City Council Agenda Packet 10-11-19884.
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Z b
Tuesday, October 11, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. jz C✓�v
i
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo '
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held September 26, 1988.
3.
Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
4.
Consideration of Adopting Ordinances Regulating Loitering, Cruising, and
Noise Abatement.
5.
Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Celebrate Minnesota Project.
6.
Consideration of Resolution Issuing an Order for Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings - Clifford Olson Property.
7.
Consideration of Request to be in Non -Compliance with City Ordinances or
Request for Second Service at no Charge.
8.
Public Hearing on the Proposed Budget for 1989.
9.
Consideration of Adopting the 1989 Budget and Certifying the Tax Levy.
10.
Consideration of Appeal on Variance Request to Allow 1) a Garage to be
Constructed within the Front Yard Setback Requirement; 2) a Garage to be
Built with a Siding in Excess of the 12 -inch Siding Width Allowed.
Applicant, Viva Jean Abrahamson.
11.
Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Minor Auto Repair in a
B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. Applicant, Dale Poganski.
12.
Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Approval for a Residential
Subdivision. Applicant, Tom Holthaus.
13.
Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Cold Storage Building
to be Built in a PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) Zone. Applicant, Ruff
Auto.
14.
Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request to Allow Two Residential Lots
to be Split, with Less than the Minimum Lot Area Square Footage.
Applicant, Dan Frie.
15.
Consideration of Replatting Request to Replat an Existing Unplatted Lot
into (8) Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot. Applicant, Floyd
Markling. t,• b+t sv%S
g:11 F„, SL...I! 11,p A. J. bac--%4L �
'A' r` a iw cewK�
A41- 14 Jk1: ” Ai- ...
Wil 7,,fQ
( if S `�-" �
City Council Agenda
October 11, 1988
Page 2
16. Consideration of Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract on 88-7
Improvement Project.
17. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1989 Budget of the SX4.
18. Adjournment.
J
t
MI:=ES
REGULAR MEETING - MdNT:C_LLO CITY COUNC:L
Monday, September 26, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Bill Fair
Members Absent: Arve Grimsmo
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 26,
1988.
3. Citizens comments/pet itions, Requests, and Complaints.
Teresa Harms presented a petition to City Council and stated that the
Petition contains names of individuals requesting that the City develop a
Youth Center. Harms went on to explain that a youth center will take care
of kids on the streets, it would take care of drinking, and would help
kids and teens say no to drugs. Acting Mayor Fran Fair stated that the
City Council appreciates the input of young people and went on to report
r that the City council has discussed the possibility of a youth center and
has researched the citizen attitudes toward development of such a
facility. ?;
Council membdr Bill Fair reviewed the petition and noted that the
petition doesn`t address the issue of a youth center. Bill Fair read the
petition to the audience which stated "We need your help to fight for the
right to be on the strip to see friends." A general discussion ensued
regarding cruising and loitering issues.
Eric Harms questioned the legality of a proposed loitering ordinance.
City Administrator, Rick woifsteiler, noted that the ordinance will be
designed to protect the rights of individuals impacted by littering,
noise, loud profanity, and vandalism associated with cruising. It will
also conform to requirements of the O.S. Constitution.
Harold Pituman announced that he supports the kids attending the meeting
and noted that they should not be treated like criminals. He went on to
voice support of the development of a youth center that features good
dances and fifties cock.
Larry Harms voiced his support of a youth center. Donna Grimly reported
that the cruising problem is not as bad as it once was and if you take
that away then there is nothing for kids in low income families to do.
Councilmember Bill Fair stated that problems on Broadway will no longer
be tolerated and that a tougher loitering ordinance is something that
must be considered along with consideration of development of a youth
center.
1
1
7
1
Council Minutes - 9/26/88
4. Public Hearing on Improvements to Floyd varkling Townhouse Development
ana Monticello Country Cluo - 88-03 Project. AND
7. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and
Advertising for Sias on 88-03 Project.
A general discussion of the financing of the proposed improvement was
discussed. No opposition to the project was voiced by adjoining property
owners, and it was the general consensus that the assessment formula
would be established after completion of the project.
Motion was made by 8111 Fair to adopt a resolution approving plans and
specifications and ordering advertisement for bids to serve property of
Floyd Markling and Monticello Country Club with city sewer and water
main. Motion was seconded by Dan Blonigen and passed unanimously. See
Resolution 88-35.
5. Nblic Bearing for Moving and Relocation Expenses Pertaining to
Acquisition of Property.
Economic Development Director, 011ie Roropchak, reported that the moving
and relocation expenses associated with the senior housing project Bite
acquisition represent a portion of the housing site purchase price and is
not an addition to the negotiated purchase price. Identifying the
portion of the purchase price dedicated to moving expenses is a
requirement of the HOD -Uniform act which governs acquisition of private
land by a government. Public hearing closed.
After discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair and seconded by warren
Smith to adopt a resolution approving the Monticello Housing and
Redevelopment Authority acquisition cost inclusive of moving and
relocation expenses pursuant to the HOD-Oni!orm Act. Motion passed
unanimously. See Resolution 88-36.
6. public Hearing for Modification 03 of Project Costs for Tax Increment
District 42.
Fran Fair described the plan modification and asked for public comments.
There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was cl)sed.
After discussion, Motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan
Bionigen to adopt a resolution adopting Modification 13 of the existing
Tax Increment Finance Plan for Redevelopment District #2 pursuant to the
provisions of Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive of the Minnesota
Statute. Motion passed unanimously. See Resolution 88-37.
8. Consideration of a Resolution Issuing an Order for Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings — Cllrrora Olson Property.
After discussion, Council requested that staff contact the City Attorney
for further clarification regarding proposed resolution and strategy for J
[E]
Council Minutes - 9/26/88
abatement of said dangerous building. Motion made by Bill Fair and
seconded by Warren Smith to table consideration of a resolution issuing
an order of abatement of dangerous buildings - Clifford Olson Property.
Motion passed unanimously.
9. Consideration of Using Streetscape Surplus Funds for Additions to Base
Project.
Assistant City Administrator O'Neill reviewed the status of the
Streetscape budget and reported the recommendation made by streetscape
committee members regarding the use of remaining streetscape funds.
Warren Smith noted his desire to keep the project within budget and asked
for assurance that the contingency remaining will be sufficient to cover
any remaining unexpected cost. Staff reported that $3,500 remains in the
contigneney fund after the proposed additions to the project are
completed. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded
by Bill Fair to utilize streetscape contingency funds to purchase one
replacement - vao globe light, one replacement - four globe light,
replacement bridge railing, replacement of sidewalk along Walnut Avenue
in front of Golden valley Furniture, and installation of three ornamental
lights on the east side of Walnut Avenue south of Broadway. voting in
favor - Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Bill Fair. Opposed - Dan Blonigen.
10. Consideration of resolutions Setting a Public Rearing to Adopt
Assessments for 38-013 and 8E-02 Project.
Motion made by Hill Fair and seconded by Dan Blonigen to adopt a
resolution setting a hearing on the proposed assessment and a resolution
declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed
assessment. Motion carried unanimously. See Resolution 88-38 and
Resolution 88-39.
11. Consideration of Upgrading Streets in Monticello Industrial Park.
Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed the report submitted by
Braun Engineering which detailed the load bearing capacity of streets in
the industrial park. Simola recotnmended that the City upgrade and
overlay only those areas of lower strength this fall as maintenance
activity to achieve table 1 ratings and consider further upgrading in
1989.
Table 1
Road Designation Spring Axle Wad
Cneisea Road 8 tons
Dundas Road 8 tons
Fallon Avenue J tons
Thomas Circle 10 tons
Thomas Park Drive 9 tons
L
Council Minutes - 9/26/88
Smola went on to note that deferring a major project to 1989 will allow
us time to develop some additonal cost information and discuss the
proposed improvements with more property owners in the Industrial Park
prior to making an actual decision or holding a public hearing. Bill
Fair noted that approval of staff recommendations assures the City that
its present investment in the streets is protected.
Motion made by Bill Fair to upgrade and overlay those areas in the
industial park of lower strength to achieve table 1 ratings and consider
further upgrades in 1989. Motion seconded by Dan Blonigen and carried
unanimously.
12. Consideration of Bills for the Month of September.
After discussion, motion made by warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, to
approve payment of bills for the month of September, 1988. Motion passed
unanimously.
Other Matters.
Prior to adjournment, Council briefly discussed the cruising is.^,ue. Fran
Fair noted that Council should' listen to complaints regarding a potential
loitering ordinance made by individuals present earlier in the meeting
but should not be intimidated or bullied by the group. There being no
further discussion, meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
6AU
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator.
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
Consideration of Adopting Ordinances Regulating Loitering, Cruising, and
Noise Abatement. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACHGROMM:
At the direction of the City Council and staff, City Attorney Tom Hayes
has prepared three ordinance amendments that he recommends the City
Council adopt as additional tools for law enforcement personnel to use in
curbing the loitering, noise problem, and cruising within the city of
Monticello. As I indicated at the last Council meeting, Mr. Hayes has
been consulting with surrounding communities who have dealt with similar
problems in regards to cruising and has come up with ordinances that he
feels may be helpful to the City to curb this problem.
The ordinance amendments proposed are an attempt to curb the 1) cruising
by adoption of ordinance amendment Title 9; 2) loitering, littering, and
lingering on the public sidewalks, etc., by adoption of Title 7-1 under
Public Nuisances, and 3) an additional ordinance that would hopefully
curb noise problems between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. All of the
ordinances do indicate the enforcement procedures and penalties for
violation. It should be recognized that even with the adoption of these
ordinances, it remains to be seen what effect they will have on a
judicial system in prosecution of violators; but the ordinances will give
the law enforcement officials a tool to use to hopefully curb the
problems we have been experiencing.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt three ordinance amendments as proposed.
2. Adopt only one or two of the ordinance amendments.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the Sheriff's Department has requested additional tools in the form
of ordinances to use in enforcing the cruising and loitering problems in
Monticello and because of Mr. Hayes' research in developing these
ordinances, it is certainly the staff's recommendation that they be
adopted. If any of the ordinances need modifications or amendments in
the future, this can be easily accomplished when necasaary. Although the
staff recognizes that this is not necessarily a cure-all to our problem,
it is certainly a step in the right direction; and the ordinances should
provide the necessary tools for the Sheriff's Department to use.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the three ordinance amendments proposed.
)lin.c try I
C.
IL
J
n LL 1 .' �t>ti•,�A i� tJlec�J,vQ {� ,� Ike Q�`'' S °Jcv , f c•,.-•�I
�a✓ 1 {1� �7 1 �jl,..k W I7, V C1 ,� 1 � {� �y I,) � �-Llo`^ ` �� � Iv+` 1
QLV.4'1^�)i•� PIC
M, h j e,m or. d: d SoaL q,.d ... b.t {.�
- - G. ✓•.tic I;u I- ,9,..J.,.1 .
AN ORDINANCE A?42NDING CHAPTER :
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
SECTION 1. Section 7-1-3 of the Code of the City of Monticello is
amended to read:
SECTION 7-2-3 public Nuisance.
(a) Misdemeanors. Whoever commits any of the following acts is guilty of a
misdemeanor; punishable by a fine of not more than $700 and by imprisonment in
the county.jail of not more than 90 days:
1. Consumption of intoxicating liouar or non-intoxicating liquor
in public or in other places prohibited by law except as pro-
vided by law.
2. Strewing, scattering, littering, throwing or disposing of any
garbage or refuse onto any premises except into receptacles
provided for such purposes.
3. Marking with ink, paint, chalk or other substance, or posting
handbills on, or in any other manner defacing or injuring any
public or private building or place within the City, or marking,
defacing or injuring fences, trees, lawns or fixtures appurtenant
to or located on the site or such buildings, or posting hand-
bills on such fences, trees or fixtures, or place a sign any-
where on any such site except as permitted by the owner thereof.
q. Lingering about the doorway of any building, or sitting or
lingering upon the steps, window sills, railing, fence or
or parking area adjacent•to any building in such a manner as
to obstruct or partially obstruct ingress to or egress from
such building or in such a manner to annoy the owner or
occupant.
S. Obstructing pedestrian or vehicular traffic or otherwise
causing an obstruction or interference with premises or
rendering any premise dangerous for passage except in cases
of emergency.
$. Failing or refusing to vacate or leave any premises after
being requested or ordered, either orally,. in writing or
by posted sign, to do so by the owner, agent, manager or
person in charge thereof, or by any law enforcement agent
or official, and also the return at any time thereafter to
any such premises after having been so requested or ordered
to vacate or leave such premises.
',b) Pette Misdenesnors. 'Whoever Comfits any of the following acts is
guilty of a petty misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $100: )
1. Races the motor of any motor vehicle so as to cause unnecessary /
and unreasonable noise;
2. Causes, produces or creates any unnecessary and unreasonable
noise by shouting, mechanical means, the blowing of motor
vehicle horns, or any other similar noise.
3. improper or annoying use of spot lights onto persons or
premises.
4. Using profane, abusive, indecent or threatening language
in public.
5. Occupies a standing motor vehicle in an area generally
reserved for parking, or occupies a standing motor vehicle
while the vehicle is double parked.
(c) Premises. For purposes of this section, premises shall include any
yard, lot, parcel, sidewalk, boulevard, street*, highway, alley, park, play-
ground, restaurant, cafe, church, school, any car or other motor vehicle,
parking lot, drive-in, building used for business, commercial or industrial tt
purposes, washroom or lavatory, apartment hallway or other location whether I
public or private in the City of Monticello.
AN ORDANANCE AMENDING TITLE 9
SECTION 9-1-7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
SECLION 1. Section 9-1-7 of the Code of the City of Monticello is amended
to read:
9-1-7: Unreasonable Acceleration, Erratic Driving and Exhibition Driving
(A) Same
(B) Same
(C) Exhibition Driving. No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle
upon any public highway, street, parking lot, alley or other public
property within the limits of the City of Monticello which causes
unnecessary engine noise or backfire, nor shall anyone between the
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. parade a motor vehicle upon any
public highway, street, parking lot, alley or other public property
within the limits of the City of Monticello.
Parade a motor vehicle is hereby defined as driving or operating a
motor vehicle up, down, or up and down, the same highway, street,
parking :ot, alley or other public property more than three times
within a thirty minute period.
(D) Penalties. violation of this section shall be a petty misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than $100, provided that any sub-
sequent offense committed within twelve (12) months of a previous
conviction under this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable
by a fine of not more than $700 and to imprisonment in the county
jail not more than 90 days.
AN ORDANANCE AY,ENDING TITLE 6
SECTION 6-1-10 OF THE CODE OF THE CIT? OF MONTICELLO
SECTION 6-1-10 of the Code of the City of Monticello is amended
to read:
Subd. 1. Noise. Statement of Purpose. It is recognized that loud
unpleasant, raucous or prolonged noise has a harmful debilitating and detrimen-
tal effect upon human beings, adversely affecting their mental and physical
health, safety and well-being. Such loud, unpleasant, raucous or prolonged
noise is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. In an endeavor to provide for
the mental and physical health, safety and well-being and for peaceful repose of
the citizens and neighborhoods of the City, it is hereby declared to be in the
public interest that loud, unpleasant raucous and unnecessary or prolonged noise
be abated.
Subd. 2.(a) Activity Prohibited. No person 'shall, between the hours of 10:00
P.M. and 7:00 a.m. conduct, permit, congregate at, participate in or be present
at any party or gathering or people from which noise emanates of such volume as
to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from where such gathering or
party is taking place, or from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume so as
to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of persons residing in any residential
area.
Subd. 2.(b) Abating, D13tu"ances. No persons except the owner, tenant or
other lawful occupant shall visit, remain or be present at or within any resi-
dential dwelling unit, adjacent yard or structures wherein an activity prohi-
bited by Subdivision 2 of this Ordinance is taking place except persons who have
gone there for the sale purpose of abating the prohibited activity.
Subd. 2.(c) Enforcement. A peace officer may order all persons present in
any such group or gathering from which such noise emanates, other than the
owners or tenants of a dwelling unit, to immediately disperse from said party in
lieu of being charged under this Ordinance. Refusal to disperse is a violation
of the section.
Subd. 2.(d) Penalty. Violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of not more than $700 and by imprisonment in the county
jail of not more than 90 lays.
Subd. 3(a) Street noise. No person between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. shall operate a radio, stereo, tape player or any other mechanical device
other than an automobile engine on the highways, streets, parking lots, alleys,
sidewalks or other public property,within the City of Monticello which is
audible at a distance of 25 feet.
Subd. 3(b) Penalty Violation Of this subdivision is a petty misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than $100.
J
u
i
l
SUMMARY OF PETITION - HCME TC4NS/GEV0ER/AVERAGE AGE
"HELP US FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO BE ON THE STRIP TO SEE OUR FRIENDS"
OCTOBER 6. 1988
TOTAL ANNANN BUFFALO BIG BECKER MONT- METRO/ (MALE FEMALE UNK IAVERAGE
CLWATER LAKE ICELLO ST MICH EAL ��� mss,} to AGE
MAPLE ELK RIVER
LAKE UNK
137 '.t 13 9 23 64 17 I 58 65 14 I 17.A
I I
$ OF TOTAL 8$ 9$ 7$ 17$ 47$ 12$I 420 47$ 10-,l 139;
a
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
5. Public Rearing on Preliminary Plan for Celebrate Minnesota
Project. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide the public with the
opportunity to comment on the preliminary plan for Celebrate Minnesota
and to determine the level of funding the Celebrate Minnesota program can
expect from the City. The Celebrate Minnesota Advisory Committee has met
on numerous occasions and submits the following preliminary plan for your
review.
GENERAL GOAL:
The goal of the Monticello Celebrate Minnesota program is to provide
projects and activities that celebrate the connection of the rich
history, future (youth), and natural resources possessed by our growing,
progressive, and cooperative community.
CELEBRA^E MINNESOTA FORMAT
The Celebrate Minnesota program format as designed by the State is
outlined below.
1988 - Program Planning
1989 - Project Activities
1990 - The Celebration
PROPOSED PROJECTS:
A number of activities and projects have been identified that will
contribute to the goals established above. The projects partially funded
by the Celebrate Minnesota Program will be completed in 1989. The Robert
Leathers Play Structure Development will not be completed until early
1990 and is, therefore, not eligible for Celebrate Minnesota Funding.
All activities identified as part of the celebration are scheduled for
1990.
Footbridge or Ferry/Island Park Development
Projects planned for completion in 1989 include development of bridge or
ferry providing access to the island in the Mississippi adjacent to East
Bridge Park. Along with this idea is a plan for development of a system
of trails and picnic areas on the island. General river bank clean-up is
also included with this project. The design of the access is in the
planning stages. A self -operated ferry has been discussed as a possible
method to move people on and off the island. A tomporary bridge has also
been discussed, please see the attached table which outlines expected
expenditures associated with this project. Council is asked to consider
an expenditure of $19,000 for capital equipment associated with this
project, with ;12,000 to be drawn from the Celebrate Minnesota Crant
-2-
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
Program, and approximately $16,000 in the form of volunteer labor from
individuals and community groups. Total cost of this project including
value of volunteer labor is $47,000.
Landscaping Community Entrances
It is proposed that the Celebrate Minnesota program include the
cooperative efforts of the City and local organizations such as the
Chamber, Lions, and Rotary clubs in development of landscaping and
signage at or near City entrance points. Details regarding this project
proposal will be refined with the input of participating organizations.
It is proposed that the City allocate $25,000 for capital costs
associated with this project. Additional resources include $10,000 from
the State Grant Program and $5,000 from local organizations in the form
of volunteer labor. Total cost of this project is estimated at $40,000.
Leathers Play Structure
Council is familiar with this proposal. unfortunately, this project is
not eligible for State funding because it will not be completed until the
early summer of 1990. Despite this fact, the advisory committee decided
to include this activity in the Monticello program because the project is
vital to achieving one of the major goals of the program, which is to
celebrate the youth/future of the community and civic cooperation. It is
proposed that the City provide a funding level of $12,500 over a period
of two years, which represents 118 of the total cost of this particular
project. Please note, however, that if a portion of the project ($5,000)
is not funded by the State Program for the Handicapped as hoped, then an
increase to the planned 1990 funding requested can be expected. Please
see project financing summary for more details regarding the funding of
this project.
CELEBRATE MINNESOTA ACTIVITIES
A number of ideas have been suggested for Celebrate Minnesota celebration
activities. Such activities will be conducted in 1990. A preliminary
budget has not been established for the activity ideas at this point.
Any City funding for Celebrate Minnesota Program Activities will be
established during the next budget cycle. Celebration ideas include
acctvities listed on attached project outline.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve preliminary plan as presented and allocate City
funds as outlined.
2. Motion to approve preliminary plan as presented with modifications
resulting from Council discussion.
7. Motion to reject preliminary plan for participation in Celebrate
Minnesota program.
5a
Council Agenda - 10/11188
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Table Outlining Preliminary Plan for City of Monticello Participation in
Celebrate Minnesota: Advisory Comittee Membership List; Completed City
Application for Participation in Program.
i
-4-
CELEBRATE MINNESOTA ADVISORY COXMITTE
NAME: ROGER HEDTKE
POSIT: C!0 SNYDER DRUG
PHONE: (612) 295-4558
NAME: OPAL STOKES
POSIT: LEGION AUXILARY 9260
PHONE: (612) 295-2879
NAME: MARILYN HENNINGSON
POSIT: PINEWOOD COMM. PLAYGROUND
PHONE: (612) 295-5208
NAME: BARB SCHWINTEK
POSIT: MONTI/BIG LAKE HOSPITAL
PHONE: (612) 295-2945
NAME: KENNETH VETSCH
POSIT: VFW POST 98731
PHONE: (612) 295-2839
NAME: CHERYL FULLER
POSIT: PINEWOOD COMM. PLAYGROUND
PHONE: (612) 295-4064
:TAME: MARY VA.NDELL
POSIT: PINEWOOD COMM. PLAYGROUND
PHONE: (612) 295-4403
NAME: JUDY SLONEKER
POSIT: PINEWOOD COMM. PLAYGROUND
PHONE: (612) 295-5692
NAME: SHIRLEY ANDERSON
POSIT: LEGION AUXILARY
PHONE: (612) 295-2040
NAME: FRAN FAIR
POSIT: COUNCIL MEMBER
PHONE: (612) 295-5044
C
J
Em
(This is not a grant application) SEE ATTACHED TABLE OUTL:.%G PROGRAM.
Only official member communities will be eligible for special highway entrance signs, use of Celebrate Minnesota 1990
togas and listings in Celebrate Minnesota 1990 publications.
To become a member, please provide the following information:
Nameof Community Cicv of Monticello Approved by mayor or president of,:itv council:
Description of community improvement project or Oct. 11. 1980
activity. (Provide as much detail as possible: please use Signature Date ,
extra sheets. However, your project does not need to be Mayor
n final form. Yourgwl is what is important.) Title
Development of foot bridge or ferry to person who should receive mailings from Celebrate
io!nnd in :Sianisaiai — Deve!on island Park gwnnesota1990.(include address and zip code.)
City Entrance landscaping, Rbrt Leathers Play Structure Development.
game and" of celebration planned for 1990, if
fifferent fro m above: JEFF O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
Historical ualkinit Tour. Arte Festival
150 Ease Broadway, Memeieeite X41 4536 I'
River rides, Canoe Race, Plav St. Dedication.
domecomng Frtv, Fishing Conteet, Parade,
:ame of organtzaeon that will supervise project. (The Mail to: Celebrate Mlnnesota 1990
traject can be undertaken by a service club, school or 900 American Center Building
nher organization, but it must have the endorsement of 150 East Kellogg Boulevard
vur mayor or city council.) St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Cicv of Monticello (Charter member communities need not reapply)
GOAL: Celebration of History, Future (youth) and Natural Resources.
1-9
V
CELE==RATE MINNE:OTA/MCNTICELLO PROJECT PRELIMINARY PLAN
SEPTEMBER 27, 1988
IISCURCE OF FUNDS
II
IPRELIMINARY PLAN IIPROGRAM IISCHOOL ICITY ICELES. ISTATE ILOCAL ICC+M IPLAY
ICE'-r3RATE NN IISUDGE S IIOISTRICT IOF IMN IPG4 IORGANI- IVOL'JN- IGnND
IP.ROJECTS: II II 1MONT• I IHNCPPED IZATIONS ITE=RS ICCv"
I II II I 1 I I I I
IPROJECTS:
I III II I I I I I I
ILANOSCAPING II $10,000 11 EO 1$25.000 1$10,000 I I $5,000 I I
ICC+MJNITY II II I I I I (labor I I
1ENTRANCES II II I I I 1 value)( I
I II II I ! I I I I
I II II I I I I I I
(ISLAND PARK 11 $A7,000 II 1$19.000 1$12,000 I I 1516.000 I
(TRAIL SYSTEM/ II II I I I I I (labor
IEtRIOGE ETC. II II I I I I I value)(
I II II I I I I I I
I II II I I I I I I
ILEATHERS PLAY 11$111.500 II $12,500 1$12.500 1 $0 1 $5,000 I$1s.000 1551,500 1$15.000
ISTRUCTURE- II II (6.250 1 1 1 1 (cash) 1 (labor I (cash)
I II II per Yr•)1 I I I 1 value)(
ITOTAL OF II II I I I I I I
1PROGRAM BUDGE St1 15198.500 11 $12.500 1556.500 1322,000 1 $5,000 1$20,000 1$67,500 IS15,000
1 II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
IPER-CENT CF TOTAL I I I I 8%1 29%1 11%1 3%1 10%1 3d%I 8%
PLAY STRUCTURE TO BE COMPLETED IN 1990 - ONLY PROJECTS COMPLETED IN 1989 QUALIFY FOR
CELEBRATE MINNESOTA MATCHING FUNDS.
BUDGET DOES NOT INCLUDE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CELEBRATION ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE
FOR SUMMER OF 1990. THESE COSTS TO BE DETERMINED IN 1989 AND INCLUDED IN
IN 1990 BUDGc1. BELOW ARE SUGGESTIONS FOR CELEBRATION ACITVITIES.
....................
ACTIVITY IDEAS - 'THE CELEBRATION' - SUMMER OF 1990
LITTLE MOUNTAIN
SE-TLEMENT PROMO
ARTS FE3TIVAL
FICHIN0 CONTEST
RECCG1N:T(CN PROGRAM
CANOE RACE
DEDICATION OF PLAY STRUCTURE
HISTORICAL WALKING TOUR
HCMECMNG PARTY PARADE
TASTE OF MCNT:CELLO
FIRE HYMUNT PAINTING MONTICELLO OLYMPICS
OLYMPIC TCRCH RUN
OLYMPIC BIKE EVENT
RIVER RIOE3
FLOWER BOx/9IRO FcECER PROMOTION
'S3ICNAL LITTLE
@E?T ADDLICATIC"N C' C:TY LOGO
.AGUE TOURNEY
JUNK AMNESTY
NEASPAPER RECOGNITION -YARD OF WEE;( ETC.
b
u
6.
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
Consideration of Resolution Issuing an Order for Abatement of Dangerous
Bu adinas - Clifford Olson Property. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting, the Council tabled any action on a request by
the City Attorney for adoption of a resolution issuing an Order for
abatement of dangerous buildings pertaining to Clifford Olson's property
at 100 East Fourth Street. I have discussed with Mr. Hayes the reasoning
for requesting Council action to initiate procedures for abatement of his
dangerous building without first obtaining a search warrant to allow our
Building Inspector to do further investigation of possible building code
violations. Mr. Hayes has indicated that if possible, he would prefer
not to seek immediate court action or request a Court Order allowing
further inspections, as he feels the City has enough evidence from
previous reviews by the Building Inspector to warrant issuing the
original Order he prepared. Mr. Hayes noted that although the list of
violations and repairs needed may not be all encompassing, item $13 in
the Order states that Mr. Olson is required to correct any and all other
electrical, plumbing, or building code violations. This statement should
be sufficient to notify Mr. Olson that all building code violations must
be corrected, not just the specific items listed in the original Order.
In addition, if Mr. Olson does attempt to proceed with correction of the
ita-z listed in the Order, inspections would be required by our Building
Inspector; and at that time, he would be able to point out additional
deficiencies, if any.
At the previous meeting, it was noted by our Building Official that he
was expecting the City Attorney to obtain a Court Order allowing him to
do further inspection of the property, but as I noted earlier, the City
Attorney would prefer to avoid initiating court procedures until all
other remedies are exhausted. Mr. Hayes feels comfortable in the Order
as prepared in that the item 813 should cover any future violations of
building code that are discovered at a later date. Should the resolution
be adopted by the Council, Mr. Olson will have 45 days to complete all
building, electrical, and plumbing code violations; and at that time, the
City Attorney still has the option to file a motion before District Court
for summary enforcement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution proceeding with the Order for improvements
according to Minnesota Statutes 463.15 to 463.261 as recommended by
the City Attorney.
2. Do not adopt the resolution issuing the Order. This will essentially
stop any action an the City's part to correct the deficiencies in
this building.
v ��
Council Agenda — 10/11/88
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on additional conversations with the City Attorney regarding
procedures according to Statute, it is recommended that the resolution be
adopted and the Order issued by the City Council as presented. Even
though every possible defect in the building has not been listed in the
Order, any attempt by Mr. Olson to partially correct deficiencies will
require all building code violations to be corrected.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Order prepared by Tom Bayes; Copy of the resolution; Copy of
applicable Statutes pertaining to abatement of dangerous buildings was
included with your last agenda supplement. P4 1
�\'Y'L�
.J
-6-
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COUNT
COUNT: OF WRIGHT TMITH JUOIC:AL DISTRICT
CIVIL DIVISION
City of Monticello, CASE TYPE: 10
Petitioner, ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER
MINN. STAT. SECTIONS 463.15-463.261
and
Clifford Lee Olson and
Garnet Elizabeth Olson,
Respondent.
T0: Clifford Lee Olson and Garnet Elizabeth Olson
Upon resolution of the City Council, City of Monticello, and pursuant to
authority granted under Minn. Stat. Sections 463.15-463.261, you are each
jointly and severally ordered to make the following repairs to the structures
located on Lot Ten (10), Block Sixteen (16). Townsite of Monticello, County of
Wright, State of Minnesota:
1. Vent the gas water heater. ,
2. Replace ceiling and wall coverings near and around the stairwell
leading to the second level.
3. Repai..- the kitchen sink waste pipe.
4. Repair or replace expoaed wiring to any non -covered, no ground
fault electrical wall outlet box.
5. Repair or replace exposed wiring from wall outlet to ceiling
receptacle.
6. Cover ceiling hole in kitchen coiling above cooking stove.
7. Caulk around bathroom tub and repair or replace water damaged
flooring.
8. Install permanent lavatory fixture support.
9. Replace or repair non -vented, exposed wire exhaust tan.
10. Shore -up or replace sagging beams and timbers.
0
il. Reinforce bue:cling walls.
J
12. Eliminate vermin nesting in and about the property.
13. Correct any and all other electrical, plumbing or Building Code
violations.
14. Secure exterior roof and siding against further weather -caused
deterioration.
15. Secure structures from unauthorized entries.
This order is authorized under Minn. Stat. Sections 463.15-463.261
because the structures located on the above-described real estate are
hazardous buildings within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Section 463.15, subd. 3.
The structures have reached such a state of disrepair as to became
uninhabitable, unsanitary, a fire hazard and a hazard to public health and
safety. The structures also constitute dangerous buildings under the Uniform
Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings as adopted by the City of
Monticello (Chapter 5, Section 4-5-1, Ordinances of the City of Monticello).
Compliance with this Order must be accomplished within 45 days of the
date you are served with the Order. In the alternative, you may comply with
this Order by presenting to the City Administrator at 250 Vest Broadway,
Monticello, Minnesota, within 30 days of the date you are served with this
Order, written and fully executed contracts for the repairs required herewith
provided that any contractor you contact with must be bonded and licensed and
any contract must be performable in full within 45 days of the contract date.
If you do not comply with this Order within the time specified, or you
do not file an Answer within the time specified in Minn. Stat. Section 463.18,
the City of Monticello will bring a motion before the District Court, Tenth
Judicial District, Wright County, Minnesota, for summary enforcement of this
2
C
Judicial District, Wright County, Minnesota, for Summary enrorcement of this '
Order.
DATED:
A2': ESTED TO:
:ty Adoinistrator
w
CIT: OF NO'UTICELLO
by its Council:
Council Memoer
Council Member
Council Memoer
Council Member
Mayor
I
G
RESOLUTION 88 -
WHEREAS, a petition was received by the City Council of Monticello requesting
action to abate a dangerous building, and
WHEREAS, a resolution was adopted by the City Council on July 25, 1988,
directing the City Attorney to proceed with the procedures required for the
abatement of dangerous buildings.
NOW, 79MFORE, BE rT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOK:ICELLO:
1. An order pursuant to authority granted under Minnesota Statute
Sections 463.15 - 463.261 prepared by the City Attorney is hereby
adopted.
2. Compliance with this order shall be accomplished within 45 days or the
City of Monticello will bring a motion before the District Court for
summary enforcement.
Adopted this lith day of October, 1988.
Mayor
City Administrator
II
J
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
7. Consideration of Request to be in Non -Compliance with City Ordinances or
Request tor Second Service at no Charge. W.S.Y
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I first met Charles Anderson in the spring of this year. His neighbor to
the east, Mr. Eugene Kraus, had indicated that he had seen sewage
overflowing on the ground from Mr. Anderson's drain field, and I wished
to follow this up and discuss the upcoming utility project with
Mr. Anderson. I met Mr. Anderson at his home and asked him if he had
been having problems with his septic tank and drain field. He informed
me that he did, indeed, have problems with his sewer system and his well
was very shallow. I had sent all of the residents along East 39 a map of
the proposed improvements and asked them where they wanted their sewer
and water services located on the lot. I had also sent all residents a
notice of the upcoming April 13 informational meeting at the Junior High
School.
At the informational meeting, I had an opportunity again to talk to
Mr. Anderson. He indicated that his sewer and water service would be
best put on the east side of his house. He did indicate, however, that
it appeared that his only access at this time to County Road 39 was down
a driveway that he shared with his westerly neighbor, Mr. Virgil
Michaelis. Mr. Anderson owns the northerly portion of Lot 5 of Manhattan
Lots and is situated on the river. Mr. Michaelis owns the south half of
Lot 5 which is buildable, and all of Lot 4 which his home rests on.
The first option to serve Mr. Anderson's property with sewer and water
was down the already existing easement for the driveway he shared with
Virgil Michaelis. A second option may be to obtain an easement down the
easterly side of Lot 5 through and adjacent to Virgil Michaelis' garden.
A third option might be to obtain an easement from the easterly neighbor,
Mr. Eugene Kraus, for a portion of Lot 6. I told Mr. Anderson if we
could be of any assistance to please gat in touch with us but that he
should make a decision as to where he wanted his sewer and water services
in the near future so that we could inform the contractor. A few days
later in mid-April, Mr. Anderson called ms back and indicated that he did
not really get along very well with his neighbors and asked if we would
talk to Virgil Michaelis about acquiring an additional easement along the
east side of Lot 5 and talk to Mr. Kraus about obtaining an easement
along the west side of Lot 6. We informed him that we would. I
contacted Rick and briefed him about the situations and he and I made a
trip out to Could Brothers Chevrolet to talk to Virgil Michaelis. Virgil
was quite adamant about not giving any easement along the east side of
his property, as it would be through his garden, and he was very
protective of his garden. It also appeared that he shared little concern
for his neighbor, Mr. Charles Anderson. He did state that there would be
no problem with Mr. Anderson installing the sewer and water services down
the driveway, that he had legal access there, and as far as Virgil was
concerned that's the best place to put the sewer and water.
.7.
Council Agenda - 14/11/88
Consideration of Request to be in Non -Compliance with City ordinances or
Request for Secono Service at no Charge. W.S.i
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I first met Charles Anderson in the spring of this year. His neighbor to
the east, Mr. Eugene Kraus, had indicated that he had seen sewage
overflowing on the ground from Mr. Anderson's drain field, and I wished
to follow this up and discuss the upcoming utility project with
Mr. Anderson. I met Mr. Anderson at his home and asked him if he had
been having problems with his septic tank and drain field. He informed
me that he did, indeed, have problems with his sewer system and his well
was very shallow. I had sent all of the residents along East 39 a map of
the proposed improvements and asked them where they wanted their sewer
and water services located on the lot. I had also sent all residents a
notice of the upcoming April 13 informational meeting at the Junior High
School.
At the informational meeting, I had an opportunity again to talk to
Mr. Anderson. He indicated that his sewer and water service would be
best put on the east aide of his house. He did indicate, however, that
it appeared that his only access at this time to County Road 39 was down
a driveway that he shared with his westerly neighbor, Mr. Virgil
Michaelis. Mr. Anderson ams the northerly portion of Lot 5 of Manhattan
Lots and is situated on the river. Mr. Michaelis owns the south half of
Lot 5 which is buildable, and all of Lot 4 which his home rests on.
The first option to serve Mr. Anderson's property with sewer and water
was down the already existing easement for the driveway he shared with
Virgil Michaelis. A second option may be to obtain an easement down the
easterly side of Lot 5 through and adjacent to Virgil Michaelis' garden.
A third option might be to obtain an easement from the easterly neighbor,
Mr. Eugene Kraus, for a portion of Lot 6. 1 told Mr. Anderson if we
could be of any assistance to please get in touch with us but that he
should make a decision as to where he wanted his sewer and water services
in the near future so that we could inform the contractor. A few days
later in mid-April, Mr. Anderson called me back and indicated that he did
not really get along very well with his neighbors and asked if we would
talk to Virgil Michaelis about acquiring an additional easement along the
east side of Lot 5 and talk to Mr. Kraus about obtaining an easement
along the west side of Lot 6. We informed him that we would. I
contacted Rick and briefed him about the situation; and he and I made a
trip out to Gould Brothers Chevrolet to talk to Virgil Michaelis. Virgil
was quite adamant about not giving any easement along the east side of
his property, as it would be through his garden, and he was very
protective of his garden. It also appeared that he shared little concern
for his neighbor, Mr. Charles Anderson. He did state that there would be
no problem with Mr. Anderson installing the sewer and water services down
the driveway, that he had legal access there, and as far as Virgil was
concerned that's the best place to put the sewer and water.
-7-
Council Agenda - 10/11188
Consideration of Request to be in Non -Compliance with City Ordinances or
Request for Second Service at no Charge. U.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I first met Charles Anderson in the spring of this year. His neighbor to
the east, Mr. Eugene Kraus, had indicated that he had seen sewage
overflowing on the ground from Mr. Anderson's drain field, and I wished
to follow this up and discuss the upcoming utility project with
Mr. Anderson. I met Mr. Anderson at his home and asked him if he had
been having problems with his septic tank and drain field. He informed
me that he did, indeed, have problems with his sewer system and his well
was very shallow. I had sent all of the residents along East 39 a map of
the proposed improvements and asked them where they wanted their sewer
and water services located on the lot. I had also sent all residents a
notice of the upcoming April 13 informational meeting at the Junior High
School.
At the informational meeting, I had an opportunity again to talk to
Mr. Anderson. He indicated that his sewer and water service would be
best put on the east side of his house. He did indicate, however, that
it appeared that his only access at this time to County Road 39 was down
a driveway that he shared with his westerly neighbor, Mr. Virgil
Michaelis. Mr. Anderson owns the northerly portion of Lot 5 of Manhattan
Lots and is situated on the river. Mr. Michaelis owns the south half of
Lot 5 which is buildable, and all of Lot 4 which his home rests on.
The first option to serve Mr. Anderson's property with sewer and water
was down the already existing easement for the driveway he shared with
Virgil Michaelis. A second option may be to obtain an easement down the
easterly side of Lot 5 through and adjacent to Virgil Michaelis' garden.
A third option might be to obtain an easement from the easterly neighbor,
Mr. Eugene Kraus, for a portion of Lot 6. I told Mr. Anderson if we
could be of any assistance to please get in touch with us but that he
should make a decision as to where he wanted his sewer and water services
in the near future so that we could inform the contractor. A few days
late: in mid-April, Mr. Anderson called me back and indicated that he did
not really get along very well with his neighbors and asked if we would
talk to Virgil Michaelis about acquiring an additional easement along the
east side of Lot 5 and talk to Mr. Kraus about obtaining an easement
along the west side of Lot 6. we informed him that we would. I
contacted Rick and briefed flim about the situation; and he and I made a
trip out to Could Brothers Chevrolet to talk to Virgil Michaelis. Virgil
was quite adamant about not giving any easement along the east side of
his property, as it would be through his garden, and he was very
protective of his garden. It also appeared that he shared little concern
for his neighbor, Mr. Charles Anderson. He did state that there would be
no problem with Mr. Anderson installing the sewer and water services down
the driveway, that he had legal access there, and as far as Virgil was
concerned that's the best place to pit the sewer and water.
-7-
Council Agenda - 10111/88
7. Consideration of Request to be in Non -Compliance with City Ordinances or
Request for Secono Service at no Cnarge. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I first met Charles Anderson in the spring of this year. His neighbor to
the east, Mr. Eugene Kraus, had indicated that he had seen sewage
overflowing on the ground from Mr. Anderson's drain field, and I wished
to follow this up and discuss the upcoming utility project with
Mr. Anderson. I met Mr. Anderson at his home and asked him if he had
been having problems with his septic tank and drain field. He informed
me that he did, indeed, have problems with his sewer system and his well
was very shallow. I had sent all of the residents along East 39 a map of
the proposed improvements and asked them where they wanted their sewer
and water services located on the lot. I had also sent all residents a
notice of the upcoming April 13 informational meeting at the Junior High
School.
At the informational meeting, I had an opportunity again to talk to
Mr. Anderson. He indicated that his sewer and water service would be
best put on the east side of his house. He did indicate, however, that
it appeared that his only access at this time to County Road 39 was down
a driveway that he shared with his westerly neighbor, Mr. Virgil
Michaelis. Mr. Anderson owns the northerly portion of Lot 5 of Manhattan
Lots and is situated on the river. Mr. Michaelis owns the south half of
Lot 5 which is buildable, and all of Lot 4 which his home rests on.
The first option to serve Mr. Anderson's property with sewer and water
was down the already existing easement for the driveway he shared with
Virgil Michaelis. A second option may be to obtain an easement down the
easterly side of Lot 5 through and adjacent to Virgil Michaelis' garden.
A third option might be to obtain an easement from the easterly neighbor,
Mr. Eugene Kraus, fir a portion of Lot 6. I told Mr. Anderson if we
could be of any assistance tn please get in touch with us but that he
should make a decision as to where ho wanted his sewer and water services
in the near future so that we could informs the contractor. A few days
later in mid-April, Mr. Anderson called me oack end indicated that he did
not really get along very well with his neighbors anC ackd if we would
talk to Virgil Michaelis about acquiring an additional ea ,a along the
east side of Lot 5 and talk to Mr. Kraus about obtaining an easement
along the west side of Lot 6. We informed him that we would. I
contacted Rick and briefed him about the situation; and he and i made a
trip out to Gould Brothers Chevrolet to talk to Virgil Michaelis. Virgil
was quite adamant about not giving any easement along the east side of
his property, as it would be through his garden, and he was very
protective of his garden. It also appeared that he shared little concern
for his neighbor, Mr. Charles Anderson. He did state that there would be
no problem with Mr. Anderson installing the sewer and water services down
the driveway, that he had legal access there, and as far as Virgil was
concerned that's the best place to put the sewer and water.
-7-
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
During a discussion with Mr. Eugene Kraus concerning the location of his
sewer and water services, I asked him if he would consider granting a
15 -foot utility easement to Mr. Anderson along the west side of Lot 6.
Mr. Kraus indicated that he felt that his lots being along the river were
extremely valuable and that by giving up a 15 -foot easement, it would
limit the size of the house that could be placed on the lots. He
indicated that he did not favor granting an easement to Mr. Anderson, as
it would significantly devalue the lots, which were very valuable.
On April 25 we sent all residents along County Road 39 a letter
indicating that the project was to start on or about April 27. We asked
everyone to consider running the sewer and water into their homes during
the construction project to take advantage of the dewatering operations.
I spoke to Mr. Anderson about this personally and asked him if he had
made a decision ye: as to where he vented his sewer and water services.
It did appear that his only possibility at this time was his legal
easement down the driveway.
During the first week of May, I again had some conversations with Charles
Anderson. He requested that we install his sewer and water services on
Mr. Kraus's lot and that he would work out getting an easement from
Mr. Kraus later. I told Mr. Anderson we would need more than just his
verbal authorization to install his sewer and water services on someone
elses lot. Since the contractor was at that location on May 2 on the
west side of Lot 6, 1 did authorize LaTour Construction to put in the
"WYE" connection as Charles Anderson had requested, but I informed Mr.
Anderson that I would not put in any additional service pipe or the water
service until we had some type of authorization from Mr. Kraus or
assurance that this would be paid for. we could not go by Mr. Anderson's
only access, his driveway, without putting sewer and water services for
him, as this was his only legal access.
During my next conversation with Mr. Anderson -to find out if he had
gotten an =Lzehaent ;-oc Mr. KrmK;s; ye indicated he was tired'of the whole
mess and I should speak to his attorney, Mr. James Metcalf. I then
proceeded to call :'oat Hayes, the City Attorney. Tom advised me to
install sewer and water services at the driveway for Mr. Charles Anderson
(his only legal access to County Road 39) at this time. He advised me
not to proceed with any additional work or additional services without
authorization from Mr. Gene Kraus. I then decided to follow up a call to
Jim Metcalf to get his opinion. I was unable to reach Jim, but I did get
a hold of Brad Larson and explained the situation to him. Brad also
suggested the driveway as the location for the sewer and water services.
He indicated that if Mr. Michaelis said that the sewer and water services
would be allowed down the driveway and that was Mr. Anderson's legal
access, that was the proper place to put the sewer and water services.
We proceeded to install the sewer and water services at the driveway.
WE
4-
Council Agenda — 10/11/88
I did not hear from Mr. Anderson again until the third week of May.
Mr. Anderson stated that he had not been able to work out a deal with
Mr. Kraus, but that he still wanted another city sewer and water service
for himself installed on Mr. Kraus's Lot 6. I told him the same thing as
I had before, that we needed assurances that Mr. Kraus would allow the
second set of services and that they would be paid for. I also informed
Mr. Anderson that it now would be costly to hook up the sewer and water
services at that lot, as the contractor had completed his work in that
area; and the dewatering in that particular location had been shut down.
Mr. Anderson asked if I would get in touch with the contractor and at
least get a price. I discussed the construction or completion of another
set of sewer and water services with LaTour Construction, and they gave
me a price of $6,500 for completing the second set of services. On May
26 I called Charles Anderson and gave him the price. Again, I told him I
would not proceed with any additional work without written authorization
from the property owner, Gene Kraus. I also stated that the price of
$6,500 would not be valid for long because LaTour would be pulling out of
the area completely and would not remobilize at that price. Mr. Anderson
stated that he would not be able to give me anything in writing, that he
did not have an easement yet, but might be able to work something out "in
the future" with Mr. Kraus. Mr. Anderson then asked me a series of
questions relating to his need to hook up. He asked me if he had to hook
up. I told him that if there was sewage running on the ground and his
system had failed, he had to hook up within 30 days after availability.
If his sewer system was working properly, he would have three years to
hook up. He asked me what would happen if he didn't hook up. I told him
that his sewer system would probably be condemned and the City would have
to take some action to abate the possible contamination of the ground
water from his sewer system. He asked if his house would be condemned.
i stated I don't think his house would be condemned, just his sewer
system, and that he would be ordered to correct the problem by hooking up
and possibly keep pumping his system until he did hook up. I informed
him that it would be best to run the sewer and water services in down the
driveway and get it over with. A dewatering well was still located near
the entrance to the driveway and that could be utilized to dawater a
portion of his connection. I told him to call me back if he had anymore
questions.
Near the end of May, I again received a call from Charles Anderson. He
stated that we had put the sewer and water services on the edge of the
driveway and that Virgil Michaelis said that we could not go down the
edge of the driveway but we had to be "in the driveway.." I discussed
this with Hank wander and, indeed, the services were right on the edge of
the driveway. But there did not appear to be a problem, as the services
could be extended to the driveway with just touching possibly one or two
feet onto Virgil Michaelis' portion of Lot 5. Rick and I decided to go
out and talk to Virgil Michaelis to see if Virgil had a problem with
encroaching one or two feet on the very corner of his lot so we could get
back on the driveway when the services were just hooked up. Rick and I
went out and visited Virgil out at Gould Brothers Chevrolet; and again,
Virgil shared no concern whatsoever fur hio neighbor, Charles Anderson,
-9-
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
and said under no circumstances would he allow any work to occur outside
the driveway on or near any of his property. We told Virgil that it
would be very expensive for the City to move the services over a few
feet, and we would be willing to buy a one or two foot easement from him
so that this could be accomplished with the hook up. Virgil said no,
under no circumstances would he do anything for Mr. Charles Anderson.
The City was then forced to have Lalbur Construction come back in and
move the services over to the center of the driveway where the hook up
remains available today.
The sanitary sewer lift station was completed on September 15, and sewer
service became available to all those residents along County Road 39.
Since we knew of two sanitary sewer systems which were having definite
problems, we sent 30 -day hook up notices to Mr. Charles Anderson and
Mr. Richard vanorny. We sent official notices of the City Ordinances to
everyone regarding hook up. As a further enticement to get these people
to hook up so that we would have adequate sewage to run the lift station
properly and also abate any further ground water problems from
contamination, we offered all those residents who would hook up by
November 15 free sewer use until July 1, 1989. i then personally phoned
everyone who had indicated some past sewer problems on the questionnaire
and found every single resident who had had past sewer problems was going
to voluntarily hook up prior to the November 15 deadline.
After receipt of the 30 -day notice to hook up, Mr. Anderson called Gary
Anderson, the Building Inspector, and then called me in regards to the
hook up. Be, again, wanted to know if he had to hook up for sure lt
Because he had waited so long, he could not take advantage of the
dewatering the City was doing, and it would cost him more money. In
addition, Virgil Michaelis would not share in the coat or the driveway
replacement, so he would have to replace the driveway on his own. I told
Mr. Anderson that he, indeed, did have to hook up and that he would be in
violation of City Ordinance if he did not. I informed him that after
all, the purpose of this entire project was to abate those individual
sewer systems and reduce the possibility of ground water contamination.
He wanted to know if he could get a variance from that part of the
ordinance. i told him that there are no variances for certain ordinances
of the City, but that he could speak to the City Attorney, Tom Bayes. Be
said he would do that. He also asked if we would again talk to Virgil
Michaelis and see if he could obtain more than the driveway width
(12 ft)for installing the sewer and water service. We told Mr. Anderson
we would.
Rick placed a call to Virgil Michaelis and again asked him if
Mr. Anderson could have a few feet extra besides the driveway to put in
the sewer and water services for Mr. Charles Anderson. Mr. Anderson had
informed us that he had a 25 -foot eaaemant. Mr. Michaelis was quite
adamant and stated that Mr. Anderson could only have the blacktop area,
approximately 12 feet in width, to install the sewer and water earvicesr
and that was it, no ifs, ends, or butstli it appears that Mr. Michaelis
and Mr. Andurcun do not get along very well. Supposedly, Mr. Anderson
has hired Mr. Bolker
•10.
Council Agenda - 101111$8
as his attorney, and he has had conversations with our attorney, Tom
Hayes. The best all around solution is to get this sewer and water
service down the driveway and get Mr. Anderson hooked up. Mr. Anderson
has requested to be on the agenda Monday night to ask either not to hook
up and continue with his troublesome sewer system, or to have the City
taut in additional sewer services on the Eugene Kraus propertpV at no
charge. As tar as we know at tnis time, Mr. Ancerson stilt Ls no
easement down Mr. Kraus's property.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to require Mr. Anderson to hook up to city
sewer as mandated by City ordinance. If he does not hook up to city
sewer, according to the City Attorney, the City may be forced to hook
Mr. Anderson up and place the cost against his property. This may be
a solution that Mr. Anderson is looking for, as he does claim a
financial hardship would be caused by hooking up.
2. The second alternative would be to allow Mr. Anderson's individual
sewer system to remain as is with periodic open sewage flowing into
the Mississippi River.
3. A third alternative would be to put in additional sewer and water
services at the Eugene Kraus property and not charge anyone for the
'r
cost, which could be in the area of $6,000 to 58,000.
4. The fourth alternative would be to place additional sewer and water
services at the Eugene Kraus property but to assess Mr. Anderson for
them and the first set of services after receipt of an easement from
Mr. Kraus and petition for same from Mr. Anderson.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City opt
for Alternative 91 to require Mr. Anderson to hook up down the driveway,
or Alternative 14 if Mr. Anderson can produce an easement from Mr. Eugene
Kraus and a petition for same. We will be sending a letter to Virgil
Michaelis and Mr. Kraus to invite them to Tuesday evening's Council
meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of various letters sent to Mr. Anderson and other residents.
elm
a
City o f Monticello
MONTICELLO. MN 55362,9245
-none (812) 29S2711
April 11, 1988
Matto ?ai2> 3335739
Residents Along County Road 39 East
Monticello, P4I 55362
A,ve Onmsmo
tv Cauneie
Re: Monticello City Project i88-018
pe�Paan 8"
Trunk Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, Sanitary Lift Station,
Wdliam Pau
and Appurtenant Mork
War,an Smnh
Dear Resident:
wairst
Rw:a waihteuer
The Cit of Monticello will hold a neighborhood informational meeting
I 9
,DIM Wo,aa:
at the Monticello Junior High School Wednesday evening, April 13, at
conn simla
7:00 p.m. Tae meeting will be held in the Junior High Auditorium and
am -9 a:on,ng:
will be a joint meeting with representatives of Wright county. We
G8" A.00t°o"
hope that you can attend.
:onom,e O"woment:
!
Once Kowanax
The City portion of the project has been awarded to LaTour
Construction of Maple Lake. The contractor expects to begin work in
the area placing fencing and dewatering equipment during the reek of
April 18. He expects to start blacktop removal on or about Monday,
April 25, and begin the deep trench sanitary sewer excavation and
road closures on or about Wednesday, April 27. The contractor will
be allowed to close the road to all but emergency traffic between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. while he is engaged in the deep
sewer excavation. It is anticipated that he will not close the road
for the majority of the other work.
The contractor's preliminary schedule indicates that he will complete
the deep sanitary sewer work along County Road 39 East on or about
May 20. He has until June 24 to complete the majority of the pipe
work on the project.
We would like to have your assistance in locating where you would
prefer to have your sewer and water services on your lot. I am
enclosing a copy of a map of your lot showing a preliminary location
for the sewer and water. The sewer service is shown in red and the
water service in blue. Please mark these up in any way you see fit
and return them either at the informational meeting or by mailing to
City Hall. In addition, we would like to obtain some information in
regard to your existing well. The contractor will be responsible for
providing water to all residences. If necessary, this would include
temporary city water and bottled drinking water. The contractor
feels at this time he may be able to control his dewatering in such a
fashion as to limit the effect on any nearby wells, We would wish to
obtain information from you about your well as to depth and type of
pump. If you cannot attend the informational meeting, please contact
City Hall at 295.2711 and give your name, lot, and well description
if known.
:so east aroaa.ev
,wmttao, m—som
55392.9245
(1
\
Residents Along E. County Road 39
April 11, 1988
Page 2
During those times which you do not have access to your hone between
the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m., a parking lot will be provided
on the west end of the project near Mississippi Drive. If you have
any questions, or if we may be of any additional assistance, please
contact us.
Respectfully,
john E. Simola
Public works Director
JES/kd
Enclosures
cc: Muck Lepak, Project Engineer
Rick wolfsteller, City Administrator
JS
Improvement Project File
I.
2.
6-11 6®i -'j!T --
. Nl
i I -
w . au -
To 44d FrEco
E
5
It
IMI AN HAT TON
E
J>J�CONSTRUCT SILT
cr
cj\BARMER
co
!! !!1l11lyt1!!1!illililllttl�
18+00 %I -SAVE 1111 1 l 111111 ! ! 11
`SS / P.P. 100s.0, T r2 100.
)AT
3" D.I. P.✓
2
C. S. A. H.
MONTICELLO. MN 5562.9245
'none (6121 195.2711 April 20, 1988
uerto 18111 3355779 - 1 ' ,
Residents Along County Road 39 East
Moi Monticello, Minnesota 55362
♦rve Canm�nM
Ycounn,: Re: Monticello City Project 88-OLB
;ren Ps'
Temporary Water Supply for those Individuals with
W.nfiam Fwr Shallow Wells
'Warren 5meh
Dear Resident:
amxwcl
ttneue. it appears that many residents along County Road 39 East have shallow
DOC works: wells. With the installation of the deep sanitary sewer and
lonn$!more underdrain system, the contractor will be dewatering the area as he
inning Azonmg: moves along with the construction. 'It is very possible that some of
3arynnaeraon the shallow wells will dry up during this period of time. If the
onomrc Oweroomenr,
anis Korommae wells dry up unnoticed to the resident, it is possible that pump
damage may result. The City of Monticello has, therefore, made
arrangements through the contract to build a temporary water supply
system from the hydrant at Mississippi Drive.
50 east ero.m.er
omxeeo, taemnesoa
$5362.9:45
This temporary water system will consist of a 3 -inch plastic
watermain laid above the ground near the property line. At driveway
crossings it will be buried. Prom this 3 -inch watermain, 1 -inch
plastic or garden type hoses will be constructed to each home. A
connection will be made at a water spigot on the outside of your
home, and the power to your well turned off, as well as the valve at
the pressure tank closed. Since the City water is chlorinated, this
should be a safe water supply., We are, however, offering anyone who
wishes it, a water dispenser and a supply of $-gallon water bottles.
if you feel your well is of suf{icient depth that it may not dry up
(the City may dewater to a depth of 38 feet in some areas), you may
elect not to hook up to the temporary water supply. If you choose
not to hook up, however, the Cit} or contractor cannot be responsible
for pump failure should it ocatr due to lack of water in the well.
There is a signature block at the bottom of this letter for you to
sign if you wish to hook up. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is
included for your convenience. No response from you by April 25 will
be considered negative that you do not wish to hook up. It is
expected that after the dewatering operations are completed in late
May or early June, that the water table will return to near normal
level. An exception to this may be in the area of the underdrain
system on the eastern end of th. project. We would expect the water
system to be ready for individual hook ups by mid-Tuno, and the sewer
system for hook ups by mid-June, but uoago after mid to late August.
Residents Along East County Road 39
April 20, 1988
Page 2
If you have any questions, or if we may be of any additional
assistance, please feel free to contact us.
Respectfully,,
John E. Simola
Public Works Director
JESAd —
cc: Bank Wander
Chuck Lepak_
is
Improvement project Pile
In
Signature or Resident
-' City o f Monticello
MONTICELLO. MN S5362-9245
-man* (6121295-2711 April 25, 1988
Ae1@ (672) 333.57"
Residents Along County Road 39 East
Monticello, MN 55362
$Vcr.
Akmo Gnmemo Re: Monticello City Project 88-018
Y Coon: Hook up of individual sanitary sewer and water services
,an sionigen to the new utility system
:,an fair
,v.14am Pa"
,.,,on Smell, Dear Resident:
This letter is being drafted to clarify questions you may have in
M-Wator. regard to hookup to city sewer and water. Our previous
lick wonerono` correspondence with you and information presented at the
one wont informational meeting at the high school indicated there would be
term orbs 4 9
inning a zoning: savings to you if you were able to hook up to city sewer and water
iary Anaa@an services at the time the major contractor, La -our Construction, was
,noetic Damiopmonc dewatering. It may still be possible for you to realize a savings by
3nie Konoocnak coordinating your service installation with that of the general
contractor. It has, however, become somewhat complicated.
The sanitary sewer construction will begin on or about April 27 and
continue until complete sometime in mid to late May. This will
include all of the large diameter sanitary sewer and the sewer
`— services to the property line. It will not, however, include the
lift station which will not be complete until late August or on the
outside, mid-September. As the contractor moves along with the
installation of the deep sewer, he will only dewater that section of
sewer under construction; and the overall effect of his dewatering
may be "confined to a very limited area." In order for you to take
advantage or we general contractor's dewatering, you would have to
coordinate your contractor to be on site working just after the
general contractor has completed your service to the property line.
At that time, the City can place a temporary plug in the clean out
provided at the property line, and your contractor may complete the
sanitary sewer service up to your home but not make an official
connection in the home until the lift station is complete.
In some areas while making the sewer connection at the property line,
your contractor may be hampered by the dewatering equipment placed in
the temporary easement within your property. Although we would
expect LaTour Construction to cooperate with any contractor
installing a sewer service, it is reasonable to assume that LaTour
could not tolerate any significant delays in the progress of his
work. In addition, you and your contractor would be responsible for
any damage done to the dewatering equipment during sucb a hook up.
The water service installation is expected to be cc�leted between
Juno 20 and June 24. At that time, the line will have been pressure
- tested, bacteriologically tested, and will be ready for hook up with
50 E121 srow..or individual services.
,nncoko,
2g2+S M..Qsou
5 S3a
-7o
East County Road 39 Residents
April 25, 1988
Page 2
in summary, there still is a general consensus that one could save
some hook up costs by coordinating your work with the general
contractor. But in some cases, it is not without the trade-off of
working in and about the dewatering equipment. Whatever sc-nerio you
choose, should it be hooking up during construction or after
construction, please be advised to get a full understanding of what
work your contractor will do for you, what the risks are, and what
tae costs are. Construction techniques and costs can vary from
contractor to contractor. The City's responsibility for sewer
services ends at your property line; and once that portion between
your property line and the City's mains has been installed for one
year, it also becomes your responsibility for maintenance and repair
for the future.
We will try to keep each property owner updated as to how the job is
progressing. Mr. Hank Wander is the City's representative at the
site, and you may confer with him as to the job's progress.
one other item property owners in and about lift stations may
consider is the installation of a back water valve in the basement of
the home. These back water valves, if located properly within the
home, are relatively simple to maintain and provide a good insurance
against accidental backup of the sewer. These combination plastic
and neoprene valves generally cost in the area of $35 to SAO,
(excluding installation), and are well worth the money in the long
run.
if you have any questions or if we may be of any additional
assistance, please contact us.
Re ectfully,
ohn E. Simola
Public Works Director
JESlkd
cc: improvement Project 88-1 Pile
is
Pyle Excavating
Moores Construction
Brenteson Construction
Schluender Construction
LaTour Construction, Attn: Ted LeTour
Chuck Lepak, OSI!
Hank Wander, 0--i
_
Icy
City o1 Mntic.&
MONTICELLO. MN 55362-9245
Ph9ne (612) 2952711
September 20, 1988
Metro (612) 1115739
Ro-batt Rrautbauer
500 R view Drive
Monticello, Md 55362 l'
Mayor:
Arve Gnmsmo
Cdy COUMCLl:
RE: Hook-Up to Completed Municipal Sewer and Water Services
Can elonigen
Project 88-019 Along County Road 39 East.
Fran Fair
Wllllarn Fair
warren Smitn
Dear Mr. [(Mtbauer:
The sanitary sewer lift station along County Road 39 became
Administrator:
operational on Thursday, September 15, . 1988. The municipal sanitary
Rlcii walateller
sewer system as well as the municipal water system are ready for
Assistant Administrator)
hook-up to those properties served. Many residents have already
Plann.nq a zoning:
choosen to hook-up to city water and have done so. For those
Jen O'Neill
residents who have properly located and constructed wells with water
PuOtn: worts:
Joon simola
quality meeting State of Minnesota Health Department safe drinking
Suaainq official:
water standards, there is no r equ>.remene to hook-up to city water.
Gary Anaerson
Many residents who do hook-up choose to retain their old shallow
Econo—c De•etoorttent:
wells for lawn watering and gardening.
"hs Koropanas
For municipal sewer service however, it is mandatory that you hook-up
to the city sewer system. The main purpose of this project after all
was to eliminate the individual disposal systems which ultimately
contaminate our ground water and drinking water. City Ordinance
Chapter 7, Section 2-3-B, requires that you hook-up to city sewer
after it becomes available. For those individuals who have had past
or current problems causing the systems to function improperly, you
have 30 days in which to make a connection. If your system is
properly constructed according to city guidelines and continues to
operate properly, you have a period of three years from the date of
first availability to hook-up to a municipal sewer. It is unlawful
to repair or pump the private system after such time that the public
sewer system is accessible for the premises without permission of the
water and sewer department of the city. ^here are according to our
initial research and investigations, several failed or malfunctioning
individual sewer systems along East County Road 39. We will be
asking these residents to hook-up immediately.
If you have any questions concerning the fitness of your sewer
system, you may contact Mr. Gary Anderson, the City's Building
Official at City Hall, at 295-2711. Mr. Anderson, along with
representatives of the Pollution Control Agency and Wright County
Health Department will investigate the existing individual systems if
required.
250 East 0, o..,
ManlK Olio, M�nnlsOle
l5Ja 2.62x5 �,
Residents of East
County Road 39
PAGE 2
In an effort to abate potential ground water and drinking water
pollution as soon as possible, and the need to obtain a sufficient
amount of sewage for the efficent operation of the new lift station,
the city offers to any resident served by the new lift station who
hooks up to the municipal city sewer prior to November 15, 1988, free
sewer usage until July 1, 1989. That means your first municipal
quarterly sewer bill will not come until the end of October 1989. we
ask that you take advantage of this free offer and make arrangements
to hook-up as soon as possible.
we wish to thank all of the residents along County Road 39 for their
cooperation during our municipal improvement project. If you have
any questions or if we may be of any further assistance, please
contact us.
Respectfully,
John Simola,
Public Works Director
C: Rick wolfsteller, City Administrator
Matt Theisen, Water/Waste Water Collection
Superintendent
Lynnea Gillam, Utility Billing Department
Tom Hayes, City Attorney
Chuck Davis, Wright County Health office
J
LZ
CI
AFPIDAVIT SHOWING MAILING OP NOTICE
UTILITY IXPRCV01M1TS - EAST COUNTY ROAD 39
Rick Wolfsteller, being first duly swiorn, deposes *nd says:
on September 20, 1988, acting an.behalf of that said City, I deposited in the
United States Post Office at Monticello, Minnesota, copies of the attached
letter, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with the postage thereon fully prepaid
addressed to the following persons:
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES ARE LOCATED IN MONTICELLO, MN 55362
Robert Krautbauer (.Charles Anderson �uglas Stokes
500 Riverview Drive P.O. Sox 1082 301 Riverview Drive
Allen Ward -Daryl Burnham ivirgil Michaelis
305 Riverview Drive 309 Riverview Drive 313 Riverview Drive
P.O. Box 395
Eugene Kraus ✓ Elwood Saaland L --Francis E. Lemke
329 Riverview Drive 337 Riverview Drive 341 Riverview Drive
P.O. Box 663
VRaymond Erickson Thomas Johnson .1iJoseph Kocon
401 Riverview Drive 405 Riverview Drive 409 Riverview Drive
—Richard vancrny Kathryn Middagh w/Barry Pitch
404 Riverview Drive 408 Riverview Drive -.416 Riverview Drive
VPatrick Blonigen ✓Gary Boat VJohn Peterson
420 Riverview Drive 424 Riverview Drive SIO Riverview Drive
There is a delivery service by the United States mail between the place of
mailing and the places so addressed.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of September, 1988.
Notary City Aaminastrato:
E
__ - ..�-�:
City o1 M. &C"A.
'� = _
September 20, 1968 MONTICELLO, MN 55362.9245
Charles Anderson Cno),
none (512( 295-2711
F.O. Box 1062
aetro �t Z) 73397'9
Monticello, MN 55362
RV: Hook-up to Municipal Sewer Service
we Csnmamo
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Y COurc:t
San atomgen
The municipal sanitary sewer system is now complete and serves your
Fair
property known as northerly portion of Lot 5 Manhattan Lots. The
van v
"rase- Smnn
City has determined that your private sewer system does not meet the
standards as outlined in Title 12, Sanitary Sewer Disposal of the
Monticello Municipal Ordinance, is and or has been operating
mnt3strator.
improperly and is a source of contamination to regional groundwAT-z(_
tics woristeder
resources.
srstant •Cm,nratraton
inning aZoning:
Monticello City Ordinance, Title 7-2-3-8, requires that you hook-up
Jeff O'Neill
to the municipal sewer system within 30 days. You have 30 days after
oec works:
receipt of this notice to comply with City Ordinances. Failure to
loon 5imae
comply will result in further action by the City of monticallo,
.doing ot6cram:
Minnesota Pollution Control AgeneJ, and the County Health Of-ice.
iary Artcerson
'Gnomic Deveuooment
7ms r(oroocnaa
Since your sanity sewer service is located within a driveway u
yo sanitary Y '�
share with Mr. Virgil Michaelis, the City has asked the County to
delay restoration of the driveway until such time that you have
completed your hook-up, thus you will avoid the cost of replacing
that portion of the driveways
If you have any questions or if we may be of any assistance
concerning this matter, please contact us immediately.
Respectfully,
Cary Anderson,
Building Official
GAtvb
C: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
Tom Bayes, City Attorney
Dick Clack, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Div. of water Quality
Chuck Davis, Wright County Health Officer t
!O east eroutasv
in nG��1e. Ntnneaeta
ss7e;•v:,9
—7.
0
City o f �onEicet�o COPY
�tw
MONTICFl40, MN 553629245
Ina (e12) 295-i711 September 20, 1988
Jauo (612) 333 -SM
Virgil Michaelis
313 Riverview Drive
4" Gnmsmo
P.O. BOR 395
MOntieellO, MN 55362
VCWncl:
'an etontgen
zran Fan
RE: Driveway Restoration/Book-up to Municipal Services for Charles
rvaaam Fair
Anderson Residence,
warren Smith
Dear Mr. Michaelis:
-In:Ucx woliv
ikk waruana
neighbor, Mr. Charles Anderson has been notified that he has 30
your net ,
aslant Aammtstrator7
days in which to hook his residence to municipal sewer service. The
etmnga zoning:
City of Monticello has determined that his private sewer system has
3Oa o'rrms
been and or is not functioning properly and represents a source of
see works:
potential contamination of the ground water.
,ono Smola
,m+ng Official:
City Staff has learned from you and Mr. Anderson, that the only
3W Anderson
pathway open for Mr. Anderson's connections to municipal sewer
OffidK Owewamern:
�tua ttaraacnea
services is the driveway easement. The Cit of Monticello has
Y Y
therefore asked Wright County to delay restoration of the initial
portion of your driveway until such time that Mr. Anderson hooks up
to City sewer. It does not seem prudent to burden Mr. Anderson with
the cost of replacement of the initial portion of the driveway during
his hook-up.
If you have any questions or if'we may be of any additional
assistance, please contact us.
Respectfully,
Gary Anderson,
Building Official
GA/vb
C: Rick WOlfsteller, City Administrator
John Simla, public Works Director
Tom Bayes, City Attorney
r
Dave Montibello, Wright county Highway Eng.
so east emaa-er
VfnaaiM, Mn`0.0ts
55382.9266
s
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
Public Hearing on the Proposed Budget for 1989. AND
9. Consideration of Adopting the 1989 Budget and Certifying the Tax
Levy. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BAC(CROOND:
It is required that the City Council hold a public hearing prior to the
adoption of the annual budget and certifying the annual tax levy.
Normally, no one has ever appeared at the budget hearing to make
comments, but this option is available since the notice was published.
At this time, I know of no one who has requested a copy for inspection;
and if there is no one present at the public hearing, the hearing can be
officially closed.
At the preliminary budget meeting, a number of proposed budget cuts
pertaining to the HRA levy and capital expenditures were recommended. I
have incorporated these changes into the preliminary budget figures; and
the resulting tax levy required per our budget meeting would be
$2,198,008. As I noted in the budget memo, the Council may want to
consider an additional tax levy to provide a surplus for future needs and
to also .—meet the leer limitation set by the State. If it is determined
that there will not be any further alterations or amendments to the
budget from that proposed, the budget could still be adopted at this
meeting and the resolution certifying the tax levy could be adooted.
IL Although I had scheduled a final budget document to be presented at the
October 24 Council meeting, if there are not to be any changes to the
preliminary budget, the Council would not have to review the budget again
on October 24.
L
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. If the Council is comfortable with the budget as amended during the
budget session and as proposed tonight, the resolution certifying the
tax levy could be adopted if desired.
2. The Council could alter the tax levy by any amount up to the maximum
allowed under the levy limitation and still adopt the budget and tax
levy tonight.
3. Changes could to recommended in the budget document for consideration
at the next Council meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on my previous budget memo, the staff is comfortable with the tax
levy of $2,198,008 as proposed; but we are uncertain over what effect
this lower levy might have in future years. If the Council did decide to
levy to the maximum allowed to protect its future taxing authority,
surplus revenue generated this year could be used to reduce future tax
-12-
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
levies if and when the levy limitations were ever eliminated by the
State. The possibility always exists that the legislature may eliminate
levy limitations in the future which would allow the City to then feel
more comfortable with lowering its tax levy in one year because of the
surplus that might be created this year.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution adopting the 1989 budget and certifying the tax
levy; 1989 budget and amended sheets previously delivered.
IR
-13-
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
SUPPLEMEr:AL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA
8A. Consideration of Approving Transfers to Debt Service Funds.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the recommended budget cuts being considered for next years tax levy which
would reduce our proposed levy to $2,198,008 I previously noted in a memo to
all Council Members the concerns I had over our levy"proposed for general
operations not meeting the maximum allowable by the state. Since the agenda
item was prepared on adoption of the 1989 Budget, I have had conversations with
Jerry Shannon of Springsted Inc., the City's bond consultant on the appropriate
method for protecting our future right to a higher levy limitation amount but
still trying to reduce the levy for this year.
Mr. Shannon noted that once bonds are sold, the City is obligated to certify as
a taxable levy each year the amount necessary according to the bond documents
to retire the debt. According to our present schedules, $1,067,098 would be
the amount necessary for 1989. Mr. Shannon noted the exception to this rule is
if a debt service account has sufficient surplus revenue before a levy is
certified for the next year, the city would not have to levy taxes for this
debt service account. The best method to accomplish this surplus revenue is to
transfer from the capital improvement revolving fund or/and the Liquor Store
surplus account sufficient revenues to have this surplus in the debt service
account thereby allowing the city to levy the additional funds for general
operations. The net result would be that the total tax levy proposed would not
change but we would be lowering the debt service levy from $1,067,098 by
1� $286,582 and levying an additional amount equal to this in the capital
^1c� revolving improvement funds to repay this fund for Liquor Store money.
The result of this would be to protect the City's ability to a higher maximum
levy in the future if it was ever needed.
i
j� B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
�\ 1. If the Council is comfortable with the budget as amended (tax levy of
$2,198,008) and the Council plans on adopting the resolution certifying
the tax levy at this meeting, Council must approve the transfer from the
capital outlay fund and Liquor Storeunin the amount of $286,582 to
debt service accounts as recommended under option 2.
2. If the Council does not approve the transfer, and the total budget is
still adopted at $2,198,008, the possibility exists that our maximum levy
limitation will be reduced in the future.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
After consulting with the Department of Revenue and Jerry Shannon of
Springsted, Inc., it is my opinion that the best protection for the City is to
transfer surplus funds from the Liquor Store and Capital Outlay fund prior to
adoption of the budget as proposed and the result would be a lower debt service
levy :or 1989, but a higher Capital Outlay levy. Tis will give us the best of
+ both worlds and allow us to retain our higher levy maximum in the future.
RECOMMEND TRANSFER PRIOR TO
1989 BUDGET ADOPTION
Purpose:
FROM
To
Debt Service Requirement
Capital Outlay
1977 G.O.
1989
Revolving
Bond
Debt Service Requirement
Liquor Fund
1977 G.O.
1989
a 1975 G.O.
Bond
C,
AMOUNT
$144,582
$142,000
SUMMARY
TAX E09ES TO RETIRE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
(All bonds including water tower issue)
Year of Levy
Collection
Amount
1989
1990
$1,059,874
1990
1991
$1,048,616
1991
1992
$ 986,563
1992
1993
$ 700,233
1993
1994
$ 701,624
1994
1995
$ 608,901
1995
1996
$ 580,564
1996
1997
$ 441,626
1997
1999
$ 449,039
1998
1999
$ 440,297
1999
2000
$ 438,401
2000
2001
$ 445,199
2001
2002
$ 272,625
2002
2003
$ 276,570
RESOLUTION 88 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1989 BUDGET AND
SETTING THE TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council
a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello
for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing
January 1. 1989, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the sane, and has made such changes
therein as appeared to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, that
the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes
made therein by the City Council be, and same hereby is, adopted as a budget
for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1989, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that there
be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1989,
and the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein, upon the
taxable property of the City of Monticello, to wit:
REVENUE
General $1,019,800
Library $ 25,025
OAA S 28,100
,l HRA $ 16,760
DES' RETIREMENT
Debt Service Fund $1,067,098
CAPITAL IMPR0VEMENTS
Capital Improvemant Revolving S 41,225
'TOTAL TAX LEVY $2,198,008
The above resolution was introduced by Councilmember I
was duly seconded by Councilmamber , witn the toisowing
voting in favor thereof:
Resolution 88 -
pace 2
The following voting in the opposition:
The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of
this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota.
Dated: October, 1988
C17Y OF MONTICELLO
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
RESOLu::ON 88 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1989 BUDGET ACID
SETTING THE TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council
a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello
for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing
January 1, 1989, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made such changes
therein as appeared to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, that
the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes
made therein by the City Council be, and same hereby is, adopted as a budget
for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1989, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that there
be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1989,
and the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein, upon the
taxable property of the City of Monticello, to wit:
REVE!=
General
$1,019,800
Library
$
25,025
OAA
$
28,100
SRA
$
16,780
DEBT RETIREMENT
Debt Service Fund
S
780,516
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Capital Improvement
Revolving $
327,807
TOTAL TAX LEVY
$2.1981008
The above resolution was introduced by Councilmember ,
was duly seconded by Councilmember , witn trio tolicwing
voting in favor thereof:
OPTION 4z
'- kc4crn,-mu n.aE}
1
Resolution 88 -
Page 2
The following voting in the opposition:
The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of
this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota.
Dated: October, 1988
CIT`_` OF MOtF:'_CELLO
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
w
RESOLUTION 88 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1989 BUDGET AND
SETTING THE TAX L., -VY
wHEREAS, the City Administrator has prepared and submitted to the City Council
a budget setting forth therein his estimated needs of the City of Monticello
for all operations and the debt service for the fiscal year commencing
January 1, 1989, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the same, and has made such changes
therein as appeared to be in the best interest of the City of Monticello;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE =.CIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, that
the budget so submitted by the City Administrator, together with the changes
made therein by the City Council be, and same hereby is, adopted as a budget.
for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1989, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Monticello, that there
be, and hereby is, levied for the fiscal year commencing on January 1, 1989,
and the following sums for the respective purposes indicated therein, upon the
taxable property of the City of Monticello, to wit:
REVENUE
General
5110191800
Library
S 25,025
OAA
$ 28,100
HRA
S 16,760
DEBT RETIREMENT
Debt Service Fund
$1,067,098
CAPI^_AL IMPROVEMENTS
Capital improvement
Revolving S 327,807
TOTAL TAX LEVY
$2,484,590
The above resolution was introduced by Councilmember
I
was duly seconded by Councilmember witn the rollow :ng
voting in favor thereof:
1,
pp -r -i om) - 3
E
Resolution 88 -
Page 2
.he following voting in the opposition:
The City Administrator is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of
this resolution to the County Auditor of Wright County, Minnesota.
Dated: October, 1988
C!T- OF MONTIICEUO
Mayor
A=EST:
city Acministrator
IF
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
10. Consideration of Appeal on Variance Request to Allow 1) a Garage to be
Constructed Within the Front Yard Setback Requirement; 2) a Garage to be
Built with a Siding in Excess of the 12 -inch Siding Width Allowed.
Applicant, Viva Jean Abrahamson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mrs. Abrahamson is proposing to build a detached, two -car garage within
the front yard setback requirement. Mrs. Abrahamson would like to bring
it as close to the front yard property line as possible. The existing
street, Linn Street, which runs in front of her place, is a 28 -foot wide
blacktop surface. We have an 80 -foot street right-of-way with Linn
Street, which means we have 26 feet of boulevard or green area behind the
curb. With the placement of the garage on the lot, any maneuvering in
and out of the garage will be done on her own property and not on city
boulevard or the traveled portion of Linn Street. Mrs. Abrahamson has
withdrawn her request for a metal siding width that you see on pole type
buildings in excess of the 12 -inch aiding width allowed by ordinance.
-" The planning Commission denied her request because of the failure of the
applicant to demonstrate the hardship for her request in not cutting down
a couple of trees and placing it closer to the existing house.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a garage to be constructed
within the front yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a garage to be constructed within
the front yard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In looking at the location of the proposed garage, adequate ingress and
egress out of the garage would be done on private property and not on
public right-of-way and/or public hard surfaced street. With the house
constructed on it, this is probably the best location for a garage to be
built.
D. SUPPOR^INC DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request) Copy of the site
plan for the location of this proposed garage; Copy of the ordinance
sections.
-14-
�.
'.�/� ry\',••• `_ J Variance request to el'_ov 1) a garage to be
constructed within the front yard setback
requirement; and 2) a garage to be built
• .If ,.A%. : � _ — � R `� with a siding width in excess of the 12 -inch
ind width allowed.
_ an Abrahamson.
/' • .``�/mat' ./ "V �9�/�'�i-��/, /� ,•� •��
Ai C
rel ,Vi7 SJ/ ��, )L,. r/ • ^+�/ J ✓rj.
NWAy
A Na
166 .v..... • \ ; �", nq••e 1 • � f
1 t--°/L.�./� I�� �% �, t .' . �`'.1 . 7 I • tam I
C.
i i •
�
A) IN STREE T
1. Clothes line pole and wire.
2. Recreational equipmant and vehicles.
3. Cmnstraction and landscaping matarial c.:rrently
being used on the premises.
6. Off-street parking of passengar vehicles
and t:sc'.xa not exceeding a gross capaci:t
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residantial
areas.
5. prtpane tanks. fuel oil tanks, and other
similar raeidantial heating fuel stzrage
tanks which do not a teed 1,000 gallons
is capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) fast of any proper:/ lice.
6. Wood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not mora t`.an 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
Shall be a' x O' x S'. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from COAX
and side yard proper:/ lines and shall
be storad behind tie appropriate sat back
line in front yards.
7. Soler heating systems -
3 -3: YAP RSy�UZ1{.1'}L*N:s:
CA) PUMS8: :his section ide:ttifiae ainieua Yard
spaces and•areas to be provided for in each
toning district.
(3) No lot, yard or other open spats shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or opaa space lass than the minimum required
by this Ord.'nancs, and if the misting yard
or other open space as existing is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. lb required open spats pXavided around
any building or stricture shall be includsd
as a Dart of any open space requix3d for another
st--utters.
(Cj All setback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 so 30 s0
Iii 1,I . in)
R-2 30 10 50
9-3 30 20 30 +
R-3 30 30 30
p: -R Soo Chapter 10 for specific raguistions.
FZ-x Sao Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
$-1 30 1s 20
3-2 20 10 20
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA
10A. Consideration of Appeal on Variance Request to Allow 1) a Garage to be
Constructed within the Front Yard Setpack Requirement; 2) a Garage to be Build
with a Siding in Excess of the 12 -inch Siding Widtn Allowed. Applicant, Viva
Jean Abrahamson.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The following is information that is supplemental to that which was presented
to you by Gary Anderson. The purpose of this supplement is to update you on a
modified staff recommendation on this matter and also to provide you with
additional perspective on the matter.
B. PLAN11ING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION/STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff concurs with Planning Commission recommendation to deny this request
for a variance of 29 feet. Following are the findings of the Planning
Commission and reasons for denial.
1. In this case, the applicant failed to demonstrate that a variance is
justified because of a unique hardship (trees) associated with her property.
The presence of the trees, though unfortunate, does not constitute a hardship.
Quite often, trees must be removed prior to development of a new home or prior
to construction of an addition in order for the home/addition to meet minimum
yard requirements. Therefore, this situation is not unique and a variance is
not justifiable.
2. Another reason why the Planning Commission is opposed to granting this
variance is because doing so will set a precedent that may reduce the ability
of the City to enforce regulations pertaining to yard set -backs. In other
words, where will the City draw the line if the presence of trees becomes
justifiable grounds demonstrating hardship? Approval of this variance
threatens to open "Pandora's Box" in terms of the precedent that would be set
by approving this request.
3. Finally, the presence of a structure as proposed may have a negative
effect on the value of the adjoining property.
C. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
The fact that vehicle maneuvering associated with exiting and entering 0e
garage is possible on private property only is a secondary issue and sho,;ld not
be a determining factor in whether or not to approve the variance.
The next door neighbor has noted that he does not approve of the varianca
request because the presence of the structure will interupt the sight line from
his property.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Remain the carie as stated in original information delivered to Council.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff concurs with Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for
a 29' variance.
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
11. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Minor Auto Repair in a
B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. Applicant, Dale Poganski. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Poganski is proposing to construct a pole type building next to and
immediately north of the existing General Rental business.
Mr. Poganski's business is the automotive business specializing in small
work repair items. Mr. Poganski's building will be colored metal inside
and out with the exception of the front portion of the building which
fronts Highway 25 which will be dressed up in a different variety to
break up all the colored metal portions of the building. in the site
plan as submitted, the building located on this lot would meet the
minimum building setback requirements and will also meet or exceed all of
the minimum off-street parking spaces as required with a total number of
11 parking spaces.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a
B-3 (highway business) zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B-3
(highwy business) zone.
3. Approve the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a
B-3 (highway business) zone with the following conditions:
a. Both front and rear to have a different type of siding than the
rest of the building.
b. Site plan review by Planning Commission prior to building permit
application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The site pian as submitted by the applicant, Mr. Dale Poganski, does meet
or exceed the minimum lot square footage, building setback, and minimum
parking space requirements by ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy of the
site plan for the conditional use, Copy of Ordinance sections.
-15-
it :` �' ,,��;•,_.:.r„, „- � ,:
Iry
RAI
Al
dl
i/elg�,.
/
•, �;= � \��• /.f• //0. r � ,fir/,,,/�../Y,./ ��_y�`l `t.:
:7r
h/Ckk4Y A con tionai use za s r£�d al�ov� �' / / ' ••�n ;: ' i•'�' .�: /,/'��� �f
s minor auto rapair in a w g 1p icypts� aoOt • 1 Dale Pogan"s t 1 I�I •;/ / i.I•�4'�
I• , r -�Il�j ��, y�I • 1 . �.1 . '��-1�•-•.i• '�'ij ruoi :V.,ti: �
,,,.,.—: •.. �;. a ..
�iy �• „ 1 • �- J �.
1351
�D
ROAD
S. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed
that the light soures is not visible from
the public right-of-vay or from an abutting
residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3.
Section 2 (81 of this Ordinance.
9. Vehicular access points shall be limited.
shall create a mL'Ai== of conflict with
through traffic movement and shall be subject
to the approval of the Cir/ Engineer.
10. All signing and informational or visual
cc;^'unication devices shall be is compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance.
11. provisions are made to control and reduce
roles.
12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily mat.
(c1 MOTOR FUE; STATION, MOTOR FUEI. S:A_ION/COWE;12°' ICr
STORE.�AUTO RE?AIR-!MINOR` AND TT -AZ AND BATT=Y '
STORES AND SEVIC= ?ROwIDEZ THAT:'
1. Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale
or offarinq for sale of motor fuels and/or
oil i%cidental to the conduct of the use
or business, the standards and requirements
Imposed by this ordinance for Motor Fuel
Stati0RS shall apply. These standards
and requirements are, however, in addition
to oL'1er requirements which ars imposed
for other uses of the property.
2. The architect -,sial appearance and functional
plan of the building and sits shall not
be so dissimilar to the existing buildings
or area as to cause impairment in property
values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
3. Ths entire site other than that taken up
by a building, structure or plantings shall
be surfaced with a material to control
dust and drainage which is subject to the
approval of the city Engineer.
6. A minimum lot area of tvan r/-twa thousand
five hundred (22,500) square feet and minims -
lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (1301
feet by one hundred thirty (130) fast.
S. A drainage system subject to the approval
of the City Engineer shall be Lzstailed.
6. A curb not less than six (6) inches above
grade shall separate the public sidevaL'c
from motor vehicle service areas.
7. The lighting shall be ac==mpl shed in such
a way as to have no direct sou:=e of light
visible from adjacent land in rasidentia'_
use or from the public right-of-way and
shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Sac ---on 2 (s) of this Ordinance.
S. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed,
pump islands shall be installed.
9. At the boundaries of a residential district,
a strip of not Less than five (5) feet
shall be landscaped and screened in compliance
with Chapter 3, section 7 (G) of this Ordinance.
10. Each light standard landscaped.
11. Park—'%g or car magazine storage space shall
be screened from view of abut-.-zq residential
districts in compliance w1t.1 Chapter 3,
_ Section 2 (GI of this OrdLzance.
12. Vehicular access points shall create a
m.Lns-+,^ of conflict with through traffic
movement, shall comply with Chapter 3,
Section 5 of this Ordinance and shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
13. All signing end informational or visual
communication devices ■hall be minimized
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 9 of this Ordinance.
14. Provisions are made to control and reduce
noise.
15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance
with Chapter 13, Section 4 of this Ordinance.
16. Sale of pr=ducts other than those specifically
mentioned in Chapter 13, Section 4 be subject
to a conditional use permit and be in compliance
with Chapter 13, Section 4 (Q) of this
Ordinance.
0
17. A11 conditions part3lziag to a specific
site are subject to change when the Council
upon investigation in relation to a for -_al
request, finds that the gameral walfaro
and public bette-=ant can be served as
well or better by codifying notconditions.
IS. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily mat.
(01 ltew and Used Autmmobila/Light Tr -=k Sales and
Display provided that:
1. The enclosed principle use (sales and display
office) is A min=s= of 4,:00 square feet,
excluding the area used for machanic31
repair and raconditioning.
2. Outside sales and display areas are fenced
or screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or an abutting "R^ Dist:ict in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G).of this ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and to directed i
that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right-of-way or fr:m neighboring
residences, and shall be in compliance /
with Chapter 3, Sacticn 2 (S1 of this Ordinance.
4. The outside sales and display area shall
be hard surfaced.
S. The outside sales and display area does
not utilize par!ti_zg spaces which are required
for confor=aacs with this Ordinance.
6. Vehicular access points shall create a
minimus of conflict with through traffic
sovecert, shall comply with Chapter 3,
Section S of this Orlinancs and shall be
subject to the approval of the Cir/ Engineer.
7. There is a minimus lot area of twenty-two
thousand five hundred (22,300) square feet
and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred
fifty (130) feet by one hundred thirty (130)
fast.
S. A drainage system subject to the approval
Of the City Engineer shall be installed.
PS
0
Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
E-3 30.. f 0fl "1
8-i 0 0 O
I-1 40 30 40
I-2 s0 30 s0
Ia R-1, R-2, B-1 and B-2 districts, where
adjacent atractures excludiag accessory
buildings within Baca block have _rant
yard setbacks different f=cm those required,
the front yard mimi=u- setback snail be
the average of the adjacent st=.ic_sres.
If theze is only or* (1) adjacent Bt= -c: ---a,
the front yard mini-= setback shall be
the average of the raq^W-ed smack and
the setback of the adjacent st=..ac_=a.
In no case shall the miaicL front ya=w
set=sc% exceed thin -1 {:6) feet, except
as provided is Subsecticn {F1 below.
2. In R-1, R-2, B-1 and S-2 districts. if
lot is a corner lot, the 31d*yazd setback
shall be not less than twenty (20) fset
frac the lot line abutting the et= aet right-of-way
line.
(01 The, following shall not be toxo iderad as encrcac.=onts
an yard setbac» :aqui. a=ants.
- 1. Chirneya, flues, belt coursaa, leaders.
pilaster, li stale, or..aaental fear -=Os'
cors -less, saves, guttars, and the like
provided they do not project mora than
two (2) feet into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar taata=es provided
they do not extend above the height of
the ground floor level of the principal
at_ -acture or to a distance loss than two (2)
feet frac any lot line.
3. In roar yards: recreational and laundry
drying equipment arbors and trelliaas,
balconies, breezeways, open porches, dstac:ad
outdoor Living rooms, garages, and air
conditioning or heating squipsent.
4. Solar systema-
(.) Lots of multiple housing unit structures may
be divided for the purpose of condominium ownership
provided that the principal structure containing
the housing units :hail meet the setback distances
of the applicable toning district.
C/I
In addition, each condomizi.um unit shall a
have the minimum lot area for the type
of housing unit and usable open space
as specified In the area and Suilding
Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such
lot areas nay be contzolied by an individual
or joint ownership.
(FI In residential districts, where the adjacent
structures exceed the miaimum setbacks
established in Su section M' above, the
mi,%L= setback shall be thin=-/ (30) faez
plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference.
between thirty (30) feet and the setback
or average setback of adjacent structures
within the sacs block.
3-4: AREA AIM BUIIJING SIZE REGULATIONS:
[Aj PURPOSE: This section identities minimum
area sad building size requirements to
be provided in each zoning district as
listed la the table below.
0I5'.4IC: LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING Rzzaa:
A-0 2 acres zoo N/A
R -i 12,000 80 24
- R-2 12,000 80 24
R-3 10,000 8o 2
R -a 48,000 200 1
PZ -R 12,000 50 24
PZ -M 12,000 80 2
8.1 8,000 8o 2
5-2 N/A 100 2
i, d-9 N/A Ion 2
a-4 Nva N/A 2
1-1 20,000 100 2
1-2 30,000 IN 2
1. The building height limitation in an
R-3, PZ -M, 5-1, 5-2. 5-3, 15-4, 1-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-3. PZ -M, 2-1,
8-2, 5-3. 8-4, I-1, and 1-2, a (3)
three story building may bo allowed
as a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of a requirasent
that fire -extinguishing systems be
Installed throughout the building.
(Rtqudat6 a ccndZz4anal u6r peuait
baatd upon P-%0c9!.ut9i 4Lt 604,.tk to
and xtgutztzd by Chapttt 12 ob th46
p4d,(✓LanCtl .
II
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
12. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Approval for a Residential
Subdivision. Applicant, Tom Holthaus. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Tom Holthaus is before you with a preliminary plat request of an
existing unplatted tract of land. The new preliminary plat as presented
consists of one block with one lot and one outlot within it. Block 1,
Lot 1, consists of the existing house, and the total land area
encompasses 13,965 sq ft. The land area which is left has been put into
an outlot which is called Outlot A and has a total land square footage of
28,160 sq ft. Both the lot and the outlot square footages meet or exceed
the minimum lot area requirement in the PZh( (performance zone mixed)
zone. The location of the proposed house on Lot 1, Block 1, meets or
exceeds the minimum setback distances also.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat request for a proposed new residential
subdivision plat.
2. Deny the preliminary plat request for a proposed new residential
subdivision plat.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has so designed his residential plat with one lot and one
outlot within it that meets or exceeds the minimum lot square footage,
and the house which already exists on Lot 1 meets or exceeds the minimum
setback requirements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed preliminary plat request; Copy of
the preliminary plat; Copy of ordinance sections.
-16-
gro
irate gl l g aiv t a 91. at. sea
4r$iim Dntia
=ODid
oOd i�plt.•.1D�.
Loa
,'••"'-..-trz, -::•,' t r--•e,,� r• •.. a=rt -t
.. •�.a",...r r ti �'st...(' ilI �j• •:ate
��.`t``•:j •v.cr•T �LI l !! ' t r.) f � '1 t �n •`L�1 .P.�-'�+ai"`c`.' ' / 1; if V ' — 1�— � �:
*'-y l p ..� ', '47 .l t 1 .�. rr_r rj' �r u,f'•:'!-.`''„'.."t�."• / '�4'%'1.Je•r` �"`�.
1�..�:f �!! � t { j )i r • •, �� 1 •es : t r�.' ' i"'� �""`"'++1. N w} }' � I r.i f / / • A'"`,., 1. r;,,,,.,:.
it
►• `"" �;h +,c'�.;,;u ')) :L,a;!(rr) • Cj)1 t ~i'l1. •�,•wy��•. ;'71:"":,..
;•�• � -� f • '•Cir r fit '`�� ��`•.�'':�'. �
rf!). .V.,.". -
•'i �..�`•(y`.i`�„,,.,'•,,,yr,,•+,-�.n.,3,,,,.�'",,�./'�'^�" .�,;=_'•"`••b'...'r''t• "•'! 1 Y • r1- rJ'r
L[`' .1 ?-••-'.r.l � rr r Yyl=r� 7 ,
er"`�q7t+ls'at
.•:
14
.! t , / ht+`.1+ tri "j : • 3- j,/-f''`•d;'.
�� ,� �%-':'l.>'�t`l+•c..;:e• G'•!•1.0 •d' ' � 1 _ '? •11 � r• r�� ' • � 1 ^{'• ',
'7 > r,• � i a t.
1. .1 t -I'
��`�if� t rsj 11 ' • ,�a•q ':i • -t
M i GM WAY „�.•"''
N0. 94 f
Iva
� '-Y��idrxT � e�G+rinixG•rn� Ia:•s; "'
_ rear r,t•r
e i-''"�. :•4j �.. _`"'y lel w- -� .lJI•• Ihlnfr .
nit �V-
i V �.� 'J. w-.1. �`4'ina^ .....'4.��� F�T�I����..� wwf-•� �•�.. w..._ r. rr,r .t
rA$
1 �...rn• f•--i�,......�A.i'�-•-._�r. G- .Tri• a�' `': t�� ~�•'r::'.. ^-1• „1, � ��,,,, •+ t,ve.lr.
1 ».� .� r"1�,' ,��",��«8..�C� �.wx����'x�i �.•� !I A'•^i� � �/riY' •� .3 w'+ ihrarA
- Q,•��t-r i ) t n w -- �^-'• � 1.�a ���"'t` r� "� yl�ti 4t:+y rra
nlri • ..•�. = e a i �r. ,✓ e. �..�- r�!.� \ � ' �� `t'y.♦ rr.rn.•rr•
_� 1.. ! , y : �,p ...•. a wwr z••" (I-"b� V -~` '+
N,164
y m �♦_{=r!T"rt"'"'ir'� i www i:: r_ ( R� / � i.J
S `i 0=- j1' J • '. "`i3i �-�--....! f .+ +♦ .�. ♦♦♦♦ '" f Lrtrhr
�jil`r� �. 4'�rta. c1-/�//-��. ••r_./��.y.•,,d'. . .-,e.l,,.w /,i,♦ •w♦, w 8r♦♦ aMr:
�`i r rY 1 .x.11 \ y4! 1 �V! /� r� �~ / ♦+ nsvw.r c.rx.
i { M-• '. T` t.{ ;w' + �„� .+ t '".y4 wii.w.rses .as
i �, •.r. ; r;' � JI � 1 r 3 � rs u�'r..r r. r J 1 �\ ♦," gfrsiu•Mnd .,,ir3irtP�
n4� i
4 � aarJ-rrrar r. rttt
+Its2 74.1
- 1 •�: % t .�' .rr�re»aa a..r Icy ..�.ri..•.>... +. ,.w.....r:.i. �
I ry r7lw+.vr.l I,41! n
'w t �,�eri►!-Arrlrt. ice, 1 '.
� ! •Vr r•.I.• w 4Hhv r0 ••
s�, rlrr.rla.r • Tr:1 r! •
r AXLga LAN Y M��i: 'srs'bSt ar xrr�-
•In•irrr.�• , n rrl.w.rMr'rl nn - w .. • w
t. Clothes Lino pole and wire.
2. Receatioaal equipment and vehicles.
3. constrict -'on and landscaping matariai currently
being unad on the premises.
a. Off-street parking of Passeagar vehicles
and t --=!z3 not exceeding a cross capaci:/
of iiia thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areas.
S. Propano tar -,a, fuel oil tanks, aro ot::ar
aimilar reaideatiai heating :uel storage
taak3 which do not "ceed 1,000 gallons
I., capaci:/ and shall not be located within
live (5) fact of any property fins.
6. wood piles in which wood is storad for
t'ael provided that not mora than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A card
*hail be a' x 41 x 8-. Al: wood piles
shall be five (5) teat or more from rear
and aide yard property linea and shall
be stored behind the appropriate net back
line in franc yards.
7. Solar heating systa:a.
i 3-3: YALRO RSS,UTR.T..=TTS:
CA) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided los im each
zoning district.
(a) No lot, yard or other open space shall bo reduced
49 area or dimension so an to make such lot,
yard or open space less than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the oxiatinq yard
or other open $pact as *xistinq is less than
the minimus required it shall not be further
reduced. kb rsquirsd open space provided arcual
any buildiaq or sz.rictura shall be included
as a part of any open space reNuir3d for another
S=Actura .
(c) All setback distances, on listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the sppzapriat*
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
Front Yard Sid* yard Raar Yard
A-0 5o 30 so
R-1 30 10 30
R-2 10 10 30
- wr
R-4 30 10 �U
Py=yt son chapter id for epec�-•'-c r��laeions•
10 for s¢ecific raqulationa.
15
3-1
s-: 30 10 20
In addition, each condominium unit shall
have the miai.-- Iot area for the type
of housing unit and usable open space
as specified in the area and Building
Si:e Regulations of this Ordinance. Such
lot areas may be controlled by an individual-
or
ndividualor joint ownership.
Eps in rastdentiai districts, where the adjacent
st_ac_uras exceed the minima= settac..ts
established in Su -'section (Cl stove, the
minimum set:ack avail to thirty (30) feet
plus too -thirds ( 2/3) of the difference.
betvean thir_y (30) feet and the amt=ack
or aversge setbacX of adjacent atruc:=ee
withia the same block.
3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
(Ai PURPOSE: :his section identifies miaioum
area and building aize requirements to
be provided in each zoning dia trict as
listed in the table below.
DISMICT LOT AMA LOT WID:B BU:=I:tG SZ:CHT
A-0 2 acres 200 N/A
R-1 12.000 80 24
- R-2 12,000 80 24
R-3 16,000 80 2
R-4 48,000 200 1
pZ-g 12,000 ,64 „ 24
�' r•ah w.VVU a
8,000 s0 3
3-2 N/A 100 2
2-3 N/A 100 2
3-4 N/A N/A 2
1-1 20,000 100 2
1-2 30,000 100 2
1. The building height limitation in an
R-3, PZ -M, e-1, s-:, 2-3, 5-4, I.1,
and I-2 toning districts shall be
two (2 ) stories.
2. In toning districts R-3, PZ -.y. 3-I,
3-2, 2-3, 3-4, I-1, and I-2, a (3)
three story building may be allowed
as a conditional use contingent upon
sLict application of a c*quireaent
that Eire-extinquishing systems be
installed throughout the building.
(R¢gtutel a can'".na4 use pcvnU
baaed upon p4QCed 'm act Jouh NR
and aega"td by Chap -Cat 22 os th.c:e
oRd nax.cz).
1- 0
OUSE
PAbPCTEp
GA 464
LINN STRfET
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
13. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Cold Storage Building
to be Built in a PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) Zone. Applicant, Ruff
Auto. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Randy Ruff, son of the owners of Ruff Auto, Harold and Phyllis Ruff,
is proposing to construct a cold storage building adjacent to an existing
261x 30' shed to the rear of Harold and Phyllis Ruff's house. As the
legal description exists today, the land where this proposed building
would go is currently on Ruff Auto property. That's why the public
hearing notice was submitted with Ruff Auto's name as the applicant, when
in essence Ruff Auto is actually the owner of it and Randy Ruff is the
applicant. This building will be used similar to Mr. Chuck Stumpf's
building which is used to house Mr. Stumpf's semi -truck tractor,
trailers, and additional recreational items. Mr. Randy Ruff would like
to utilize this building for potentially the same use as Mr. Stumpf uses
his building. At some time in the future, Mr. Randy Ruff would probably
house equipment within this building that would be used as part of the
Ruff Auto salvage yard business as it exists today.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a cold storage building
to be built in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a cold storage building to
be built in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Over the past two to three years, the Planning Commission and the City
Council have granted two such related uses of a cold storage building to
be constructed on a lot. The first one was the example referenced above,
which was Mr. Chuck Stumpf's building. The other example is Charlie
Ritze's residence where another additional cold storage building was
constructed to house Ritze Trucking semi -truck tractors and/or trailers
and other items. In driving by both of these above -referenced examples,
you will note that the areas have been cleaned up and seem to blend in
well with the existing uses around them.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy of the
site plan for the proposed conditional use request.
-17-
7r\•- -� ;1 1 Conditional use request to allow a cold
t. storage building to be built in PZ+! (performance zone
mixed) zone.
Ruff Auto.
J
3 Ip �
77-77
- •7 t -! • ya3 fit'%•{,, tet,+, •/ f�',�lf\•,V.
•ear•.. r I ! �•+�� r// 'ley-
_. %-, 3 of .^r 3 *•l. i��!//�� ! i J / J =s .
.rte �%.. �'�.�.{� JMl d'• `44`V� (,/'� %,/.��
WA4 •+tel rx !L %� j l i,� �j y
�•.'.V�+ •ice l \ �.•• :+,,� �,,�!
S.
Ile
Ile
' \ - -----^�-=`*- ------ -------- ---- -- --
i- 7�1 .�
�
--'---_�----�r'------- ] - '_/'-��--- � - -
' | ----------'------- - -- � �� ^
�
,-�' ---�r �---- --
^ �
� -------- ----- -��r-- - 71--- |
' --------- '---' - f' ` -- -'^------ --'
-/ } ----------'- -'--- -�' - - - i---^------ �-
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
14. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Request to Allow ?vo Residential Lots
to be Split, with Less than the Minimum Lot area Square Footage.
Applicant, Dan Frie. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dan Frie is before you with the amended simple subdivision request to
allow two existing residential lots of record to be replatted the other
way. Instead of running as they were platted, north and south, they will
be replatted to an east/west direction. As you will note under Parcel A,
the existing porch is within 5.14 feet of the proposed new side lot
line. The applicant, Mr. Frie, is proposing to take off a portion of
this porch to accommodate a minimum 10 -foot sideyard setback in this
location. In Parcel B, the existing detached garage will be removed to
accommodate a single family dwelling to be built on this site. The
variance request which comes into play here is the two parcels. If they
are allowed to be subdivided, each parcel would be less than the minimum
lot square footage as required by ordinance today, 12,000 sq ft; but they
would be in excess of the minimum lot square footage of the lots that
were platted when this was platted, 10,890 sq ft.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to allow two residential lots
to be split with the two lots, when subdivided, having less than the
minimum lot square footage.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to allow two residential lots to
be split.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to allow two residential lots
to be split with the two lots, when subdivided, having less than the
minimum lot square footage with the following conditions:
a. The garage on Parcel B be removed prior to building permit
application.
b. The porch on Parcel A be removed prior to building permit
application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the two lots, when resubdivided, are allowed to be split, the minimum
lot square footage of the two newly created parcels would be in excess of
the minimum lot square footage that was required when they were platted
but would be less than the minimum lot square footage for lots that are
platted today. If a portion of the existing porch on the south side of
the house located in Parcel A were to be torn off, we could have a
minimum of 10 -foot separation between the south property line of Parcel A
--0 *hn nortion of the porch that is left.
1j v
_ V
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed sidle subdivision request; Copy of
the certificate of survey for the proposed simple subdivision request;
Copy of ordinance sections.
J
-19-
p,jolt
Cc 4uees s0 s wish b0 lays
g1mPl is
• ...` �'+si orl too sac
e
Lto sas4osa
'0 1olla� lot
a
'.. .?:...�,,,�'+L.,,�...,.,�t,l !-...iii r`.."•y '.
;.,�.t'i'�+'...v;y? �-j`,•'+�•,,,.,..,"�ti•Itj_ 7F «t•yrj,.1)}. t�... •.
:': 1-�.,:j h...,(I4 ' ' r''��+t[J "%' i,i •N• ~7
Piz
,iLt t 'r•,; I %r _r'•'`r '.�;`"":�, - „ 1 1 lit
.'.,, ' ! ty ' I t �:`� 1/1 t �ll I it• �t4t y,_,..�y � _ .'1"�r:a..I r f ', `� tr. ..
' ,% '!r ��'��j{,/1;t ;,;;,' r"'� �� �;�,;'•;";r.��' :.,'--•.... :�'1, f.la�,�` �..
...'i« , /CL'a••�7 �(.(I !J I t .L � t � � ;�.',.�� �� .� �' :.M1"� t � �"•'jltj� �.,, ll.r.�.t•, r~ •�;_ `.:•�
. ,............�, �,'�"!v
4'.'.•.:+7% `j--.,.+-y t r�"'..f �tx' /
r f g7't „ Irlt) /
`^' ."'•�.,MSf "� t V I �+ (rt.,'"�-...,���`."�";�:�,4�y� � /fir`-''w o.:.�< •,.. t '� ".- i �, t r rri ' 1I rr 7 j' + v < � .� !
-'>.:;°,'; ^!'�L.. It�i .,t ....,,,,,,'=`rt ,t�,�y�' �,'••,,.., "^-�•.,,,.`e'^'�st 'r! �� � �%/%",-tom
'"""" �.y �`.`�s:�•1>a•�-•,';s'�il •, r:. .�• .r � �. ,,l t �( , r.- f-,� !P fJ"�;L�'
x:.11; �\ _- _�: '•'r = '',
'7''�\\� i y"�s,.''_ t)'l;,,t, �""^•� .>,i"Oi \' � �•�F�i",{�' �'i:•r t,,,f� i •i.
b } `
l i
�J"`+t�
����•••'��"" 'll!•' l>'• i tr,y�• 1�4 ' , `! • •��•, ��` 'rte \
MtGHWAY N0. 94Is
,t '
•� , .•�
Iq
N
�
�-
'1
1
i •• I 1
1
G
�
1 G ` �
• • e9
^
'"
,� ,�:gRGEG
1
-�
Icy
_ ..192.36•-
-
3
VNO
I . Clothes line pole and wire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Constriction and landscaping material c::rrantly
being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vahiclas
and tae:$ not exceeding a gross eapaei;/
of nine thousand (9,000) Pounds in residential
areas.
S. propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, are- other
si_ilar residential heat—' -.q fuel storage
tanks which do not e::caad 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (51 feet of any propez-./ line.
$. Wood piles in which wood is stared for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cards
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 4' x 41 x V. All wood piles
shall be firs (s) feet or more from roar
and side yard property lines and $hall
be stared bohind the appropriate set back
line in front yards.
T. Solar heating systaZa.
3-3: Y*D 9SKU33L.9F='
CAI ZMPOSZ. :his section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
Zoning district.
Cal cro lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open space less r-han the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open space as existing is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. lb required open space pravidod arculd
any building or structure shall be included
an a part of any open space required for another
strlcrUZ4.
cc) A" setback distances, as listed in the table
below,
shall
be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
!cont Yard Side yard
Maar Yart'
A-0
s0
10
so
1-1
30
10
30
ice
in
3q)
1-3
30
20
30
a-4
30
30
30
K -R
doe
Chapter 10 for
specific regulations.
VZ -'4
tae
Chapter 10 for
specific regulations.
8-1
30
1s
20
1-2
30
10
20
j„j
3-4:
In addition, each condominiu= unit shall
have the minimum lot arae for the type
of housing unit and usable open space
as specified in the Area and Building
Sira Regulations of this Ordinance. Such
lot areas may be controlled by an individual
or joint ownership.
(P) In residential distric a, whare the adjacent
structures exceed the minimum settacks
established in Subsection (C1 aeove, t�.e
miniuu3 setback shall be tii ty (30) feet
plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference.
between thirty (30) !eat and the setback
or average setback of adjacent st:ae:_ es
within the sane block.
ARIA ALIO BU=tNG SIZE REGULATIONS:
(A] PUR?OSE: This saction identifies ¢inial -
area and building size requirenents to
be provided in each zoning district as
listed in the table below.
DISM:CT LOT ARIA LOT 'WIDTH BU'=ING BE:G.H:
A-0
2 acres
200
N/A
R-1
12 000
80
2%
2
12•uuu
MU
d�
R-3
10,660
60
2
R-4
48,000
200
1
PZ -R
12,000
60
2%
PZ -H
12,000
60
2
3-1
6,000
60
2
6-2
N/A
100
2
8-3
N/A
100
2
5-4
N/A
N/A
2
1-1
20,000
100
2
1-2
30,000
100
2
1. She building height limitation in an
R-3, P2 -M, 3-1, 2-2, 8-3, 8-4, I-1,
and I-2 coning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-3, PZ -V, 3-1,
/-2, 2-3, 6-4. I-1, and 1:-2, a (3)
three story building may be allowed
as a conditional use contingent upon
@=Lot application of a requirement
that fire -extinguishing systems be
installed throughout the building.
(Requktei a cond4zionat u4t ptvnU
ba4td upon paoctdua s 6LL 6ouh in y
and 4tgu&ud by Chaptat 22 oS thi6
old oAct).
1 �f
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
\. 15. Consideration of Reolatting Request to Replat an Existing Unplatted Lot
into (8) Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot. Applicant, Floyd
Markling. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Floyd Markling is before you with a preliminary plat request for his
proposed 8—unit townhouse project. Mr. Markling has hired the services
of Taylor Land Surveyors to do the preliminary plat for the replat of
this unplatted tract of residential land for him. Four of these
individual townhouse lots will consist of a 33' x 84' area which
encompasses 2,772 sq ft of land area. The land area for each townhouse
of the second set of four townhouse buildings will be a 30' x 84'
rectangle tract of land encompassing 2,520 eq ft of land area. The total
amount of land area within this entire preliminary plat is approximately
two acres of land, or 87,120 sq ft of land area. The townhouse lots as
situated on this preliminary plat meet or exceed the minimum setback
requirements. The total land area for each of the townhouses as required
by Ordinance is 5,000 sq ft, of which the ratio of townhouse total land
area to the land area provided is just over twice as much land area in
excess of the minimum amount of land area required, 40,000 sq ft.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat request to replat an existing unplatted
lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot.
2. Deny the preliminary plat request to replat an existing unplatted lot
into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot.
C. STAFF RECOMMEMATION:
Floyd Markling's proposed preliminary plat of this unplatted tract of
land into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot does meet or
exceed the minimum land area requirements and building setback
requirements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed preliminary plat request; Copy of
the preliminary plat; Copy of the Ordinance sections.
t
t4' 2-;- D" "',
�js 1
� ����hnN�,��ti� rs� -1�1 �,2rL22v��—i
G
A replatting request to raplat an existing
unplatted lot into eight townhouse lots and
one c ---on area lot.
Floyd Markling.
G
CJ
ti
�•:�;� •'tire= �':i.e.ca
x MlL.tO rroe• no.o MJA&Ll*d. MO."CtLI
E .-
F
.� .. ,rv...... 6
1 +
1.-O
I. Clothes line pole and vire.
'i
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
y 3. Contraction and landscaping matarial carxently
being usad on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and Lac".:a not exceediag a gross capacity
of alae t-housand {9,000) pounds in residential -
areas -
S.
esidentialareas-
5. propane tames, fuel oil tanks, and other
a'.=filer residont!ai heating fie2 storage
tanka which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) feet of any property lime.
6. wood piles in vhich wood is stored far
fuel provided that not cora than 10 cords
sisal) be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 4' x 4' x 8'. All wood piles
shall be five (5) fest or ars from rear
and side yard property lines and shall
be stared behind the apprepriate sat back
llne in front yards.
9. Solar heating systems.
i.
3-3: Y*D RSQUMS17IMS:
{Al PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning diatrict.
tBJ No lot, yard or other open spats shall be reduced
in ares or dimension no as to cake such lot,
yard or open space less than the minimus caquirod
by this Ordinance, and if the a. -O sting yard
or other open spats as existing is less than
the miaimua required it shall not be further
reduced, Ah raquired open spats provided arcund
any buildtag or strarura shall be included
as a part of any open space requ-cod for another
stracturs.
ccs A" setback distances, as listed in trite table
below, shall be aeasured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimus distances -
front Yard Bids yard Rear Yard
A-0 s0 30 so
R-1 30 /0 30
e d*' 10 av /
R-3 20 20 su
R-4 30 30 30
t: -R Sae Chapter 10 for specific raqulations.
?:-x Bae Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
3_1 30 1s 20 /5
3-2 30 t0 20
In addition, each condominium unit shall
have the minimum Lot area for the type
of housing unit and usable open space
as specified in the Area and Building
Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such
lot areae may be controlled by an individual
or joint ownerahip.
(P] Za residential dist icts, where the adjacent
stzncturas exceed the mizir= setbacks
established in Subsection (C1 atove, the
mini== sattack shall be thirty (30) fact
plus two-thirds (I/3) of the difference.
between thirty (30) feet and tae setback
or average setback of adjacent at=lc:lree
within the Baca block.
3-4: AR A AND SUIIDIvo SIZE P -'GU A_IONS:
(AI PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum
arta and building size requirezents to
be providad in each zoning district as
listed in the table below.
DISTRICT IAT AREA 10: WIDTS BU:: 130 RE:GHT
A-0 2 acres 200 N/A
R-1 12,000 so 2
C—v •'I!,mlu So
R-3 . 10,000 80 2
R-4 48,000 200 1
PZ -A 12.000 so 212
PZ M 12,000 so 2
D-1 8.000 s0 2
a-2 N/A foo 2
8-3 N/A too 2
3-4 N/A N/A 2
1-1 -O.000 too 2
1-2 30,000 too 2
1. The building height limitation in an
R-3, PZ -:1, 8-1, 5-2, 9-3. 8-4, I-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-1, PZ -M, 8-1,
S-2. 8-3, 8-4, I-1, and I-2, a (3)
three story building may be allowed
as a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of a requirement
that fire -extinguishing systems be
installed throughout the building.
(Riqu.i.tte A condi Gnat uta petau.t
ba4ed upon paocfduaci 6LZ JOUR 4A
dad atgu cd by Chaptt2 It ad thio
ona.ina,lca i .
IS
IB) LAT AREA PER UNIT:
Single Family 12,000 square fast
T•.ro-Famil guars feet
_ownnousa 5.000 square reeV
mobile Home 4,000 square feet
Multiple Family 10,000 square feet
for f_at unit plus
2,000 sq. ft. for
each additional one
bedroom unit, plus
3,000 sq. ft. for
each additicra/ two
bedreom unit.
Elderly Housing 1,000 aquare feet
(1 ne dot atea pet unit rteou.r.,tement 3oa
town+toaae5, condo=Zw.:Pultta and planned
unit deve4OPmenta AMU be CaZzaated
on the baa.ia o$ the totes amen in the
paoject and as contaoZ4zd by an lndivLducL
and jou" owne-takip).
CC)
OT:L:TY TRANS2TLON AREAS. All areas in
which sawer is not currently available
shall be designated a■ Utility Transition
Aress. The min' --um lot area of any platted
Sot in such areas shall be two and one-half (ly)
acres. Any lot platted ac_or_Sag to the
-
provisions of this subdivision, may be
replotted provided that public sanitary
mower will be made available and all conditions
and provisions of this Ordinance are met.
C0)
USEABLE OPEN S2AC:t Each multiple family
dwelling site shall contain at least five
hundred 1300) square fest of useable open
space as defined in Chapter 2 of this
Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained
thereon.
t-)
EXC3nT:1NS: The building height limits
established herein for districts shall
not apply to the fuiloving:
t. telfriss
2. Chimneys or flues
3. Church spires
4. Cooling towers
5. Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable
space.
6. Elevator penthouses
1, slag poles
B. Monuments
!. Parapet walls extending not aara than
three (3) feat above the limiting
height of the building
10. Water toners
QD
it. Bolas, towers and other structures for essential sarvi
12. N;cessar/ mechanical and electrical
appurtenances
13. Television and radio antennas not
exeaading twenty (20) feet above
roof.
14. Hind electrical generators
tri No excluded roof squipnent or structural
element extending beyond the li_ited height
of a building cey cc=--;-/ ncra than twenty-five (s""°}
percent 0! t:.e area of such roof not to
exceed ten (10) feet unless otharrise noted.
EC1 CiI:1I2..•1 F:00d AREA PE_3 DwE'_L..`IG
1 . ONE AND/OR rd0 F'AMI-Y o n":=3 An
TO HOUSES . The aLli= !-Gov area
tar auca type buildings shall be as
follows:
(a) Ons Story Owelling - 980 square fest.
�(b) Two Star/ Dwelling • 750 square fast per.
(0) EXCEPTION: The VLZAAsun 4qu4ne i
600=9e 06 a one 447ay bu.i.U4q
tray be neduazd .to aha 4quate
deet t6 a gaAage i.4 added wZ-k
at 4ea4t 336 4gUOAC dent. In
no Cut. howeve2, 4h -LZ the AiW:m&W
duntaw.ian o% that Savage be WA
than }a 6eez.
2. MULTIPLE 0W=LZ:7G UNI.S : Except for
elderly housing, living units classified
as eultipls dwellings shall have the
following minim— floor areas per
unit:
(a) Efficiency Units 500 square fest
M one eedr000 Units 600 square fast
to) Two Sadroon Unita 720 square fest
ld) More Than Two tedraos Units -An additional 100
square feet far each
additional bedracs
2. Z=MLY (594ZCR CITIZEN) ECUSI40:
Living units classified ra *lastly
(senior eituten) housing units shall
have the, falloving ainisua floor areas
per unit:
(a) Mlieieney Units 440 Square fast
(b) One ledrace S r M e...,... ♦...
I
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
16. Consideration of Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Cont:act on 88-7
Improvement Project. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, the Council approved the plans and specifications
and authorized advertising for bids on the 88-7 project to provide sewer
and water services to the Floyd Markling parcel and Country Club
property. The estimated cost of the project was $62,200. Bids are being
received until 11 a.m., Tuesday morning, October 11, at which time they
will be opened and tabulated. The tabulation and recommendations for
awarding of the project will be presented at Tuesday night's meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Assuming the bid prices come in within the estimated project cost and
the property owners are agreeable to the project cost, the Council
can adopt a resolution awarding the contract to the lower bidder.
2. If the project bids are excessively high or if the property owners
together do not wish to continue with the improvement, the project
can be terminated.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Thesta
ff does not have a recommendation at this time until the
tabulation of the bids occurs Tuesday afternoon.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution for Adoption.
-21-
RESOLUTION 88 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTVORIZING CONTRAC77
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of sanitary
sewer and waterma in extensions and appurtenant work from Golf Course Road to
serve property owners, Floyd Markling and Monticello Gauntry Club, bids were
received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were
received complying with the advertisement.
AND WEE.4EAS, it appears -list is the 1swest
responsible bidder.
NOW, TSEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota:
1. The Mayor and the City Administrator are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into the attached contract with
in the name of the City of Monticello for
the improvements or Streetscape Landscaping according to the plans
and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file
in the office of the City Administrator.
2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all bidders the deposit made with their bids, except
that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder
shall be obtained until a contract has been signed.
Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of October, 1988.
Mayor
City Acministrator
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
17. Consideration and Review of the Proposed 1989 Budget of the SWC4. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Each year the Cable Commission adopts its own budget for the upcoming
year. The primary revenue source for the Commission is the contribution
from each of the member cities based upon the weighted vote for each
city. As in the past, the City will submit its annual contribution along
with an invoice to the Commission requesting reimbursement of franchise
cable fees. This process is primarily a pay-out/pay-in. The City is
always fully refunded for its cable contribution. Similarly, as cable
use within the city grows, our share of the franchise fee will increase.
The municipal budget for 1989 shows an expenditure of $6,650 and revenue
of S6,650.
As noted in Barb Guffey's letter, the Council need not take formal action
since their membership in the Joint Powers has delegated the budgeting
authority to the Commission. I believe it would be good for record
keeping to have a motion ratifying the City's participation and the
Commission budget for 1989.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the budget.
2. Withdraw from the Commission.
C. STAFF RECO"ENDATION:
I recommend that the Council ratify the budget for the upcoming year.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Commission budget; Copy of the cover letter from Barb Guffey,
Cable Administrator.
-22-
SHERBURNE/WRIGHT COUNTY
CABLE C0(NINIUNICATI0NS C01NINIISSI0N
Monticello C;ty wall. 250 East Sroacwoy. Monnceuo. Minnesota 55382
BARBARA GUF-r.-^t
CAMs ACm,menaW
MMICRANDDK
DA ='l September 13, 1988
TO: a�C' ilc'_-s: �acors/Cloaks
FRCM: Barb Guffey
RE: 1989 Commission Budget
Phone (6 t 2) 295-2511
Metra (8 s 2) 333.5739
Enclosed you will find a Capy of the Sherburne/.right County Cable Catnunicaticne
Commission 1989 budget. The Commission approved the proposed budget or its reg -alar
meeting of August 17, 1988.
This budget is being sent to you in accordance with the provisions of the Joine Powers
Agreement for the Commission in Article %:. Section 4, which provides for a passive
review of the Commission budget by its member cities. Please have you: Cit/ Council
raviev the enclosed budgat; hoverer, to formal ac:iam used be taken to approve ic.
'he budget will be deemed approved by your Ciel unless the City gives notice in writing
'. sa the Commission prior co October 15 that it is wictdraving from chs Commission. Any
city withdrawing after October 15 will sclll be required to ramie its conccibutlon to
the 1989 budget.
Also enclosed pleas find a listing of each City's 1989 contribution to the Camsaission.
The Joint Powers Agreement provides for a change i.n voting sticture attar the second
annual report of the nutbar of subscabais in the system, and thus each member City
will be, sent Is resolution to amend chs, Agraament prior to January 1. 1989. At than
tine, the votes on the Commission will be restructured to reflect each cities' pro-
portion of the annual franchise fes, and thus the contributions for the 1989 budget
are also proportionally based upon the franchise fat. Thus, please have your City
raviev its contribution raquiramants, and remit a check to the Commission prior to
January 10, 1989. 11 your check is nec received by January 10, the Cocmissioner
!ram your City will be ineli;ible to veto on behalf of your City during the time in
is in default on any Contribution or psymenz as the Commission.
Your City will receive reimbursement for your 1989 contribution immediately following
the receipt of the 1989 franchise fast from Jones Inte:cabie (in early 1990). You
will be receiving reimbursement for the 1988 coneributioas of last year in early 1989,
following receipt of the 1988 franchise fees.
Please remit your City's contribution payable to the Sherburne/Wright Cable Commission
to Barbara Guffey. SWC:, 250 Base Broadway. Xonticallo. :t 55362. Thank you, and pleas
feel free to give me a call if you have any questions.
SWC4: Big Like • Butisb • Catuto • Cassel • Osuna • E.k River
Made LAKs • Monticello • ROCRhxn • Watertown
PROPOSED 1989 S*.;Cs HDDGci
Adai.iscrator Salar7
3 27.500.00
P_3A
1,168.75
F. Z. C. A.
2,065.25
Health. Dan cal. Lifa,AD60,0.Life. Disab.
2.214.84
Office 6 General Supplies
300.00
Equipment
0
Legal. Services
5,000.00
Telephone
300.00
Postage
200.00
Travel, Conferances, b Schools
3,700.00
Printing. Publishing. 6 Advertising
200.00
Insurance
0
Mica Rental
0
Dues 6 Memberships
230.00
Audit of SWC4 Records
400.00
Audit of Cable Operator Racards
2,000.00
Syscam Performance Evaluation
0
Unallocated Contingency
1.900.00
S 47.400.00
With a 1989 SWC4 budget at S47,400, the 1989 cit/ budget - conc.:bucSons would
be as follows.
100 voces $47.400.00
«+ Each vote for the 1989 budgec, at $47,400.00, is $474.00.
will get back
1989 budget
1988 budget
City 9 votes
concribucion
cone:ibut=on
Big Lake .................
12.............S
5.688.00
S 4,274.00
Buf!alo..................2:.............
10.4:5.00
61411.00
Cokaco...................
5.............
2.370.00
4.274.00
Dasnal...................
3.............
1,422.00
2.137.00
Delano ...................
9.............
4,256.00
4.274.00
Elk Rivar................16........'.....
7,584.00
8,548.00
Maple take...............
4.............
1,896.00
2.137.00
Montical.lo. .........14
.............
6,636.00
6,411.00
Aoek:ord.................
5.............
2,370.00
4,274.00
Racertown ................10.............
4,740.00
4,274.00
100 voces $47.400.00
«+ Each vote for the 1989 budgec, at $47,400.00, is $474.00.
Council Agenda - 10/it/88
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA
18. Consideration of Resolution Agreeing with MND(Yf for the Installation of Traffic
Signals at the Intersection of Bignway 25 and River Street and the preparation
of a Cooperative Agreement. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Late Friday afternoon, I received a letter from the District Engineer, Donald
Raisanen of MNDOT which noted that MNDOT has concluded that signals are an
exceptable solution to the River Street/Sighway 25 traffic problem. As you
will note from the copy of the letter attached; MNDM is requesting a
resolution from the City Council agreeing with the signal installation and the
preparation of a cooperative agreement before they will continue with a design
and construction of the signals.
Although this item could wait until the October 24th Council meeting, due to
the long controversy that has occured over this problem, I thought the Council
may want to give immediate direction to MNDOT for proceeding with their design
work. As a result, I am asking for the Council to adopt a resolution agreeing
with the installation of the lights and the preparation of a cooperative
agreement to cover maintenance and cost sharing of the installation.
Although the letter does not specify a cost participation amount, my first
reaction was that the Council should decide whether MNDOT should be informed
immediately of our intention not to participate in the cost of the traffic
Q signals. On the other hand, until we know more details, MNDOT always requires
a cooperative agreement to cover maintenance since it is the City's
responsibility for the electrical charges and light bulb changes etc. for any
traffic signal. The cost participation mentioned in the letter may be a very
small amount and the Oouncil may not want to jeopardize the designing of the
signals at this time until we know exactly what cost we are talking about. I
believe the resolution only specifies that we agree with the installation as a
safest method as to provide all movements of traffic and that we agree to enter
into a cooperative agreement. The cooperative agreement could be for as little
as one dollar or as I expect, MNDOT will be asking for a much larger share
probably a 50 percent range. Once we know this figure, we can certainly at
that point indicate to MNDOT that the design flaw is their mistake and all of
the cost should be borne by them.
B. ALTERNATIVE AC'T'IONS:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the installation and agreeing to enter into
a cooperative agreement.
2. Do not adopt the resolution which may halt any efforts on MNDOT's part to
start the design.
3. Table the resolution for two weeks.
4. Get an exact dollar amount that they expect the City to contribute before
even considering a resolution.
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Public Works Director, John Simola and myself have discussed this request for a
resolution from the City Council and it is our opinion that since MM= is only
asking for a commitment to enter into a cooperative agreement, the cost
participation amount can always be another topic in the future. Rather than
rock the boat at this time without knowing what, if any amount, ?0= expects
us to pay for the installation, MNDOT would be at least starting to prepare the
plans for installing the signal system.
D. aurrvnaiiw DATA.
Copy of the resolution and copy of MNDOT letter.
RESOLUTION 88 -
Resolution Entering into Traffic Signal
Agreement with State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, recent improvements to trunk Highway No. 25 by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation including the construction of a new bridge and
bridge approach have resulted in sight restrictions at the intersection of
Highway 25 and River Street, and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello wishes to promote the safe movement of traffic
in all directions at this intersection;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello:
The City Council of Monticello agrees with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation determination to install traffic control signals and
signing at the intersection of trunk Highway 25 and River Street and the
preparation of a cooperative agreement relating to the installation and
maintenance of said signals.
Adopted this day of October, 1988.
Mayor
City Administrator
ef`Nr+ESpra
y°
;6
a
Minnesota Department of Transportation
oa raOydo
District 3
301 Laurel St., P.O. Box 978
Brainerd, Minnesota 56401 (218) 828.2460
October 4, 1588
Qualify Service Through Individual Commitment
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller,
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway, Box
83A
Monticello, MN 55362
In reply refer to:
c.s. 8605 (TH 25)
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
Your letter of September 20 states that the consensus of the city council
is that the Trunk Highway 25 and River Street intersection should remain
open to all movements of traffic and that signals are the preferred alternative.
This intersection presents us a difficult and unique problem due to the sight
restriction which was not anticipated during the design stages. We have
again reviewed the various alternatives and have concluded that signals are
an acceptable solution to solve the problem.
We will require a resolution from the city council agreeing with the signal
installation and the preparation of a Cooperative Agreement outlining the
cost participation and maintenance responsibility between the city and the
state. We will then prepare the necessary plans and install the signal system
as soon as possible.
We will remove the barrels on Trunk Highway 25 to allow left turns for River
Street. River Street will remain as a one-way eastbound from 'trunk Highway
25 until such time that the signal construction is completed.
I will have Jerry Kreutzer, Assistant District Engineer in Construction,
contact you to set up a meeting to work out the specific details. Please
contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sin ely,���
Donald L. Raieanen
District Engineer
cc:
L. F. Mctlaunra/W. 11. Yoerg - 413
Gerald R. Kreutzer/E. W. McCulloch - Brainerd
Leonard Eilts - 313
Mayor Arve Grimamo - Monticel •An ooconun,ry fmmov.
DLA/sg
J
1
�a o
6 Council Agenda — 20I1II88
19. Consideration of Authorizing Setting the Sale of G.O. Improvement Bonds for the
Water Tower Bond Issue. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the recent referendum on the Water Tower Bond Issue in the amount of
$1,100,000 passed by the voters, it has been anticipated that Springsted Inc.,
the city's bond consultant would be selling bonds yet this fall. Originally, I
had thought about waiting until the actual bids were received for the majority
of the work on the water tower so that a better estimate could be used for the
bond sale, but if we wait until all of the bids are actually received, the sale
of bonds would not occur until probably after the first of the year.
In my discussions with Jerry Shannon of Springsted Inc., the latest the city
could authorize the sale of G.O. Bonds and receive the money yet this year
would be the October 24th Council meeting. The City has already incurred some
costs for watermain construction in anticipation of the water tower referendum
being approved and will in a few days be purchasing the Shultz property. As
part of the budget for 1484, I have already included in the debt service tax
levy, $106,268 for the first payment on the bonds which were anticipated to be
sold this fall. It is the recommendation of Springsted that the city authorize
the sale based on it's previous estimate as soon as possible in the total
amount of $1,100,000 and if the city is fortunate to receive lower bids than
anticipated, any surplus bond revenue can be used within three years for any
type of water related improvement. As a result, if the bonds should produce
excess revenue, any excess could be used to reduce a future bond issue amount.
Although this issue does not have to be acted upon by the Council at this
meeting, the sooner Springsted can prepare the documents and advertise for the
bond sale, the better likelyhood of the city receiving the funds yet this year.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve setting the sale of G.O. improvement bonds in the amount of
$1,100,000 for the water tower issue. According to Jerry Shannon, the
advertisement for bids would be commenced and it is expected the bids can
be returnable November 14th. This would provide the funds by the middle
of December for the City.
2, wait until the October 24th meeting for a formal presentation by Nr. Jerry
Shannon.
3. Wait until all construction bids are received to know the exact cost of
b° the bond issue.
C. STAFF RECOMIMENDA^.ION:
As I noted previously, it has always been my understanding the bonds would be
sold yet this fall as the city has been and will be in the near future
incurring additional coats related to this project. Although the Council could
consider setting the sale of the bonds at the next Council meeting and still in
all likelyhood receive the money at the end of the year, it appears most
Council Agenda - 10/11/88
feasible to issue the bonds in the amount of $1,100,000 as planned. Mr. `
Shannon of Springsted has prepared the preliminary estimate of the tax levies J
during the length of the bond for my budget purposes and I do not see this
changing upon waiting two weeks for a formal presentation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Preliminary recommendations from Springsted Inc., on the bond sale.
;F® SPRINGSTED
-;A RUBUC FINPNCE ADVISORS
85 East Se,entn Place, Surce 100
Sair.1 Paul,'amnesola 55101 21-3
612223 3000
Fa,: 612223 3002
August 15, 1988
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator
City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
R,E: $1,100,000 General Obligation 'Nater System Bonds, Series 1938
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
Enclosed for your information is a proposed maturity schedule to finance the intended
water system improvements to be constructed by the City. We understand a special
election for authorization of these bonds will be conducted on September 13.
Assuming a successful referendum, the City can establish the terms and conditions of
sale at any meeting subsequent to the referendum date. We anticipate these bonds
will be sold yet this year, and therefore we have dated the bonds effective
November I, 1988.
As with most issues of the City which are supported by taxes, we recommend the
bonds mature each February 1. We are anticipating these bonds will be amortized
over a 15 year period of time with a final maturity in 2004. The estimated average
annual levy including the statutorily -required 5% overlevy, is estimated to be
$129,648, or 1.13 mills based on the City's current taxable assessed valuation of
$114,339,670.
We also recommend the City make a levy in 1988 for first collection in 1989 for this
program. In the event a levy is not made this year, the Issue could be extended at
least one more year and the first payment of interest would have to come from
investment earnings and/or other available funds of the City. This will also result in
a substantially larger levy for the first year and, due to the delay in payment of
principal, a larger overall interest cost. The City may levy taxes for debt service in
anticipation of issuing these bonds even though the bonds have not been issued prior
to the date of levy certification.
In addition to the amortization schedule, we have prepared for you potential tax
impact for this program. In view of the fact the issue is going to be entirely paid
from tax levies, the debt service levy will go onto the tax rolls against all taxable
property within the City. The estimated impact for residential homestead property is
set forth in Schedule B. With this program, we have shown what the actual tax is on
various properties in the City based on actual tax levies certified in 1987 for
collection in 1988. The second part of the schedule shows what the tax would have
been on the some parcels of property had a tax levy increase of 1.13 mills been
i
Ij ,.a,ano once mtcoms once
251 Nona muro,s Sum. Su 10 1510 500 Elm Gro�o Rosa Suno 101
Inmaeaoout 11a,ana 46204.1942 EIm Grave. waconan 53122 0037
317.237-3636 414-782 8222
Fe,317.2373639 Fa, 414.:62.2904
City of Monticello, Minnesota
August IS, 1988
Page 2
included in last year's levy. As an example, a residential homestead property with a
$70,000 estimated market value (this value is determined by the County assessor) will
have a net property tax bill of $573.00. This net tax bill takes into consideration the
applicable homestead credit. If the City levied taxes for this issue, that some parcel
of property would have a tax payable of $58M% or $7.00 more than that property
was paying this year.
Due to the many unknown factors surrounding the new Minnesota property tax bill,
we have not attempted to forecast the impact of this program on next year's taxes.
We have shown the some type of information for commercial property within the
community, with values ranging from $50,000 to $400,000.
We hope this information will be helpful in your determination of information
required to be presented to the voters of the community. We note that in the event
the referendum fails and the City still intends to proceed with the program, net
revenues of the water system in on approximate amount of $130,000 will be required
to be generated. Based on the City's 1987 audited annual financial statements, this
will result in a substantial increase in water rates. We note there is no statutory
prohibition to the City raising water rates to support any or oil of the debt service
for this program now or in the future.
Please let us know if you need any further assistance with this program.
Sincerely yours,
Gerard S. Shannon
Vice President
dah
Enclosures
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PREPARED AUGUST 12, 1988
$1,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
WATER SYSTEM BONDS
TAX BILL IMPACT -
Residential Mill Rate: 97.876
Homestead Property Estimated increase: 1.130
Estimated Mill Rate with P:Olect: 99.006
SECTION A - 1988 PROJECTED TAX PAYMENT WITHOUT PROJECT
Al Estimated Market Value: 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
A2 Assessed Value: 8,500 10,200 12,100 14,800 17,500 20,200
A3 Gross Tax: 832 998 1,184 1,449 1,713 11977
A4 Less Homestead Credit: 449 539 611 611 611 611
AS Property Tax Bill: 383 459 573 838 1,102 1,366
SECTION B - 1988 PROJECTED TAX PAYMENT WITH PROJECT
81 Estimated Market Value: 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
82 Assessed Value: 8,500 10.200 12,100 14,800 17,500 20,200
83 Grass Tax: 842' 1,010 11198 1.465 1.733 2.000 j
84 Less Homestead Credit: 455 545 618 618 618 618
B5 Property Tax Bill: 387 465 580 847 1,115 1.382
ESTIMATED 1998 TAX INCREASE
DUE TO PROJECT: $4 46 87 $9 813 816
•The above schedule shows the estimated increase in taxes payable at various
market values if the estimated mill rate increase due to the above project
were added to the current mill rate for taxes payable in 1988. The schedule
does not include the Property Tax Rsfund to which a taxpayer may be entitled
based on family income. it does, however, reflect the deduction of homestead
credit which is automatically calculated and deductod by the county.
Estimated market value is the basis from which assessed value is calculated.
This value is not necessarily the price the property would bring it sold.
CITY OF MON72CELLO, MINNESOTA PREPARED AUGUST 12, 1998
$1,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
WATER SYSTEM BONDS
TAX BILL IMPACT•
Commercial property Milt Rate: 97.876
Estimated Increase: 1.130
Estimated Mill Rate with Project: 99.006
SECTION A - 1988 PROJECTED TAX PAYMENT WITHOUT PROTECT
Al Estimated Market Value: $50,000 $100,000 S15O,000 5250,000 $400,000
A2 Assessed value: 14,000 34,000 $5,500 98,500 163,000
A3 Gross Tax: 1,370 3,328 5,432 9,641 15,954
A4 Less Homestead Credit: . 0 0 0 0 0
AS Property Tax Bill: 1,370 3,328 51412 9,641 15,954
SECTION B - 1988 PROJECTED TAX PAYMENT WITH PROJECT
at Estimated Market Value: $50,000 $100,000 SISO,000 $250,000 $400,000
82 Assessed value: 14,000 34,000 $5,500 ' 98,500 163,000
83 Gross Tax: 1,386 31366 5,495 91752 16,138
84 Less Homestead Credit: 0 0 0 0 0
83 Property Tax Sill: 11386 31366 5,495 9,752 16.138
ESTIMATEO 1988 TAX INCREASE
DUE TO PROJECT: 516 538 063 sill $184
•The above schedule shows the estimated increase in texas payable at various
market values it the estimated mill Cate -increase due to the above project
vete added to the Current mill rate for taxes payable -In 1988.
Estimated market value is the basis from which assessed value is calculated.
This value is not necessarily the price the property would bring if sold.
City of Monticello, Minnesota Prepared August 12, 1988
$1,100,000 General Obligation By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
Water System Bonds
Dated: 11- 1-1988 SCHEDULE A
Mature: 2- 1
IF
Total
Year of Year of
Principal
105%
Levy Mat.
Principal
Rates
Interest
fi Interest
of Total
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1988 1990
30,000
5.851
95,588
125,588
131,867
1989 1991
50,000
6.00%
74,715
124,715
130,951
1990 1992
50,000
6.15%
71,715
121,715
127,801
1991 1993
55,000
6.30%
68,640
123,640
129,822
1992 1994
60,000
6.45%
65,175
125,175
131,434
1993 1995
65,000
6.60%
61,305
126,305
132,620
1994 1996
65,000
6.75%
57,015
122,015
128,116
1995 1997
70,000
6.85%
52,628
122,628
128,759
1996 1998
75,000
6.95%
47,833
122,833
128,975
1997 1999
80,000
7.05%
42,620
122,620
128,751
1998 2000
85,000
7.15%
36,980
121,980
128,079
1999 2001
95,000
7.251
30,903
125,903
132,198
2000 2002
100,000
7.40%
24,015
124,015
130,216
2001 2003
105,000
7.50%
16,615
121,615
127,696
2002 2004
115,000
7.60%
8,740
123,740
129,927
TOTALS:
1,100,000
754,487
1,854,487 1,947,212
Bond Years: 10,525.00
Annual
Interest:
754,487
Avg. Maturity:
9.57
Plus Discount:
16,500
Avg. Annual Rate:
7.169%
Net Interest:
770,987
N.I.C. Rate:
7.325%
Assessed Valuation:
114,339,670
Average Annual Levy
Required:
129,648
1.13 Mills
(Levy years 1989
thru 2001)
Interest rates are
estimates:
changes
may cause
significant
alterations of
this schedule.
The actual undo r.+ritor's
discount bid
may also
vary.
IF
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of SEPTEMBER , 19 BB
PERMIT I
DESCRIPTION ITYPE
NAM.-.T..N
V-ATION
I
PCE9
NUMBfA
I PERXIT
SURCIIARGE I
PLUXBI NG SURCIIARGE
BB -171:
Attached Ge raga
RG
Craig Va oda [veal/9 Pelrway or.
5 1,000.00
1 10.00
5 2.00
Btl-1219
Bas an t rtnten
AD
R1gne[d Kolb/1121 Tandy lana
1,500.00
15.00
.50
OB -1750
BU II61 ng Addltlon
AC
MCL•onal de/101 uat Oekwood Or.
75,000.00
717.00
17.50
OB -1251
Patio Encloeura
AD
Mlcnasl Lundsford/]1] Moat 3rd St.
,200.00
82.00
7.10
DO -12)6
9l ogle Feml iy D..l l: ng
SP
Jeff 0•Nalll/111 KavIn bngleY Or.
68,500.00
11?. 9B
31.75
5 25.00 1 .50
BB -1252
Building Addlt Ron
AC
Monti EdupI.y t7l II dcer0 Center/
109 Sandberg Road
56,000.00
111.50
28.00
26.00 .50
BB -1717
ovO Nouaa end Geroge
"I".01
AD
Ployd werkling/1701 Golf Course Road
0.00
10.00
.5D
BB -1751
rtdor i Ai tcnen Gbinat Replecemen
AD
ArvO Grl mam0/675 Eest River 8t.
1,900.00
15.00
7.25
08.1 55
building Addition
AC
James Eleele/]11 Yaal !an et.
5,000.00
50.00
2.50
88.1256
building Remodel
AC
Ploor Care Systeme/111 E. Broadway, Ste. B
3,9n0.00
)5.00
1.75
OB -1757
Si ogle Faml ly Dwelling
8P
BUI Bulldar✓1100 Need- Oak Dr.
10,900.00
366.67
71.15
23.00 .50
BB -1219
Basement Pl oleo
AD
Steven NOlthaua/717 Eavin Longley Dr.
1,5011.00
15.00
.50
BB -1260
Ilouse Shingla Replacement
AD
Ll ea Wlppal/100 Y. Mtn 8t.
1,900.00
15.00
.50
BU -1261
bull di ng Ra.:I
AC
Action Plua Temporary Oa rvloas/
111 East 0loadway, Hte. G
1,500.00
15.00
.50
BB -1267
Mouse i Geroge Shingle Replacement
AD
Stephan Par or Y. OreaOray
2,900.00
75.00
1.75
OB -1267
U.11dl no' 1-da1
AC
Bomino•e Pfau/IBB Y. Broadway
25.000.00
252.00
17.50
77:00 .50
88-1761
Single raslly Dwelling
6►
__
Dayle vechaa Co Ill. /308 eta -In Elwood Rd.
55,000.00
796.51
27.90
70.00 .50
08-1265
Dingle Pam)ly Dwelllnq
OP
BLH b.l l6ars/2780 MOeOor Lane
11,900.00
780.71
75.95
23. DO .50
TOTALS
5]77,000.00
12,950.10
8105.90
$11%00 .3.00
PLATT REVIEW
BB -1236
Ding10 really Dralling
or
Jeff O'Na111/111 Kevin Longley D[.
511.60
BB -17,7
Bingle Pas11y Drel ling
8r
BL11 13.11601./1100 Msad.r Oak Dr.
76.66
D0-1761
el ogle Pamtly D -I ling
or
Bayle vee110. Cone t7306 Mervin Elwood Rd.
39.65
88-1265
Bingle really DWelllog
or
BLIT Uulldale/2780 M000or Lens
38.07
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW 1
3159.18
TOTAL REVENUE
63.112.26
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Monthly Building Department Report
Month or September , 19 88
PERMITS AND USES
Lae[
This
Same Month Leet Year
Thlo Year
PERMITS ISSUED
Month
Month
Leat Yee[ To
Dole
To Data
RESIDENTIAL
Numbs[
14
11
15
82
90
Valuation
$]60,700.00
5246,800.00
1 464,400.00 S 4.378.
100.0
4,408,800.00
roes
],677.60
1,968.86
5,59].7]
]8,582.51
37,36].96
Surcharge.
170.90
123.fi5
271.20.
2,186.24
1,196.75
COMMERCIAL
number
7
6
1
19
22
valuation
2N,100.00
136,000.00
10,000.00
707, 1]0.00
1,009,100.00
Ferro
2,057.]0
1,110.50
117.00
5,394.77
8,365.12
Surcharges
122.05
62.75
5.00
755.80
544.70
INDUSTRIAL
Number
1
2
1
Veluelion
12,100.00
764,100.00
4,600.00
reea
175.90
4,748.47
46.00
Surchergee
6.05
782.05
2.70
PWNDINO
number
5
6
7
51
11
Pees
128.00
14400
164.00
1,687.00
995.00
Surcharges
2.50
3..00
3.50
25.50
16.50
OTRER 9
Ilu"",
1
11
1
Vel ua tion
O.DO
03,400.00
0.00
roes
.
1000
742.
.50 1000
Surcharges
.50
41.50
.50
TOTAL NO. PERMITS
22
24
24
165
151
;1
TOTAL VALUATION
604,400.00
772,600.00
486,500.00 5,920,730.00
7,502,500.00
TOTAL FEES
4,863.02
7,253.36
6,010.63
51,055.25
7:,680.20
TOTAL SURCHAROES
307.45
I08.90
345.75
2,991.09
1.760.35
CURRENT MONTH
-
PEES
I
Number,
to De to
PERMIT NATURE
Number
PERMIT SURCIIAPrR Valuation
This Ye er'
Lest yea[
Bingle Family
4 S
11,751.06 5 112.55
3 225.100.00
22
32
Duplaa
1
2
Multi -family
1
3
Commerelal
5
7
Induatrlel
1
1
Rae. Oareges
1
40.00 2.00
4,000.00
7
0
Signs
0
0
Public Dulldings
2
0
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
Drapings
6
197.00 8.10
17,700.00
55
37
Commercial
6
1,110.50 62.75
126,000.00
15
16
Industrial
0
1
PW 11 1110
All Types
6
144.00 7.00
33
51
ACC ES50RY OTRUCNRED
Brl ming Pmol•
0
1
Dacus
8
9
TEMPOIIAAY PERMIT
0
0
r
DEMOLITION
1
10.00 .50
1
1
TOTALS
34
1,351.76 180.90
372,000.00
151
184