly created parcels to be more than adequate to meet the City of Monticello's requirement of 10,000 square feet in an R-2 zone. As you can see by the Plat Plan, there is space within the newly created lot for the proposed church that would allow for an addition. In reviewing this plan, Loren Klein(Zoning Adm.) indicates that the First Baptist Church adheres to all zoning requirements including parking, with the exception that they are proposing a variance on the south side of their parking lot not to require curbing. This variance is requested so that if a new church addition is built, the parking lot could be expanded and would not necessarily destroy the already inplace curb in order to expand that parking lot. One other alternative in considering this variance may be to allow this to be the type of curb similar to that put in at Tom Thumb so that the curb could merely be set back in the future, although the Church may ideally desire the same type of curb throughout their development when it is finally completed. At their July 22, 1980 meeting on this item, the Planning Commission members presented voted to recommend to the full Planning Commission approval of the subdivision variance and conditional use permit for a Church, which is required in an R-2 zone. At the Public Hearing on this matter, there were no objections to this proposal. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of subdivision and conditional use permit request, along with the variance relative to the curbing on the south side of the parking lot proposed. (Variance requires 4/5's for approval). REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan for the Church. C Council Agenda - 7/28/80 10. Consideration of Sign Ordinance Amendment. PURPOSE: To consider sign ordinance amendment that deals with those off -premise signs (billboards) that are 200 square feet or less, and additionally, the remaining non -conforming signs - that is, signs that may be too large, or signs that are flashing, etc. Previously, the City Council of Nonticello did grandfather in those off -premise signs (billboards) that were greater than 200 square feet, but required their removal at such time as the particular lot was developed and the sign is no longer the principal use. Bob Ryan, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, has sent a memorandum dated June 20, 1980 relative to this matter. He addresses the following three items in the matter indicated: A. The wording "on premise" should be added to the informational and directional sign definition. The reason for this is to clarify the fact that the City of Monticello does allow directional signs that are on premise - for example,a banking facility would be able to indicate drive in window, entrance, etc., but this should not be construed to allow off premise signs such as "banking facility 2 blocks". B. A section should be added to the ordinance that indicates that signs 1 of 199 square feet or less that were in place on or before a date could continue as a non -conforming use. In this manner, all existing off -premise signs that are 200 square feet or less would be grand- fathered in, and unlike the signs that are 200 square feet or greater, they could continue on the site regardless of whether the sign itself was a principal use or not. One of the reasons this was addressed is because some of the signs of this nature are already on parcels that have another principal use. C. Provision should be added to say that the temporary use of search lights and banners shall be done by permit which is issued for a maximum period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property. This is to prevent any individual from taking out a temporary permit on a continuing basis for banners, pennants, etc. At the Planning Commission meeting on July 22, 1980, there was testimony received from the Monticello Mall Association that, if the Monticello fIall had to remove one of its existing pylon signs (only one is allowed according to ordinance), it would cost from $5,000 to $7,000 for the removal cost, and they requested that the City consider grandfathering in these types of signs. Y -12 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 The Planning Commission members present at the July 22, 1980 meeting voted to recommend to the entire Planning Commission the ordinance 5A M amendments outlined by Bob Ryan above, and additionally, recommended grandfathering in all existing non -conforming signs which would include signs that may be too large, too many, flashing signs, etc. Reasoning for this recommendation is that it was felt that these signs were granted approval at one time and should not be amortized out since there is not as much concern with these signs as there are with the larger billboards. In their recommendation was included the provision that the non -conform- ing sign must have been erected prior to August 21, 1975 (date of new ordinance prohibiting these types of signs). POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Ordinance Amendment which would adopt the provisions in items A, B d C above, and additionally, grandfather in all existing non -conforming signs with the exception, of course, of billboards over 200 square feet, as a non -conforming use which could remain whether they are a principal use or not. (Note: Ordinance Amendment requires 4/5's vote of Council for approval). REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of memorandum from Bob Ryan, with Howard Dahlgren Associates, dated June 20, 1980. - 13 - Council Agenda 7/28/80 11 . Consideration of Planned Unit Development for 36 -Unit, Section 8 Sub- sidized Housinq, Variances and Subdivision - Lots 1, 2 and portion of 3. Block 1, Laurinq Hillside Terrace - Reinert Homes Inc. PURPOSE: To consider a conditional use for 36 -units of Section 8 sub- sidized housing along with variances from the City of Monticello ordinances relative to parking and a subdivision of Lot 3, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition. Reinert Homes, inc. has received approval from the idinnesota Housing Finance Agency for Section 8 (low and moderate income) family housing, to construct 36 residential dwelling units in the City of Monticello along Lauring Lane. This development consists of 29 two-bedroom units, 6 3 -bedroom units and 1 two-bedroom handicapped unit. Floor area of the two-bedroom units, except for the handicapped which is 1,179 sq.ft., is 1,090 sq. ft., and the three-bedroom floor area is 1,368 sq. ft. These 36 units are located and interspersed on the parcel in five clusters, ranging from 5 to 9 units per cluster, similar to a townhouse arrangement. It is proposed that a Planned Unit Development, which is a conditional use within an R-3, is the best way to consider such a housing project according to Bob Ryan with our consulting planning firm, Howard Dahlgren Associates. In addition to the necessity of obtaining a conditional use permit for the Planned Unit Development (PUD), it is necessary to obtain variances from the City of Monticello's provision for parking in that the City of Monti- cello requires one garage for every two units and only eight garages are being provided, where the ordinance would require 18, and additionally, the ordinance requires a total of 2 parking spaces per unit where there are only going to be a total of 54 parking spaces provided, According to the July 17, 1980 memorandum from Bob Ryan, copy of which is enclosed, there is a decreasing number of vehicles per household, and his recom- mendation is that the 54 spaces being provided, or 1.5 spaces per unit, would be adequate. Additionally, in the memo, he does allude to the fact that the City, may in the future, want to consider amending its ordinance relative to the number of spaces and also considering a portion of the spaces could be reduced in size to accommodate compact cars. Additionally, Hr. Ryan recommends approval of the variance for the number of garages. One other item that is being requested by Reinert Homes, Inc. is the subdivision of Lot 3, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. Reinert Homes, inc. feels that in order to adequately accommodate the project, it was neces- sary to obtain a portion of Lot 3 making the entire site, if approved. 3.02 acres. - 14 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 According to a 1980 change by the !Minnesota Legislature, although sub- sidized housing does not pay full real estate taxes, the City of Monticello will receive a rebate through the State of Minnesota, which will be the equivalent of receiving full real estate taxes from any subsidized housing project. The Public Hearing on this item was held at the July 22, 1980 Planning Commission meeting, and no objections were received on the proposed project. The Planning Commission members present recommended to the full Planning Commission, approval of the Planned Unit Development, variances requested, and subdivision, contingent upon the developer providing an easement to the owner of the remaining portion of Lot 3, to allow him to have access to the sewer and water stub in which was put in on the western portion of Lot 3 that Reinert Homes, Inc. is pur- chasing, along with the contingency that the approval should be subject to the City Engineer's review of drainage plan, etc. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of conditional use request for a Planned Unit Development, parking variances, and subdivision of Lot 3, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, contingent upon providing the necessary easement indicated in the above paragraph, along with appro- val from the City Engineer. (Note: 4/5's vote of Council is required for approval of variances and conditional use requests). REFERENCES: July 18, 1980 memorandum from Reinert Homes summarizing the project; July 17, 1980 letter from Bob Ryan relative to parking; and site layout and elevation plans enclosed. - 15 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 -12. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments Regulating Home Occuoations. PURPOSE: To consider a possible amendment which would make essentially all home occupations a conditional use rather than allowing some as permitted uses and others as regulated by a variance. Listed below is the definition of Home Occupation, and according to the City of Monticello ordinances, any type of occupation which falls within the definition is a permitted use within a residential district: "Any gainful occupation engaged in by the occupants of a dwelling at or from the dwelling. Such activity shall be clearly inci- dental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. Permissable home occupations shall not include the conducting of a retail business other than by mail, manufacturing business, or a repair shop of any kind on the premises, and no stock in trade shall be kept or sold. No other than person residing on the premises shall be employed, and no mechanical equipment shall be employed that is not customarily found in the home and no more than one (1) room may be devoted to home occupation use. Such home occupation shall not require internal or external alterations or involve con- struction features not customarily found in dwellings. The entrance to the space devoted to such occupations shall be within the dwelling. There shall be no exterior display, no exterior signs except as allowed in the sign regulations for the zoning district in which such home occupation is located. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or materials used in the home occupation. No home occupa- tion shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking at any given point in time. Permissable home occupations include, but are not limited to, the following: art studio, dressmaking, special offices of a clergyman, lawyer, architect, engineer, accountant, or real estate agent or appraiser, when located in a dwelling unit occupied by the same; and teaching, with musical, dancing and other instruction limited to one (1) pupil at one time." in the past, the City of Monticello has received numerous requests for beauty shops as an example, on a variance basis, to allow them as a home occupation. It was felt by some members of the Planning Commission and the Council that there are certain uses already defined in the ordinance as allowable, such as real estate agent, that could be more of a detriment to a neighborhood than a beauty shop, for example. As a result, the Plan- ning Commission held a hearing on making all home occupations a conditional use rather than allowing all home occupations as a p?rmitted use because in this fashion, the City still would have the control. 16 - Council Agenda - 1/28/80 At their last meeting on July 22, 1980, relative to this matter, a hearing was held, and there was no testimony pro or con relative to the issue. At this meeting, Loren Klein and Ed Schaffer's recommenda- tion would be to the full Planning Commission that all home occupations would be regulated through means of a conditional use; however, John �v Bondhus did not feel that it was necessary to regulate all home occupations through a conditional use. As previously mentioned, the �P Planning Cornmission will meet in its entire body on July 28, 1980 at 5:00 P.M. prior to the Council meeting and their recommendation will be brought forward to the Council. I believe there is merit in considering ail home occupations as a condi- tional use, as this will give the City Council control over those types of uses that may be harmful to a neighborhood and for those that are not, the process of getting approval would be fairly simple. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to amend the ordinance requiring all home occupations to be a conditional use with the same conditions that are addressed in the definition currently. (Note: Ordinance Amendments require 4/5's vote of Council for approval). REFERENCES: None - 17 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 13. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request - Gary Corrow. PURPOSE: Gary Corrow is requesting a subdivision of the parcel on which Ti -s tome is now situated along Cedar Street - the site itself is just west of the Silver Fox Motel . This simple subdivision would create two lots, one of which would contain an existing barn and the second lot which would contain his house. Although no additional variances would be necessary since the newly created lots more than meet the City of Monticello's minimum requirements for a lot size within a B-3 zone, the existing barn,as you can see by the enclosed certificate of survey, is situated fairly close to the sideyard and rearyard lot lines, but this is an existing condition. At their July 22, 1980 meeting on this, those Planning Commission members present recommended to the entire Planning Commission approval of the simple subdivision. It should be pointed out that Gary Corrow's home is being served under the 1979-1 improvement Project that is being completed by Barbarossa Construction, and initially, the consensus of the Council was to assess homesteads over 20 years, although the assessment hearing has not been held and a final decision is still pending. in the case of the newly created lot on which the barn is situated, it appears that this could be assessed over a ten year period of time since it would to no longer be part of the homestead. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of subdivision. REFERENCES: Copy of certificate of survey showing this parcel is enclosed. 0 - 18 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 -� 14. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request - St. Peter's Lutheran Church. C PURPOSE: Consider request by St. Peter's Lutheran Church to subdivide Lots 2, 3, 4 8 5, Block 14, into two parcels. The proposal by the Church is to subdivide Lot 5 and the W35 of Lot 4 from the entire parcel of land on which the present parsonage, garage and Church is situated on, to create two parcels. The westerly parcel then would be the site of the existing parsonage plus the garage, which accord- ing to the plat plan enclosed, does straddle the newly created lot line if approved. However, the Church's intent is to remove the garage and the parsonage and build a new parsonage on the south half of this newly created lot. At their meeting on July 22, 1980, those Planning Commission members present by consensus recommended approval of this subdivision to the entire Planning Commission. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of simple subdivision con- tingent upon removal of existing garage and parsonage prior to occupation of the newly proposed parsonage. This contingency would then take care of the matter of the fact that the current garage straddles the newly proposed property line, and also the fact it eliminates the possibility of having two houses on one lot. REFERENCES: Copy of the certificate of survey. - 19 1-7 �p Or LOT A 0O N OR T 4.1 lw .., Ir oe LOT ti MEYER-ROHLINi ENGISrERS-LAND SURVEYO 1111 Hwy, 2sm. suffato. Minn. (_1 G Council Agenda 7/28/80 15. Consideration of Approval of Simple Subdivision Request for the Assembly of God Church. PURPOSE: Consider request by the Assembly of God Church to subdivide the east It of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10, Block 35, into one parcel of 14,335 square feet and the remaining 1,800 square feet would be added to the Assembly of God Church parcel to the south on which the existing Church sits. The parcel of 14,335 sq.ft. is currently where the existing parsonage now is situated. This subdivision does not require any variances and the subdivision does meet the minimum lot requirements. At their July 22, 1980, those members present of the Planning Commission V/ recommended approval to the full Planning Commission. L O POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of simple subdivi- _A�1 sion contingent upon receipt of a certificate of survey. o Y' REFERENCES: Enclosed drawing showing the lots and proposed subdivision. -20- Council Agenda - 7/28/80 16. Consideration of Approval of On -Sale Ron-Intoxicatinq Liquor License - Friends Cafe. PURPOSE: Consider a request from Ms. Betty Frazier, owner of the Friends Cafe, for a 3.2 beer (non -intoxicating liquor) license. Previously, this establishment has had an on -sale non -intoxicating liquor license, and at one time, also had an off -sale non -intoxicating liquor license. Hs. Frazier indicated her only request is for an on -sale non - intoxicating liquor license to allow patrons of her restaurant the oppor- tunity to have a beer with their lunch. The Friends Cafe does meet all the requirements of the City of Monticello ordinance for a non -intoxicating liquor license. POSSIELE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of non -intoxicating liquor license for the Friends Cafe. - 21 - C Council Agenda - 7/28/80 17. Consideration of Approval of Architectural Contract with McEnary, Krafft, Birch 8 Kilqore, inc. PURPOSE: To consider approval of a contract for architectural services for the proposed library. This item was taken up at our last meeting, and it was tabled until some issues relative to fee could be worked out. Since that time, 1 have talked to Merrill Birch, and he has agreed that the fee .should be changed to $42,000 for a 6,000 sq.ft. building and for every additional square foot, there would be a charge of $5.00 and for every decrease in square footage, there would be a resulting decrease in the architectural fees of $6.00 per sq.ft. Additionally, he has agreed to add provisions in the clauses relative to reimbursable fees and consulting fees to indicate that this would only be after approval in writing from the Owner. lir. Birch's main concern was that they would be picking up these fees as part of their contract, except that if the City made an unusual request such as visiting a library in Duluth or some related incident like that. There is also a provision where that the City would only be responsible for the schematic design fee, which is 15% of the total contract, should the City not decide to go beyond the schematic design phase due to a defeat in a referendum or something of this nature. i have sent the revised contract to Gary Pringle for his review and 1 will have his comments by Monday night's meeting. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of revised contract with architectural firm of McEnary, Krafft, Birch 8 Kilgore, Inc. for architectural services for the proposed library. REFERENCES: Copy of revised contract. . 22 � `. T J {� ^t.,+.1 l• V 4 �• r 4 x+17 C Ap vim. V �P of r ,, o + 9 • -1• t = t :0 i t 1 � ro• s t 1 p8� 4 r a .. lowajy.�- Wofteee eowiteuctiom Co. MONTICELLO. MINN. 55362 • PHONE 2955801 R ��� 3 r3f�1��C'3 ,�--t �. � i / t � t't n rc •rt ,•r �= S w «rs �1 i'�'ci C5 µ' N t 3 i l dor 3- ELL ( pam •Pa csvmes t _ r -�- i 1?t•6 y 71il_• 73, 1990 ORR-SCHELEN• MHERON ItASSOCIATE& INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. .:J. (;nr.•+ t•liouer Cit.•• A"!'.1iaigtrator City of r:onticcllo 1-5. L'aot ;:roalway -Monticello, Ninnenota 51352 Ras Revised Preliminary Flat, ]he Brothers Dear Garys The rovin,�d prelininary plat of The Brothern addition receivel by our ufficr recentl;), Iwo been reviewed by my utaff. The followini: ars: ny co:,santa relative to the plat :ia ;ua on our previoits corliontn and the rnquirorionts of t:onti-•rllo 3ubeivi•+iun Ordinanrt•. 1. The rovinnl prclicainary ,plat Goes not ahoty ilho roviaio.i date. 2. I'M vNim;v in ,•roponud in the zoning, vur I roviuua le%tte>: under Ontr. --f dune 10, 1700 oxhlainad our 1.onition rcgnrdin-; thn ronontnv; change in thin arca. 3. Accorttin'I to ^.ieLion 11-4-1 of the City's Suhdiviuien Orelinnnce, ra coil survey has been included and tho aerial plunto n1v-1we no trees in the area. 4. Ilo erosion control plan has boon included in thin sub- minrion. 5. rrcvinionc yove boon made to retain storm water runoff from tho rroposod plat and this should prove adoguate in the event we do not experience reoccurring rainfalls on successive dates. G. Thare is ntill sono question regarding the contour linan presented on the grading plena around KLcholas Circle, which at-wo to be incorrect. The grading contours in the vicinity of the ponding area appear to be proper. Bae notations in red on the enclosed plan. n,'f f , . .,: • ti� ,,, ti xd 5541:1 July 23, 1900 Pn,je 2 Thi6 eoi:cludes our co—ants regarditty the revised preliminary plat of The Brothers addition. A copy of the marked -up pro- Jiminary plat in being returned for your review and the other copy is Doing retained by our office. Yourn vury truly, C:UL-SC11i:LL1:N-I:AYZROU C i Ly Dicjineur Jpb^'1111, �.ucicaurcn cc:Lo_cn ::lr.iu, Bldq. OUici•:J :,n,�r-i:uLlin, Inc. '4,e 'J '4 SUBDIVISION of LOT 3 BLOCK 1, SANDBERG .1 -4AL4' ' J.jaip— 0 I Council Agenda - 7/28/80 8. Consideration of Subdivision Request for John Sandberq in Sandberq Riverside Addition. PURPOSE: John Sandberg has submitted a request to have a simple sub- division of Lots 3 & 4, Sandberg Riverside Addition, made into three lots. Currently, Lot 3 is 18,800 square feet and Lot 4 is 25,750 square feet. He would create three lots ranging in size from 12,340 square feet to 16,325 square feet, all meeting the City of Monticello's minimum require- ments in an R-1 zone of 12,000 square feet. Technically, according to Monticello City Ordinances, when more than two lots are created, it is necessary to go through the entire subdivision section relative to preliminary and final plats. However, Mr. Sandberg would like to request a variance such that he only submits the preliminary plans for Monday night's meeting and then ultimately submits a final plat but does not have to require all the detailed grading which has previously been submitted and other engineering aspects on this plat. At the July 22, 1980 meeting of the Planning Commission, two residents in the area - Sherrie and Ron White and Mel Wolters - were opposed to the subdivision since they indicated they originally purchased their lots in Riverside Addition based on the initial platting of the land in that there would be no new lots created. However, they both did indicate that there were no covenants to this effect. Enclosed, please find a July 22, 1980 letter from Sherrie and Ron White. It should be pointed out that there are currently eight lots in Sandberg Riverside Addition, and these lots are of the following square footages: 28,550; 14,200; 69,000; 15,230; 18,750; 18,800; 25,750. 27,700 Additionally, there was a concern expressed that if the lots were created as proposed with Mr. Sandberg, a variance would be necessary from setbacks, etc. It does appear that Mr. Sandberg could fit a house on the parcels without the necessity of a variance, unless a rather large house is built. At their last meeting, Planning Commission members Loren Klein and Ed Schaffer recommended to the entire Commission that the subdivision be approved. However, John Bondhus did oppose this. This will be brought up to a formal motion at the July 28th meeting of the Planning Commission and the recommendation will be brought forward to the Council. - 9 - Council Agenda - 7/28/80 One possibility that the Council may consider in light of the opposition is the approval of the subdivision as presented, with the understanding that the City Council would go on record not being in approval of any variances. This would not prevent Nr. Sandberg from applying for a variance down the line, but it would at least make him aware that the Council did not look favorably upon such a request. One other item that might be mentioned that is worth noting, is that if this subdivision is approved, it will be necessary to assess this par- cel, unless waived by the Council, for sewer, water and street improve- ments. The original assessment against Sandberg Riverside Addition included only eight parcels. According to Monticello City Ordinance, ` if a lot is subdivided and has not been previously assessed for utilities, it is subject to assessments. v POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of subdivision request ��Q L J� contingent upon this parcel being assessed for utilities or assessments 1'� waived for these utilities. REFERENCES: Certificate of survey showing the three proposed lots. - 10 - July 22, 1880 To the Monticello Planning Commission We would like to make known our feelings on the proposed alterations to the property adjacent to ours in Sandberg Riverside. We feel that making three lots out of two existing lots is not suitable to the "well planned" development that Riverside is supposed to be. Much thought and consideration were put into Sandberg Riverside two years ago when originally platted. Altering the development now would be contrary to what we were told the development would be when we purchased two lots in the development We feel that only the monetary gains expected by the applicant were considered before making this application to the Monticello Planning Commission. We shall be disappointed should the Monticello Planning Commission approve this application. —Ron and Sherrie White Riverside Circle, Monticello HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES C CONS V LTING PLAN N ERS ONE GROVE LAND +En •, ACC rn�N r, LA••O L�'+, w�N NL�Gt• :,�+n] MEMORANDUM DATE: 20 June 1980 TO: Monticello Planning Commission RE: Siyn Ordinance Amendments to Clarify Informational/Directional Sign Definition, Advertising Signs of 200 Square Feet or Less, and Time Limit for Temporary Permits Based on the 10 June 1980 meeting and subsequent discussions with City Staff, we have prepared amendments to the Sign Ordinance for your consideration. One amendment clarifies that information/directional signs are on -premise signs. The Ordinance allows information/ directional signs up to a maximum of ten (10) square feet. Informational/ directional signs are meant to allow for signs such as those directing motorists through parking lots, identifying entrances, and similar signs. This amendment is to the definition of infoniational/directional signs contained in Section 10-2-2. Another amendment deals with advurtising signs of 200 squ„re feet or less in area. Discussion of these signs was deferred from the 10 June meeting. The proposed amendment prohibits these signs, but allowu those existing signs to remain. The amendment would be placed in Section 10-3-9 (B) 2 of the Ordinance immediately proceeding the recommended revision to advertising signs in excess of 200 square feet which wall discussed at tire last meeting. The poauibility of phasing out these advertising signs of 200 squaro foot or lean in a manner similar to billboards was aluo considered. The major difficulty in applying similar removal conditions is that some of those existing advertising signs aro located on developed property. in liqht of the fact that there aro relatively few of these signs in Lown, that the existing signs are not overly obtrusive, and that moat of these signs were in place before the City had a Sign Ordinance, it seems reasonable to grandfather them in as a non -conforming nign. The other amendmont shown following deals with insuring temporary permits for search lights, banners, pennants, and similar devices. The Ordinance as prosenLly written contains no time limit for the issuance of A temporary permit. Theoretically, under the presont Ordinance, a temporary permit could be issued for an extended time period which could 1C) MEMORANDUM 20 June 1980 RE: Amendments to Sign Ordinance Page Two in fact, allow these temporary uses to become permanent signs. The proposed amendment places a ten (10) day time limitation on such permits with a 180 day period between consecutive issuances of permits to a particular property owner. The proposed amendment would allow the property owner to have these special temporary signs occassionally during extraordinary circumstances such as a grand opening or big sale. This amendment is contained in Section 10-3-9 (C) 4. The applicable sections of the Sign Ordinance are shown following with the amendments underlined. SECTION 10-2-2 INFORMATIONAL/DIRECTIONAL SIGN: Any on -promise sign giving information to employees, visitors, or delivery vehicles but containing no advertising. May include name of business but must predominantly represent a directional or information message. SECTION 10-3-9 (B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: Prohibited Signs: y. Advertising signs of two hundred (200) square feat or leas in area, except that those signs which were 1.n place on or before may continue as a non- conforming Lias. (The provisions dealing with advertising algns in excess of two hundred (200) aquaro feat could be added here or as another provision (h) following with subsoquont provisions rolottarcd.) (C) GENERAL PROVISIONSc 4. The temporary use of search Iighta, hannora, pennants, and similar devices shall require a permit. The pormlt shall be Issued for a maximum nnriol oT_ ten (10) davo with a minimum period of one hundred r MEMORANDUM 20 June 1980 RE: Amendments to Sign Ordinance Page Three l eiqhty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property. The permit shall be prominently displayed during the period of validity. Use of portable signs shall be restricted to information only and may not exceed four (4) square feet (no advertising). /G ,3 f �iK--�4.� j145. _..r`— __�-•ir-i { r�, k��v+�.�f , ' ii i K u WKERIT HOMES ARCM 3 v ° "SYSTEM FLOW BUILDING" n b tJO. HVJY. 10, P.O. BOX'46. SAUK RAPIDS. MINN. PHONE 1612) 2524961 July 16, 1960 IMI -SIDE 'rF.RRACE P.U.O. Statement iblfil.ling Vaquirements of Chapter 20, �Zming Crdi,a.•tcc City of rlonticello The proposal P.U.O. is to be located on lots 1 , 2 and a portion of o 3 in Block 1, Louring Hillside Terrace. The site has a total area of. 3.02 acres. 'Phe market to be served will be determined by the unit mix of the demlopcent. This six will consist of 29 two- bedroan units, 6 three-bcdroem units and 1 two-bodroan handicapped unit. Therefore , the market served will basically be young ° fanilics with orate to, three children. - - A statennit from the City's Comprehensive Plan follows which skids ` i two relationship of the develop rant to the plan. "The Guide Plan also suggests multiple family residen- tial densit.,io close to the CBD and along the Interstate- ttiglr,my 94 -tich rmy, vary from six to twenty units per „ r acre.- multiple fa'tily housing types can vary frac � moditi 1 density townhouse developments to three story garden Apar trrents to high-rise multiple. t:'hon locating �. tlw, ultlplme fa illy" it iv;L7PCWtant7, to'assuio prop r� access,. adequate off-street parking arnl location near cn' "on a thoroughfare -so as to avoid traffic conflicts with ningfe Uni.1y`residential neighborhoods:" r 0 RRie P:U.-M in tc; bo designed and arranged co that'cach unit ham its.own private entrance which eliminates children running and o Nlajlxn in & man hall areas. Each um11t will have homy aijacent '•green" arca rhich will afford now outdoor pleasure for tho ° 7 tenant: Sam largo "green" areas for children to play are alto '%8a3 provided. Tot lots will be an additiomml feature. A landscaping plan will be provided at a later date ublc. _ill o 0 0 Imlude a detailed planting list as well as terrace cicv_:x1:_, and sodding schedule . r -rasion control during construction will to done acccrdir.3 to standard soil erosion control practices. Ib O o saw HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES CONSULTING PLAN N E R S ONE GPOVEL^NO TEn PACE NiN NC�POL��,,..NNESOT• a03 MEMORANDUM DATE: 17 July 1980 TO: Loren Klein, Building Inspector City of Monticello FROM: Robert Ryan, AICP RE: Parking Requirements with respect to Hillside Terrace PUD The Hillside Terrace PUD proposes to provide 1.5 spaces per unit instead of the two spaces per unit required by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Because of the increasingly prohibitive costs associated with owning and operating a car, the number of vehicles per household is decreasing. Many cities are also reducing the number of parking spaces required per unit and it is very common for the parking requirement to be reduced from two spaces to 1.5 spaces per unit. In some places where mass transportation is available, further reductions are allowed. We feel that the proposed 1.5 spaces per unit should be adequate for the proposed develoidnent. AL name point in the future, the City may wish to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the parking requirement for residential uses. The hillside Terrace PUD could serve as a good toot Case in this regard. 91he City may also wish to review the parkinq space size requirements. The Ordinance currently requires all parking spaeos to be nine foot wide by 20 feat in depth. This size standard was used to accommodate a larger vehicle than is boinq built today. Full-size vehicles are beinq down- sized and we recommend a full size parking stall standard of 8.5 feet by 10 feet.. In addition, more than 50 percent of the cars on the road today are a compact or sub -compact size. The City may wish to consider allowing some of the parking spaces to be scaled down for compact cars. we rocommond a compact parking space standard of 7.5 feet by 15 feet. At this time, it would be apprupriato to allow 50 percent of all parking apace; to be compact size. In the future as the number of small cars in use increases, it may be appropriate to increase the percentage of compact sized spaces even further. Many cities do require that compact larking spaces he appropriately marked, with respect to Hillside Terrace PUD, the City may wish to consider allowing a portion of the spaces to be sized for compact cars. c MEMORANDUM RE: Parking Requirements 17 July 1980 Page Ivo The major advantage of allowing compact sized parking spaces is that more parking spaces can fit into the same space. If the City is hesitant about granting the variance to the parking requirement to allow 1.5 spaces per unit in the case of the Hillside Terrace PUD for example, another possibility would be to allow up to 50 percent of the spaces to be the smaller compact space of 7.5 feet by 15 feet whi.eh would provide more spaces in the same space. Of course, the City may elect to grant the variances to allow 1.5 parking spaces per unit and to allow 50 percent of the spaces to be of a reduced size for compact cars. We do not forsee any problems with these variances in this case. J v 13 A C ISS- 01:57- 035 091— 88 2. — 0 — I E'/i- A Lam -i- ea- 3S Lave-" &A iss-oar- oI.5roO- esL- 0-1 LpT I U- ,Ljc 3 5 11 now-- �S L&UC Vt.o►d7t -14 JULY GENERAL FUND GENERAL AMOUNT CHECK NO. MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 44.00 13117 Datapro Research - Information pamphlet 32.00 13118 Barbarossa 6 Sons - Payment on Imp. Project 15345.79 13119 MN. State Treasurer - Para payment 68.88 13120 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 45.00 13121 Wright County State Bank - Investments 338595.56 13122 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 180.00 13123 Mont. School District #882 - Library rent 147.00 13124 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 125.00 13125 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 100.00 13126 Fran Fair - Council salary 100.00 13127 Ken Maus - Council salary 100.00 13128 Dr. Phil White - Council salary 100.00 13129 YMCA of Mels. - Contract payment 208.33 13130 Yonak Sanitation - Contract payment 3190.50 13131 U. S. Postmaster - Box rental 10.00 13132 Brian Wieman - Summer help additional salary 37.02 13133 Michael Dick - 121.60 13134 Bob Boedigheimer - 49.60 13135 Jim King - 26.35 13136 Keith King - 79.00 13137 Wright County State Bank - FWT tax 2825.30 13138 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 54.00 13139 Gwen Bateman - Animal Imp. expense 433.06 13140 U. S. Postmaster - Postage stamps 228.00 13141 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 5.00 13142 Marvin George Builders - Const. deposit refund - Balboul Est. 798.01 13143 Mao Ward - Inf. Center salary 97.32 13144 Lucy Andrews - Inf. Center salary 109.32 13145 N. S. Power - Utilities 3065.93 13146 MN. State Treasurer - Pcra payment 1948.86 13147 Barbarossa s Sons - Construction payment 44944.75 13148 Commissioner of Revenue - Water oxcise tax 109.61 13149 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 42.00 13150 MN. wastewater Operator's Assoc. - Seminar fees 150.00 13151 Ruttger's Bay Lodge - Seminar fees - Bldg. Official Conf. 15.00 13152 Brian Wieman - Salary supplement 60.75 13153 Michael Dick - Salary supplement 101.60 13154 Keith King - Salary supplement 55.28 13155 Bob Boedigheimer - Salary supplement 35.65 13156 Wright County State Bank - Investmente 225000.00 13157 Wright County State Bank - FWT tax 749.80 13158 Wright County State Dank - Investments 160000.00 13159 Commissioner of Revenue - SWT tax 1520.90 13160 VOID -- 13161 State Treasurer - Social Security Fund - 2nd Qtr. - 1980 8137.53 13162 MN. State Treasurer - PEM payment 1027.84 13163 Amoco 011 - Treo-56.17; park -7.27, atreet-30.80; sower -12.32 137.17. 13164 fire -30.61 Monticello Fj ro Dept. - Payroll h pagor repairs 1809.57 13165 Olson's Electric - Lift station repairs h parts for gas pump 295.43 13166 John Simola - Mileage 55.39 13167 Food Rita Controls - Chlorinators mist. chemicals 1961.38 13168 Earl 11. Anderson - Ono 8' bench 118.54 13169 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone - 51.52 to be roim, by OSM 649.98 13170 Stat. Trpasuror - Division of waters - Vrrmit for WWTP 25.00 13171 Zahl Equipment Co. - Bushing 6 keys for gas pump 5.4n 13172 /8 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK N0. B 6 J's Discount - Dog food 22.86 13173 Howard Dahlgren - Meeting attend., sign ord. amendments 524.10 13174 Centra Soto - 6 pair gloves 4.20 13175 MacQueen Equip. - Street sweeper parts 185.88 13176 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 1763.62 13177 Buffalo Bituminous - Thomas Park Drive 6 at. repairs 9812.06 1317B Mae Ward - Inf. Center salary 104.00 13179 Lucy Andrews - Inf. Center salary 92.00 13180 Poirier Drug - Film 6 salt tablets 9.77 13183- 3181Mobil mobilOil - Gas and oil 6 tire repair 240.03 13182 N. W. Bell Telephone - Fire phone 22.32 13183 Wright County Sheriff - Police contract 6378.66 13184 RogerMack - Mileage 21.20 13185 Moon Motors - John Deer tractor repairs 18.49 13186 Monticello Office Products - Mise. office supplies 166.52 13187 Don Fern - Reward for reporting vandalism 5.00 13188 Bruce Bray - 5.00 13189 Conway Publications - Issues of Ind. Dev. 7.00 13190 North Central Public Service - Gas 76.92 13193- 3191Phillips PhillipsPetro. Corp. - Gas and oil 525.70 13192 Gruys, Johnson s Assoc. - 1979 audit report fees 6000.00 13193 Lindberg s Sons - Paint for parks 59.89 13194 Monti. -Big Lake Pet Hospital - Animal Imp. expense 65.00 13195 Fidelity Bank s Trust - 71 Water Rev. s G. O. bonds - interest 3684.65 13196 N. W. Nat. Bank of Mpls. - 76,77,78,79 G. O. bonds - interest 177909.45 13197 1st Nat. Bank of St. Paul - 78 G. 0. bond - interest 39273.00 13198 Harry's Auto Supply - Misc. repair parts a supplies 175.68 13199 Water Products Co. - one saddle 38.26 13200 Audio Communications - Radio repair, installation, antenna 131.95 13201 Fair's Garden Center - Fertilizer for city hall shrubs 22.04 13202 Albinson - Balance due on previous check issued .60 13203 Gary Wicber - General mileage - June thru July 21 31.60 13204 lot Nat. Bank of Mpls. - 75 Mtee. Bldg. s G. O. bonds - intorest 23332.45 13205 Monticello Fire Dept. - Adv. for open house reimbursement 32.55 13206 PIN. Growth Exchange - Employee AeeL. & referral service 225.00 13207 Central I.M. Communications - Pager repair 55.50 1320*3 Gould Bros. - Repairs to Chov. tanker s mini pumper - Fire Dspt.. 154.63 13209 Autocon Industries - Repair to reservoir control panel 217.00 13210 Int. Conf. of Bldg. Officials - Review manual, s duos 73.10 13211 Pyles*a Backhoo - Ind. Park, Walnut St., latrine rental, fuel 2739.00 13212 Lank installation, rOLary drain cleaning at dog pound Monticello Rotary Club - Duos for Gary Wieher 118.00 13213 Our Own Hardware - Misc. supplies - fuol tank parts -231.48 471.00 13214 Monticello Times - Misc. printing 6 publishing 392.35 13215 Wallace Frnnnon - Building shelves in basement at city hall 56.00 13216 Hoolihan, Nails c Boland - Atty. fees on Ruff casement case 3636.60 13217 Wright County Auditor - S police fines for June 1215.50 132118 American Linen Supply - 2 cases of toilet tissue - parks s ctr. 67.00 13219 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. Jean Brouillard - Diesel fuel and gear lube 309.86 13220 Marco Business Products - Paper for copy machine 98.50 13221 Carlson Welding - Welding, steel storage cabinet, I" rod 111.45 13222 VOID -- 13223 Buffalo Rendering Service - Animal Imp. expense 20.00 13224 Persian's Office Products - Repairs to dictaphone 93.45 13225 St. Cloud Fire Equip. - Hoses, handles, fire ext., recharge 55.40 13226 Ruff Auto PartS - Thermo housing for pick up 5.00 13227 Maus Foods - Coffee 23.31 13228 Monticello Ready Mix - Cement 243.50 13229 Gordie Link - 2000 gal. gas based on 9 of use in 1979 2128.00 13230 Annandale Sod Service - 45 rolls of sod 40.50 13231 Hoglund Bus Co. - 2 used truck tires, switch, tail pipes 6 clam;>s 219.32 13232 Central McGowan - Cyl. rental and oxygen 18.34 13233 Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage 46.70 13234 Gross Ind. Services - Laundry 138.60 13235 Davis Electronic Service - Pager repairs 88.41 13236 Trueman -Welters - Parts for Int. tractor 48.77 13237 Marcus ZumBrunnen - Routing & lettering park benches 8.00 13238 Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies 162.84 13239 Ruttger's Bay Lake Lodge - Civil Def. Conf. in Sept. dep. 84.89 13240 Ind. Lumber Co.- Lumbar for picnic tables - 168.00 & mist. 258.03 13241 Int. Harvester Co. - Solenoid for Hough loader 50.18 13242 Flicker's T -V - Battery 2.59 13243 National Bushing - Filters, welding rods, tools, etc. 61.90 13244 O. K. Hardware - Water jug, hedge trimmer, key, nozzle 49.00 13245 State Treasurer - Surplus Property - Various tools 55.70 13246 Curtis Noll - Various nuts, bolts, washers, etc. 223.51 13247 Stokes Marine - Gasket, oil for chain saws, file 18.20 13248 Wilcnsky Auto Parts - 1 axel shaft for M37 58.60 13249 Flexible Pipe Tool Co. - Root saws for sewer rodding machine 189.70 13250 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. foes 44.00 13251 MN. Park Supervisors Assoc. - Reg. Fee - Park Supr.- Roger Mack 29.50 13252 Payroll for June 15007.06 TOTAL DIS13URSEMENTS FOR JULY $1,115,435.14 �g 9- .i L DAVIS AUCTION SERVICE BOX 332 MONTICELLO, IVIN 55362 295-2032 TOI.Dhone 295.2711 250 East Broadway MONTICELLO. MN 55362 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council (Members FROM: Gary Wieber _r J DATE: July 28, 1980 SUBJECT: Proposed Joint Meetinq with the Library Project Committee - Tuesday Eveninq, July 29. 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Met- Lina 3335739 Purpose of this meeting requested by the Library Project Committee is to review with the Council the progress made thus far by the Library Committee. Of specific concern to the Library Project Committee is whether the current site under consideration for a library is adequate to accommodate a library of 6,000 square feet, along with the parking required by Monticello City Ordinance, or 37 spaces. L Following are some of the alternatives that the Library Project Comnittee would like to pursue with the Council: 1. Acquire additional land from either Mr. Bob Dowling or Independent School District #882 - (it should be pointed out that the land owned by the School District does have a covenant on it which indicates that this area shall only be used for school or playground purposes, but there is a possibility of this matter being pursued further). 2. Reduce the size of the building. 3. Amend the parking ordinance requirement for libraries. 4. Grant the City a variance from the provision of requiring 37 spaces (it looks like a 6,000 square foot building could be accommodated with approxi- mately 26 spaces). 5. Build the library elsewhere including the Oakwood block (the City would lose the rights to the existing site since the School District conveyed it with the covenant that the City develop a library on it.) 6. Develop overflow parking onto the Oakwood Block. { GW/ns Wo(como to //1onlicallo b/[o rnouniain '—+` • �I • Telephone 2852711 Cllt y oI Trl..t Af. 250 East Broadway MONTICELLO. MN 55362 MEMORANDUM TO: City CouncilCI,embers FROM: Gary Wiebei DATE: July 28, 19800/// SUBJECT: Aqenda Item 6 - Park Dedication for Macariund Plaza M—. L— 3335739 After reviewing the proposed park dedication for Macarlund Plaza, 1 would recommend that the City of Monticello consider park dedication fee in cash rather than land, which would amount to $3,368. I have met with the developers of Macarlund Plaza, and they were willing to dedicate Lot 13 and 14. Block 3, Hoglund Addition, for the park dedication requirement for Macarlund Plaza, which amounted to $3,368, plus the park dedication fee for Thomas Park, of $2,600. For your information, Thomas Park has been purchased by the developers of Macarlund Plaza al so, and the plat for Thomas Park has not been officially signed by the City until the Park Dedication requirement has been paid. Although their proposal was on a preliminary basis, the developers of Macarlund Plaza indicated that Lots 13 6 14, Block 3, Hoglund Addition. would be worth at least 54,000-5,000/ea. plus assessments, and since, in effect, they are giving up $8,000 to $10,000 of land for $5,968 of park dedication fee equivalent, they propose that possibly a credit could be granted to them for this difference. After reviewing the Lots in question, Loren Klein. our Building Inspector, indicates that before he would be able to grant a building permit on Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Hoglund Addition, he would need a soil survey and there could be some question of whether these lots would be buildable. Additionally, there is about $4,000 left of assessments on each lot. Reviewing Park Dedication, i recommend that the City of Monticello take the fee in cash equivalent, or $3,368, due to the following factors: 1. Question of the buildability of Lots 13 and 14. 2. Expense City would incur on sod and seed in the development of these parks. 3. Assessments of $8,000 still pending would be picked up by the City, in effect, if the Lots were taken over by the City. W.11o„>,o ro Iffloafi«ofZo ... kille onounra;n -= Memo to City Council July 28, 1980 Page N2 4. City now has quite a few park dedication from plats, and I would think it would be best to develop these parks at this time rather than take on additional parks. To look at the other side for a moment, I think there is some merit in taking park dedication in this area since there is no parklands in the eastern portion of the City. If the Council feels that park dedication of land is worth pursuing, it might accept the land in lieu of the park dedication requirement plus any credit adjustment that the Council may want to make, along with the fact that this park dedication would be accepted contingent upon developers, at their own expense, taking a soil survey and determining the buildability of these lots. GW/ns COUNCIL UPDATE July 28, 1980 Meetinq Library Committee Next meeting of the Library Committee is Thursday evening at 7:15 P.M. on July 24, 1980. In addition to Ken Maus, all other members of the Council are obviously invited to the Committee meetings. Thus far, the Committee has reviewed the libraries in Elk River, Cokato, Howard Lake and Buffalo. Purpose of the meeting on Thursday evening would be to give the architect some ideas in terms of square footage, room size requirements, etc. Computer A quotation has been received from Gruys, Johnson, our auditing firm, to offer the City of Monticello computer services for handling the general ledger, cash disbursements, cash receipts jounai on a computer, in addition to the liquor store transactions, for $385 per month. i am working with another firm in considering an alternative proposal, however, in both cases the requirement would not be that the City of Monticello purchase its own mini -computer, but have the input work done by the City of Monticello staff and have the computer processing done by an outside firm. Although I am studying further the feasibility of such a project, it would appear now that the City could eliminate the necessity of adding staff for bookkeeping purposes within the next two to three foreseeable years if computer capdbilities were available. Additionally, computer processing would allow for timelier reports, better management analysis, etc. There is further- more the possibility that the City's utility billing could go on a computer basis. Jet Machine for the Sewer system Currently, John Simola has been fortunate enough to secure a jet machine from one of the firms he used to work with and is experimenting on some of the sanitary sewer lines in Monticello. Possibly some of the Council members may have viewed jet cleaning machine, and John will probably be bringing this up on 1981 budget. Council Update Continued 1979-1 Improvement Project Barbarossa & Sons, Inc., general contractor on the 1979-1 Improvement Project which extended sewer and water along with road improvements to the south half of Oakwood Industrial Park, J. R. Culp Property, and Commercial Plaza 25, is about to be completed. Plans are now being made to have our engineer prepare estimated assessments on this project and to hold a hearing in the next two months. -2- MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL July 14, 1980 - 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, ren Maus. Members Absent: Phil White. 1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request - Cy Reinert. This item was postponed until the July 28, 1980 Meeting. 2. Consideration of Approval of Joint Powers Aqreement between the City of Monticello and Independent School District #882 for a Joint Summer Recreational Program. At the last City Council meeting, it was the consensus of the City Council to enter into an agreement with the School District of Monticello for a Joint Powers Agreement to provide a joint summer recreational program, but not necessarily to include recreation throughout the year or other programs thdt are part of the Community Education curri- culum. In addition, it was the consensus at that time that the City would consider funding half of the summer joint recreational program cost with the School District, but would want to be able to review this percentage on an annual basis. Since that previous meeting, a joint powers agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, Gary Pringle, and a few minor comments have been incorporated into the agreement by the attorney. Once approved by the City Council, the Joint Agreement would be presented to the School District for their approval. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to approve of a joint powers agreement between the City of Monticello and School District 882 for Summer Recreational Programs. (See Exhibit 7/14/80 #1). A motion was also made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve an expenditure amount of $5,730 for 1980 as the City's share (50%) of the Summer Recreational Program for 1980 calendar year. In regards to the Joint Powers Agreement, motion was made by yen Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to appoint Council- woman Fran Fair as the City's representative on the Community Education Board replacing Loren Klein. Council Minutes - 7/14/80 3. Approval of Contract for Architectural Services for the Library with McEnary, Krafft, Birch & Kilgore, Inc. At the City Council's special meeting held on July 7, 1980, approval was given by the City Council to enter into negotiations to form a contract with McEnary, Krafft, Birch & Kilgore, Inc., for architectural services for the proposed new library. It was understood from the architects that all basic services for pre- paration of plans and construction management for a new library would be included in the basic total fee, not to exceed a certain dollar amount, but some questions were raised concerning the language of the proposed contract. City Attorney, Gary Pringle, will be reviewing the contract, but it was the consensus of the Council to get all the remaining questions and particulars worked out in the proposed contract before actual approval. Therefore, a motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to table any action on a contract with an architect until a final draft can be completed. 4. Consideration of Acceptinq 1979 Audit Report. At the City Council's June 23, 1980 meeting, Rick Borden, with Gruys, Johnson & Associates, reviewed with the Council the 1979 Audit Report. At that time, it was decided that the Council would review the 1979 Audit Report for two weeks before considering formal acceptance of the 1979 Audit Report. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to formally accept the 1979 audit report prepared by Gruys, Johnson & Associates as presented. 5. Consideration of Purchase of Additional Dump Tank for the Fire Department. Purpose of this item was to consider acquisition of an additional 1,800 gallon dump tank for the City of Monticello's fire department. Currently, the Monticello Fire Department does have an 1,800 gallon dump tank that was purchased in April 1977 for the purpose of allowing the tanker truck to dump its supply of water at a fire site and return to get a new load of water. This dump tank is, however, in need of repairs and Paul Klein, the Fire Chief, requested that the City consider pur- chasing an additional dump tank at this time since the City would he without the present dump tank while it i,s being repaired. Because the Fire Department has, for 1980, already exceeded its initial budget for capital outlay items, it was the consensus of the City Council that any requests for new items should be presented and requested for the 1981 budget year, W - 2 - Council Minutes - 7/14/80 6. Consideration of Establishinq Hours for Monticello Parks. Purpose of this item was to consider the establishment of certain park hours within the City of Monticello. Buddy Gay, of the Wright County Sheriff's Department, has asked the City Staff that the City Council consider establishing park hours to allow the Sheriff's Department to use these hours as a tool in removing some of the juveniles and other undesirables from the park after hours in the evening and early morning hours . It was noted that problems have existed in some of the City's parks, especially Ellison Park, and complaints have been expressed by some of the area residents that school kids are congregating in the park prior to the regular school day. It was felt by the Sheriff's Depart- ment that establishment of hours such as 8:30 in the morning until 10:00 P.M. would eliminate some of the use of the park by kids at odd hours. Unless regular hours are established by the City Council, the Sheriff's Department did not have a tool to use in removing or asking the youths to leave a park. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried to adopt an ordinance amendment setting park hours of 8:30 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. only in all City parks. (See Ordinance Amendment 7/14/80 081). 7. Consideration of an Ordinance to Requlate Travelinq Shows. Purpose of this item was to consider adopting an ordinance that would regulate carnivals, circuses and menageries in the City of Monticello. The City of Monticello previously had an ordinance that regulated amusement carnivals, etc., but when the new ordinances were adopted in 1975, this portion was eliminated. The Wright County Sheriff's Department has indicated that numerous incidences have occurred when carnivals are in town that may warrant regulation by the City of such amusement shows. Some of the main aspects of the proposed ordinance would be approval required by the City Council of Monticello, and a license fee along with proof of insurance by the carnival and submission of a surety bond payable to the City of Monticello. Motion was made by Ken haus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the adoption of an ordinance relative to regulating traveling shows and carnivals within the City of Monticello. (See Ordinance Amendment 7/14/80 082). -3- �9 Council Minutes - 7/14/80 8. Ouarterly Meetinq - Department Heads. The City Council held informal discussions with the following department heads: J Mike Melstad - Local YMCA Detached Worker Buddy Gay 8 Don Hozempa - Representing Wright County Sheriff's Dept. Karen Hanson - Senior Citizens Center Director John Simola - Public Works Director Karen Hanson, Senior Citizens Center Director, reviewed with the Council her experiences on her recent trip to The National Council on Aging in Washington, D.C. In addition, she reviewed with the Council the possible need for additional electrical wiring at the Senior Citizens Center, which may have to be updated. Public Works Director, John Simola, informed the Council that the proposed boat ramp in Ellison Park may not be started until Spring of 1981. He also noted that the State Highway Department is doing a traffic study along Highway 25 near 1-94 to determine if any additional traffic devices are necessary in that area. He also noted that the State is still requesting that the City install a right -turn lane leading off of Highway 25 into Sandberg South Addition. Council also discussed the present condition of Chestnut Street between Broadway and West River. It was noted that this street was not improved as part of the 1977-3 Street Project because future storm sewer outlet to the River was planned for this street in the next few years. The City Engineer now indicated that because of the ditch being constructed through the Country Club property, the storm sewer planned for down Chestnut Street may not be needed for.five to ten years, therefore, the Public Works Director was instructed to get costs for a possible 2" overlay for Chestnut Street. 9. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular Council Meeting of June 23, 1980 and the special Council Meeting of July 7, 1980, as presented. Meeting adjourned. Rick Wolfste ler Assistant Administrator RW/ns 4 J