City Council Agenda Packet 10-11-1993AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 11, 1993 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen
Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held September 9, 1993, and the regular
meeting held September 27, 1993.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a resolution supporting Monticello Rotary Club efforts to establish
social and economic ties to the City of Dungannon, Northern Ireland.
5. Consideration of a variance request to allow a building addition onto a non-
conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement. Applicant, Gene Jestus.
6. Consideration of preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 1st Addition.
Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
7. Consideration of preliminary and final plat approval of Point Minnie. Applicant,
Stuart Hoglund. Plat size and location: 3.5 acres consisting of 4 lots, I of which
includes the site of the Comfort Inn of Monticello.
4 8. Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 16 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
which would permit use of a temporary structure not to exceed 700 sq ft as an
accessory use on an interim basis. Applicant, Community United Methodist Church.
9. Consideration of request by abutting property owner to construct a fence around
undeveloped West 4th Street --Jim Eisele.
10. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 1 DI 9 (f) of the Monticello 7Aming
Ordinance which would allow curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts
to exceed a width of 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator.
11. Consideration of transient merchant ordinance amendment.
12. Consideration of approving renewal of Joint hire Department contracts with Silver
Creek Township and City of Otsego.
13. Consideration to adopt a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's Sponsoring Unit of
Government Resolution on behalf of The H -Window Company.
14. Consideration to adopt a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's Sponsoring Unit of
Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc.
15. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 27, 1993. 7 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty
Olsen (arrived during discussion on item p4)
Members Absent: None
2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
September 13, 1993.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to approve the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/netitions, requests, and complaints.
A representative from the Minnesota Community Forest Program, presented
the City with a plaque recognizing the City for its efforts to maintain an
urban forest program. The plaque recognizes Monticello for being
designated as a "Tree City." p
Public hearing for the application of fundine to the State of Minnesota for
The, H -Window Comvanv, and consideration to adopt the resolution of
applicant. Citv of Monticello.
011ie Koropchak requested that City Council conduct a public hearing
associated with an application for funds to be provided by the State of
Minnesota, channeled through Montice:lo and offered to The H -Window
Company to assist in funding a portion of the expenses associated with the
expansion of The H -Window Company. Koropchak noted that the amount
funded through the state program is $400,000. If the state approves the
requested grant, the City will receive the grant and, in turn, provide the
funds to the H -Window Company as a loan. The City has the right to
retain the first $100,000 principal and interest payback while the state
retains the remaining $300,000 principal and interest payback. Koropchak
stated that it is recommended by City staff Council approve the $400,000
loan structure with an interest rate schedule designed to assist The H -
Window Company in the first critical years of the company's growth and
expansion. Interest rate schedule is proposed as follows:
Years 1.2
0%
Year 3
2%
Year 4
3%
Year 5
4;h
Year 6.10
6%
Page 1 (2)
Council Minutes - 9/27/93
Brad Fyle asked who is paying for the cost to apply for the state funds?
011ie Koropchak responded by saying that the funds necessary to pay the
cost to apply for the loan will be derived from the revenue received by the
City when H -Window pays back the loan which was originally funded by the
State. Brad Fyle mentioned that he continues to be opposed to the use of
tax increment financing funds for expansion. Businesses already located
here will expand on their own due to the benefits that this area provides in
terms of location on the freeway, work force, etc. Fyle also noted, however,
in this case, since State funds do not originate from Monticello yet a portion
of the loan money is paid back to the City for future loans, this is an
excellent deal.
Ken Maus mentioned that this company could have easily moved rather
than expand in Monticello. The expansion will create 60 new jobs that may
have gone elsewhere if the City had not provided TIF assistance that any
other would have provided. Shirley Anderson concurred that the City can't
pass up an opportunity to encourage expansion of an existing proven
business.
There being no further comments, Ken Maus closed the public hearing.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Administrator to
submit a Community Development application on behalf of the City of
Monticello to the Department of Trade and Economic Development and
approve the recommended loan terms. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 93-35.
Public hearing and the, consideration to adoot a resolution rglatina to the
modification of the Redevelonment Plan for Redevelooment Proiect No. 1.
the modification of the clans for Tax Increment Financine Districts Nos. 1.1
through 1-12 and Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-14 through 1-
15. and the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District
No. 1-13 (Standard Iron and H -Window TIF plan amendments).
011ie Koropchak asked that Council consider approval of an amendment to
TIF District No. 1-7 (H -Window), which will increase the district budget by
$126,000. H -Window will be expanded by 25,600 sq ft and office space by
4,000 sq ft, resulting in the creation of 60 new jobs.
Page 2 �>
Council Minutes - 9/27/93
Council is also asked to approve creation of TIF District 1-13 (Standard
Iron). Budget for District 1-13 totals $334,000 and calls for $311,000 in
pay-as-you-go TIF assistance for land right, town, and site improvements.
The TIF plan is based on construction of a 48,000 sq ft facility, 32,000 sq ft
manufacturing space, and 16,000 sq ft office space. Final site plan shows a
52,000 sq ft facility. The project will result in creation of 65 jobs in the first
year and 115 within 3 years.
Rusty Demeules, president of Standard Iron, was present to describe the
type of manufacturing that Standard Iron is involved in. He noted that this
facility will he constructing components used in construction of farm
implement equipment and other machinery. He also noted that it is
expected that in 5 years there are plans for a 30,000 sq ft addition to the
structure which would result in a total employee base of 200.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty
Olsen to adopt a resolution relating to modifications of the Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the plans for TIF
Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1.12 and TIF Districts Nos. 1.14 through 1-15,
and the approval and adoption of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-13.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 93-36.
6. Continuation of public hearine on Proiect 93-09C- Allev Improvements.
John Simola reported that the public hearing was continued to today's date
due to the previous lack of bids for the project. We have now obtained bids
for the work and have put together a list of properties with proposed costs
for each property. At the same time, we have received information from
land owners adjacent to the alley that would like to see additional work
done in conjunction with the alley improvements. The work proposed by the
adjacent property owners would make the project less of a patch job and
could involve replacing portions of existing parking areas. Simola
summarized the situation by saying that there is support for the project but
not as it is presently designed and suggested that since the project as
designed doesn't seem to address the needs of the local businesses, perhaps
a committee could be formed to improve the design.
At this point in the meeting, Ken Maus closed the public hearing.
After discussion, a motion was mads by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brad Fyle to establish a committee for the purpose of preparing an
improved plan for reconstruction of subject alleys and associated
improvements. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 3
Council Minutes - 9/27/93
Consideration of storm sewer imnrovements for Monticello Ford
John Simola reported that since there is no storm sewer system leading
from the Ford property other than the Highway 25 ditch, Monticello Ford is
faced with needing a large drainage pond on the south end of their property
near the Hart Clinic, or they must construct a storm sewer from the south
end of the property over to the pond in Sandberg South. If they construct a
pond on their property, they are using valuable property that could be used
for expansion of their business in the future. If they build and pay for a
storm sewer system leading to the Sandberg South pond, they would have
to pay 100% of that cost and would have to share the cost of an outlet to be
constructed in the future. The estimated cost of constructing the storm
sewer connection is $35,000. Including all contingencies and indirect costs,
the cost could be $46,700.
Simola went on to report that Dave Peterson is seriously considering
requesting that the City complete this improvement project with the cost of
the project being assessed back to his property. According to Assistant
Administrator O'Neill, Peterson is willing to pay 10'7, of the cost of the
project up front with the balance of the cost assessed against his property to
be paid back over a period of 10 years at the prevailing interest rate. It was
the consensus of Council that the terms proposed by Peterson as outlined by
O'Neill were acceptable.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to authorize the installation of storm sewer by change order on
the Hart Boulevard project or authorize the City Engineer to develop full
plans and specifications and bid the project, whichever is found to he the
least expensive, and grant Monticello Ford the right to stop the project in
the event the bid amounts exceed an acceptable level. Motion carried
unanimously.
Consideration of accentine convevance of tax forfeiture parcel from Wright
Countv--former Gille Auto nrouertv.
Rick Wolfsteller requested that Council consider taking ownership from the
County to expedite cleanup of the site, which includes building demolition,
underground fuel tank removal, and soil contamination cleanup through the
Minnesota Petrofund. Wolfsteller suggested a number of conditions
associated with accepting ownership from the County.
Clint Herbst noted that taking ownership of this property has some risk.
What if contamination on site is in excess of what is expected? The costs to
clean it up could rocket up. Ken Maus responded by saying that the site
evaluation that was recently completed has given us a good understanding
of the problem. Even if a bigger problem is discovered once the cleanup
Page 4 \
0- I
Council Minutes - 9/27/93
begins, the City exposure is 10% of the additional cost with the Petrofund
paying the rest. Clint Herbst emphasized that he supports the cleanup;
however, we should recognize that there are risks. Ken Maus concurred
that there are some unknowns, but the risks in accepting the property is
not excessive.
Brad Fyle indicated that he would like to see it cleaned up; however, he felt
that the penalty and interest that the County requests to he paid before
conveying the property to the City should be forgiven by the County. In
this situation, the City is taking the initiative and the risk associated with
cleaning up the site; therefore, the County should consider forgiving the
penalty and interest.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad
Fyle to agree to ownership of the property at no cost under the following
conditions:
a. After cleanup, City can sell the property and keep sufficient funds to
cover all out-of-pocket costs.
b. Remaining funds will be applied to the County expenditures.
C. If there are any remaining funds, they will be applied to the
delinquent taxes of approximately $11,300 without delinquent penalty
and interest of approximately $9,000.
d. Any funds remaining after the above expenditure reimbursements
would he the City of Monticello's.
e. If the City did not seek sufficient funds to cover its own out-of-pocket
expenditures, the County would agree to split any additional
expenditures on a 50/50 basis.
In addition, City staff is directed to determine whether or not new bids need
to be obtained for the work associated with cleaning up the site. If new bids
need to be obtained, staff is authorized to seek new bids. Motion carried
unanimously.
Consideration of chnnee order q4 to the vehicle storage building. Proiect 92-
06
John Simola reported that all the work from Monticello vehicle storage
building has been completed with the exception of painting. Painting was
attempted last fall; however, cold weather hampered the operation A
portion of the exterior painting was not the proper thickness. Portions of
the building were painted the wrong color. Still other portions of the
Page 5 0
Council Minutes - 9/27/93
building were painted during sub -freezing temperatures, which does not
comply with the manufacturer's application specifications. The painting
contractor agreed to prime the building and repaint the entire building and
provide a 3 -year extended warranty for $11,304. After several months of
negotiation, the painter's insurance company agreed to pay damages in the
amount of $11,304 so that the building could be repainted. The insurance
company requested that they make payment to the City of Monticello, as we
were the owners of the building. Consequently, in order to pay Rochon
Corporation the $11,304 for the painting that was completed, we must do so
through the change order process. Change order 44 has been developed for
that purpose.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty
Olsen to approve change order #4 in the amount of $11,304. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Consideration of change order #1, the trunk storm sewer extension and
appurtenant work to Hart Boulevard. Citv Proiect 93-06C.
John Simula reported that the Hart Boulevard Sturm Sewer Project is well
underway and should be completed in the near future. The City Engineer
and Contractor, LaTour Construction of Maple Lake, have requested that
we modify the payment units for rip rap from the cubic yard to the square
yard. There will be no increased cost to the project for making this change.
Secondly, during the excavation through the existing parking lot, a large
pile of buried demolition was uncovered consisting mainly of large pieces of
concrete and Steel rebar. These materials were removed from the street
area and pipe zone and were replaced with suitable fill. The cost of
removal, replacement, and disposal is $26.50/cubic yard. Based upon the
estimated quantity of 100 yards, the cost to the project is $2,650. This is
the amount requested for change order # 1.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Brad Fyle to approve change order #I for Project 93-06C in the amount of
$2,650. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Considerption of npnroval of plans and snecifications and authorization
nroceed for bids for Imnrovement Proiect 93-11C. chlorination and
dechlorination improvements to the wastewater treatment slant.
John Simola reported that OSM has completed the plans and specifications
for the chlorination and dechlorination system at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Our deadline for the project is to have the systems in
place and in operation during the month of October 1994 so that we can
demonstrate to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that we can
dechlorinate prior to the end of our permit in December 1994. Since we do
Page 6 O
Council Minutes - 9/27/93
not chlorinate after November 1, the October deadline is necessary. City
staff and OSM have discussed moving up the timetable due to the necessity
to chlorinate during the summer months of 1994. It would be very difficult
to continue chlorination during the summer while the construction is going
on in the existing chlorine room. We, therefore, feel that it would be in our
best interest to move the timetable up for winter construction and the
spring of 1994 for startup and request that Council approve the plans and
specifications and authorize advertisement for bids, contingent upon
approval of the plans and specifications by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. This would allow us to be out for bids in November or December
and would allow us to award the project around the first of the year.
Anticipated construction cost for this improvement is $51,000.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve plans and specifications and authorize
advertisement for bids contingent upon approval of plans and specifications
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Consideration of bills for the month of September.
Motion made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty Olsen to approve the bills
as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
13. Other Matters
A. John Simola reviewed the modifications made to the Recycling
Program. He noted that as part of the program to encourage better
participation in the program, Vasko Sanitation was authorized to
leave garbage containers that were filled with recyclables. Simola
reported that this affected about 7% of the property owners. It was
the consensus of Council to accept this short-term measure as a
wake-up call to people refusing to recycle.
B. Clint Herbst noted that he had received a call from a property owner
requesting a burning permit. It was his view that taking a poll of the
Council is not the best way to determine whether or not to issue a
burning permit.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted to Council that during the
Council's previous discussion on this general topic, Council directed
staff to refuse issuance of any burning permit applications that do not
comply completely with the ordinance governing outdoor burning.
Such applications were supposed to be submitted to the City Council
at a regular meeting, whereupon Council could consider waiving
requirements that could not be met.
Page 7 CIO)
Council Minutes - 9/27/93
It was the consensus of Council to reaffirm the previous policy in
regard to open burning, and all applicants that cannot comply with
the permit requirements noted by ordinance must come before
Council for specific approval.
There being no further discussion, meeting was adjourned.
Jeff ONeill
Assistant Administrator
Page 8 0
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
a. Consideration of a resolution su000rtina Monticello Rotary Club
efforts to establish social and economic ties to the Citv of
Dun¢annon. Northern Ireland. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A copy of the resolution will be presented at Monday evening's meeting.
City Council Agenda - 10/11/93
s. Consideration of a variance reauest to allow a building addition
onto a non -conforming structure in a rear vard setback
requirement. Aunllcant. Gene Jestus. (G.A., J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jestus is before you with a request to he allowed to construct an
addition onto his existing garage, which is non -conforming in two respects.
The building is located 14 it from the rear lot line, and the
standard is 30 ft.
2. The garage door opening on the side yard setback facing
Ramsey Street is 4.3 ft from the Ramsey right-of-way, which
means that cars parked at the garage must park on the city
boulevard. Technically, using the boulevard for this purpose is
not permissible. Residential parking should occur on private
property.
The Jestus property is a corner lot with the shortest side or front yard being
Broadway.
His existing garage is a lawful non -conforming structure having been built
and so situated on his lot prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Jestus is unable to substantiate a hardship for his variance request. It
is unfortunate that when the garage was constructed, it was constructed
within a setback requirement by today's zoning (ordinance standards. The
ordinance is clear in its requirements limiting the expansion or enlargement
of non -conforming structures. Approval of this variance request would be
inconsistent with the ordinance. As additional information, approximately
two years ago, we did grant a variance request on the adjoining property
south of Mr. Jestus' property. As you may recall, Tony Ilanyai was granted
a variance which allowed construction of a new garage in the rear yard
setback. Banyai did not receive a side yard setback variance. He was
required to place his structure 20 ft from Ramsey, which is just barely
sufficient (,) provide room for vehicle parking in front of the garage.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Approve the variance request to allow a building addition onto a non-
conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement.
City Council Agenda - 10/11/93
Deny the variance request to allow a building addition onto a non-
conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement.
C. STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The object by zoning standards is to bring legal non -conforming structures
into conforming if at all possible. It is unfortunate that Mr. Jestus' garage
was constructed where it was on the lot and does happen to fall within a
rear yard setback by today's zoning ordinance requirement. Planning
Commission felt that it is important that the City hold firm to the
requirement that non -conforming structures be restricted in terms of
potential to expand, particularly in this case where a variance would extend
the life of a structure that results in vehicles parking on the city boulevard.
Furthermore, there is nothing unique about the site, nor is there any
particular hardship that would limit the ability of the property owner to
move his structure. Therefore, Planning Commission recommended denial.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the zoning
ordinance section pertaining to this request; Copy of the site plan; Excerpts
from variance request made on 12/4/90 by neighbor to the south (Tony
sanyai ).
r'J �
i ht
Consideration of a variance request to allow a building
addition onto a non -conforming structure in a rear yard
setback requirement. Location is Block 13, Lot 1, except
south 125 ft., and all Lots 13, 14, 15, Lower Monticello
Addition in the city of Monticello.
APPLICANT: Gene Jestus
94
ti
is less than the minimum required, it shall not be
further reduced. No required open space provided around
any building or structure shall be included as a part of
any open space required for another structure.
[C) 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 50 30 50
30 10 30
2 30 10
-3 30 20 30
R-4 30 30 30
PZR See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZM See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
B-1 30 15 20
B-2 30 10 20
B-3 30 10 30
B-4 0 0 0
I-1 40 30 40
I-2 50 30 50
1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent
structures, excluding accessory buildings within
same block, have front yard setbacks different from
those required, the front yard minimum setback
shall be the average of the adjacent structures.
If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the
front yard minimum setback shall be the average of
the required setback and the setback of the
adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum
front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except
as provided in subsection [F) below.
2. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the aide yard setback shall be not less
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
[D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements:
1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill,
pilaster, lintels, ornamental features, cornices,
eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not
project more than two (2) feet into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they
do not extend above the height of the ground floor
level of the principal structure or to a distance
lose than two (2) feet from any lot line.
MONTICELL40 ZONING ORDINANCE 3/18
✓ G,.b
Taker+ Ffoo* /�•►�w3a�
J/��
1,
Vat iwr 4,e A&p wc&4;o r1.
� i�it .�arll
Io GgR.1�P
OIL 10.1
rItPR 19 Nettie
c 3s+t" t
We f Al
4r
tt J t
AW
3Rd S�RePt
v
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/4/90
3. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow construction of e
detached qaraqe within the rear yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Anton and Cecelia Banyai.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public Banyai's variance request to
place a detached garage' within the rear yard setback
requirement. The Banyai's were proposing to construct the
detached garage to within 11 feet 3 inches of the rear
property line. Mr. Anderson explained that possibly the
reason for the placement of the house in this location prior
to the zoning ordinance being in effect was to take advantage
of the high part of the lot in relationship to Third Street.
By placement of the house on the high part of the lot, it
would allow for a driveway approach for a future garage off of
Ramsey Street. If a garage were to be attached to the house,
it would have a very steep incline coming up to the garage if
it were placed off of East Third Street.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for input from the
public. There being no input from the public, Dan McConnon
then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for
further input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard
Martie, to approve the variance request. Motion carried
unanimously with Jon Bogart absent.
Reason for approval: When the house was built, the contractor
placed the house on the lot to allow for only a 17 -foot 3 -inch
attached garage on the north side of the house and a 20 -foot
wide attached garage on the east side of the house. By
today's standards, a 17 -foot 3 -inch wide garage would be too
small for a typical two stall garage, and a 20 -foot wide
garage attached to the east side of the house would not be a
very good placement for a garage because this is the end of
the house where the bedrooms are located.
C.
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
6. Consideration of oreliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center
1st Addition. ADDlicant. Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., requests that the City Council grant
preliminary and final plat approval of the Monticello Commerce Park 1st
Addition, which consists of a single two -acre lot located directly north of the
Little Mountain Elementary School site on Fallon Avenue. This parcel is being
subdivided in conjunction with development. of a company that produces pet
treats.
The plat as proposed meets city code with regard to proper lot dimensions, etc.
It is served by an existing roadway (Fallon Avenue) and has immediate access
to both sewer and water lines. Access to the city storm sewer system is
provided at Fallon Avenue. The site will he graded to allow drainage to flow
to the Fallon Avenue drainageway. It may be necessary to upgrade the
drainage system conveying storm water to the large swale west of the site.
The City Engineer is reviewing this aspect of the plat. If improvements are
necessary, it is likely that the work will he done as a public improvement with
associated expenses being paid by the benefiting property owners.
It should be noted that this two -acre subdivision is the first division of a large
tract of land owned by Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. (MIPI) that will
ultimately be subdivided into many parcels. City staff does not feel that it is
necessary to have a complete understanding of the design of the entire MIPI
area in conjunction with the subdivision of this single parcel. This single
parcel stands on its own, and it appears that subsequent subdivision of the
property will not he hampered with the approval of this subdivision as
proposed. However, it should be noted that there is a limit to the degree in
which the City can allow the area controlled by MIPI to he subdivided without
the City obtaining necessary drainage easements within the interior of the site.
Due to the fact that the 1st Addition drains completely to Fallon Avenue, and
no drainage goes off-site to the interior of the industrial park area, there is no
need to acquire additional drainage casements.
Council may wish to address a landscaping/terming issue that has arisen as
a result of the rezoning of u portion of the industrial area adjacent to the
school from HC to 1.1. As you recall, when MIPI requested the rezoning of the
entire BC area to 1-1, it was promised by MIPI that a berm and pine tree
plantings would he installed in conjunction with the rezoning. The berm would
run the length of the boundary line between the school property and the
proposed I.1/MIPI industrial area. As you know, approval of the rezoning from
HC to 1-1 was denied except for a section of land extending 400 ft deep along
Fallon Avenue. A few weeks ago, 1 asked Charlie Pfeffer if M IPI still intended
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
to install the berm along the 400 -ft boundary between the school property and
the land that MIPI had successfully rezoned. At that time, he indicated to me
that yes, he planned on installing the berm as originally proposed.
It appears now, however, that Pfeffer changed his mind and does not plan on
installing the berm/plantings. At the Planning Commission meeting, Pfeffer
indicated that he would not be installing any landscaping in addition to the
minimum required under the 1-1 zoning district. He did note that the trees
planted as required by ordinance would be staggered to match trees that the
school district, needs to plant to comply with its approved landscape plan.
Please note that the landscape plan associated with the conditional use permit
allowing development of Little Mountain School called for a row of evergreen
trees to be planted along the northern boundary of the property at 15 -ft
intervals. This aspect ol'the plan has not been completed.
If Council is concerned about inadequate screening separation between the
school site and the 1-1 site, then staff should he directed to enforce the school
district conditional use permit and/or call for a public hearing to establish an
ordinance amendment establishing a screening requirement for 1-1 properties
that are adjacent to residential zones. Attached is language from the RC
regulations that requires screening between 13C and R-1 uses. Perhaps this
language could be added to the 1-1 district regulations.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1:
1. Motion to approve the preliminary and final plats as submitted.
Underthis alternative, the CityCouncil is satisfied with the preliminary
and final plate as proposed.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary and final plate as submitted.
Decision 2:
Motion to call for a public hearing on it proposed zoning ordinance
amendment requiring additional landscape planting along I -1/R.-1 zoning
boundary lines.
Under this alternative, staff would prepare a zoning ordinance
amendment for review by the Planning Commission at their next
meeting in November. Council would act on it at the meeting scheduled
for November A.
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
Under this alternative, Council may also wish to direct staff to request
school district compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit,
which requires pine plantings at 15-R intervals along the school district
boundary.
✓ 2. Take no action to call for a public hearing on the zoning ordinance
amendment.
Council should select this alternative if it is not concerned about
requiring the I-1 property owner to be responsible for maintaining the
screen separation.
Under this alternative, the screen would be less dense and consist of
trees planted entirely by the school district.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Decision 1: Staff recommends alternative #1.
Decision 2: Staff recommends alternative N1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Monticello Commerce Center let Addition preliminary plat; Area
map; Zoning ordinance excerpt - regulations governing plantings along I-1 - BC
boundary. Final plat will be presented at the meeting.
k
: i tawfm .m 1
3 e AOVTICnLO rhO1 WAL PAW rAC.
d : C/0 PFEfFS CO.. rAC. �J
A I I SUITE 101. '
MAPLE SMVE EXECUTTVE CENTER
9 Y,P'I ar.�,. ✓..o. 7200 MOIL= LAZE o n
DUPLE
QWVEl N 55W
P/AE: f6/2 425-2930
wr-
f •
I � /Aii� MOYOI e1 1 a
e"r '1's
� r i Ivm t-1 rtfAa,smtw s B -C ®I6tNS^1/CAN1.6!
IdrrCnlo rq]Ib/N1u o.wr
I
Ytl P''. Rj i••i r11'' II SU17F 1C1.
�.';• 1'��I I ! !� )�'�'� Jt�l ( a„lE Cmvf ExrCurlvt cFMr
�GRIM
LME O,rM (IK W W III/M m m IV1 l0r (I Y,Lf (IA71F. W 5536955369 -ISI' ,' • �'.� 9 89'91'3!' E fB?.6! \ .n•` '� ._
435.60 Vrnrn tma,f
;- marcs
Q•�- ----- OT19
�' L
!;�. .. F
� ` EIB
��b V ; J. )rl✓ �ew.e-ase
4 a B a
3 I1b., 1o.n 1- II roKn e -c 4 I,..
OL{IYII i I n rn. 9outn .00.
or /o, to ,U71
1 &LoI or rrr Su,
k4Z`II ; �V i , .,apt o1 Sec
...`. , 1Ir
.,apt Cant. .
a ` 1
1
— �, i ! ♦ Y 1 I fI
�1• t: -I__--_—__ ���-gym__-_ JJJ/JJJJ 1 YI
�+ • I ----------- I --------
N 89'91'91' 9 4W.B1 —IT"_ —
' II,.1 I Ox .I -i ,fly en ,11,1
DSCIm OlSI91C/ pB7
6
P 0
o E0,iu er
.r._.. '...v / 302,1,e,rwro,+ smrFr I
IfCE'LL6 M 9961
P4CP J 3
BC
Ci � .I � \� � � M�•p t'�at ��t�. � �csr
_ + y
fl elm
R 1 ; R
A
0
2. In the "BC" District, all buildings constructed of
curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or
fiberglass shall be required to be faced with
brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in
place or pre -case panels on all wall surfaces.
(C) Parking. Detailed parking plans in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 5, shall be submitted for City review
and approved before a building permit may be obtained.
(D) Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan, including
berths, area, and access sl:dll be submitted to the City
In conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section
6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
i
[E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be submitted to the
Council and approved before a building permit may be
[,L obtained. 1
Gl..n�l� JoZ VAC �.V-ttt l.i AISo
o„ P In additi to they requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2
l• a,� 11 [GJ, al parcels developed along the boundary between
Baa S IV the 8 iM one and a residential zone shall include
�e planting of evergreens as a screen between BCl/ and R-1
uses. The evergreens planted shall be planted—dvery 15
W eQ feet along the property boundary.
[F) Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to
preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land
to create passive open space.
[G) Signage. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted in
conformance with Chapter 3, Section 9.
Lot Requirements: Lot Area - 30,000 eq ft
Lot Width - 100 feet
Setbacks: Front Yard - 50 feet
Side Yard - 30 feet
Rear Yard - 40 feet
(02/24/92, 1221)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
0
15A/4
City Council Agenda - 10/11/93
7. Consideration of oreliminary and final plat approval of Point
Minnie. Applicant, Stuart Hoglund. Plat size and location: 3.8
acres consisting of 4 lots. I of which includes the site of the Comfort
Inn of Monticello. 0.0. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This request, for preliminary and final plat approval of the Point. Minnie
subdivision is identical to the request made on July 5. 1990. Both the
Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed and approved the
preliminary plat in 1990. Due to the fact there was a delay that lasted
more than one year between the time of preliminary plat approval and the
request for final plat approval, it is necessary to bring this item back to the
Planning Commission and City Council for both preliminary mid final plat
reapproval.
As you will note in the attached meeting minutes, there were a number of
items that needed to be cleared up before final plat approval would he
granted. These items have now been taken care of, therefore, it is now
appropriate to consider the preliminary plat of the Point Minnie
subdivision.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant preliminary plat approval of the Point Minnie
subdivision.
2. Motion to deny preliminary plat approval of the Point Minnie
subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the fact that Stuart Hoglund has addressed the drainage issues
associated with platting of the property by making improvements to the
ditch system along Oakwood Drive and by obtaining necessary drainage
easements from the property impacted by storm water from the site
(Hoglund Transportation), it appears appropriate at this time to grant
preliminary and final approval of the Point Minnie plat.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Meeting minutes of Planning Commission meeting held 7/15/90; Meeting
minutes of Council meeting held 7/9/90; Area map; Copy of preliminary plat
and final plat.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/5/90
Public Hearing --A Dreliminary Dlat reouest for a commercial
subdivision plat. Applicant, Stuart Hoolund.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Hoglund•s
request for a preliminary commercial subdivision plat.
Mr. O'Neill presented a video tape of the entire property
showing existing drainage problems which occur just outside of
this plat. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public
hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst the
Planning Commission members.
Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members centered
around the drainage problems which were highlighted outside of
this preliminary plat by Mr. O'Neill.
With no further input from Planning Commission members, motion
was made by Cindy Lamm, seconded by Richard Carlson, to
approve the preliminary plat of the Minnie Point subdivision
subject to City acquisition of proper drainage easements from
properties impacted by the Minnie Point storm water. Also,
the City is to work with the developer and the other property
owners on the development of culverts consistent with City
standards at locations noted. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Minutes - 7/9190
C,.
Consideration of a preliminary plat request for commercial
subdivision plat. Applicant, Stuart Hoglund.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill described the Minnie Point
subdivision and noted that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to City acquisition
of proper drainage easements across properties impacted by
Minnie Point storm water and subject to development of a plan
for conveying storm water along the Oakwood Drive right-of-way
to Highway 25. O'Neill noted that most of the water from the
Minnie Point area currently drains onto the Hoglund
Transportation company property on its way to the freeway
ditch and then into the Walnut Street storm sewer system.
This has not been a problem in the past, as the Minnie Point
area and Hoglund Transportation property have been under
common ownership. Now that the land is being subdivided with
the intent to sell, it may be prudent to formally identify a
drainage and utility easement across the Hoglund
Transportation property. O'Neill went on to note there appear
to be two possible drainage alignments. Selection of the
alignment is to be determined by the applicant. O'Neill also
noted that a portion of the water produced by the site drains
to the Oakwood Drive ditch. The purpose of this ditch is to
convey water westward to Highway 25. Unfortunately, the ditch
does not serve this purpose, as there are culverts along the
ditch line that are absent or are too small to properly convey
the amount of water that would be produced by this site;
therefore, it may make sense at this time to acknowledge the
problem and develop a plan for opening up this ditch line to
Highway 25. The construction of the ditch improvements may be
deferred until such time that actual construction occurs.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, Seconded by
warren Smith, to approve the preliminary plat of the Minnie
Point Subdivision subject to City acquisition of necessary
utility and drainage easements across properties impacted by
Minnie Point subdivision storm water and Subject to
development of a plan for improving Oakwood Drive ditch in a
manner that will allow storm drainage to drain to the
Highway 25 or freeway ditch storm drainage areas. Oakwood
Drive storm drain improvements are to be completed during or
before Minnie Point commercial site development. Motion
carried unanimously.
0
W0W
n,t t4l(kliii
Area MAP
t
'-Pbirxf
p'elim. Plat
Wmnit Final
PI -f-
euaw/a arrxnrnr mf xp+m,wr o• rnr
K /iw tr r/L xry /i• pr SFc µ rx� rst •aC.
' n n •Jrurp ro N•/r • KNIwR a
\iJss a,rl-N r
� r N
J•e - /p � /Ip � � I
O rf•pIFS I/1 wC/r•I•Mi,wlaN rRMBCxr JFl
nm • n.•Jrx uix•.wrp waa •v rlsaJ "
aK.wMllfl xlm •b drl•xr lOOO \ i
r[fr x<wm or' M Jdlm I K pr M i
JWr/.x[JI rpvFw P• N//• O rhC Jx//•
M+I rppxr. c•J/ , `�\ N BB'S/7/"E DEED J36.60 INCAS. 338.65 I
r,xrpy rpM.Yr) � /PO •• ._� � /Jl Pp IO JJJROO
j\�' ": \� ,% raven LK yrK JF/i• •. g I� Y00 I
"IZAL
a --fI�.Y` \Aprx(K pf .Krf/i• 0 � � I •�
drxe xx,i• d� sre. I• „I � . o i
` ld l � L _ _ N B9'7P IJ W � •'
Lam.. � `vvv}1114 s.,\• r�. � i I- _—IlD li._._1 ^ m•
• o. an
ne/ru •n plp /I. r rrrxn •.r JMxx mn I �
rwrv/rrw wmm Nurare1
I
,/vr an•Irrwwen.IsO •Nwo1p1
IMIIYrL prNAO/rM+xxOMgY '
•B
n
Y
1
-• ;l 7�l
rAV7 ng i w�un C//QVA-VHpQ /A/I'
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
s. Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 16 of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance which would permit use of a temporary structure
not to exceed 700 sa ft as an accessory use on an interim basis.
Applicant. Community United Methodist Church. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Following is a slightly modified copy of the agenda supplement provided to
the Planning Commission regarding this case. For the sake of efficiency,
you are being provided the same supplement. Planning Commission
recommended approval of the zoning ordinance amendment with some
modifications. The modifications have been made and are incorporated into
the proposed ordinance amendment. A two-year time limit for use of a
temporary building is suggested by the Planning Commission. The vote to
approve was unanimous.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of modified Planning Commission agenda dated 10/5/93; Copy of
proposed ordinance amendment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
6. Public Hearing—Consideration of an amendment to Chanter 16 of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would hermit use of a
temoorary structure not to exceed 700 so ft as an accessory use on
an interim basis. ADDlicanL Community United Methodist Church.
(J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
At the September 13 meeting of the City Council, representatives from the
Community United Methodist Church presented a request to place a 12'x
52' temporary classroom on the Methodist Church site. According to church
officials, a temporary structure is needed to help relieve overcrowding
problems faced by the growing congregation. Apparently. there is limited
space available for classrooms, and classes are now being taught in church
hallways. They are looking for land and will be constructing a new facility
in the next few years.
In response to the proposal, City staff informed City Council that the
current city ordinance does not allow this type of development. This is
because the church is located in an 1-2 zone, making it a lawful but non-
conforming use. The church has "grandfather" rights to continue its current
manner of operation; but under our present ordinance, it cannot he allowed
to expand. Placement of a temporary classroom on site would, in our
estimation, constitute an expansion of the use. In addition, temporary
structures of any kind are not allowed in an 1.2 zone. An amendment to the
ordinance would need to be prepared which would allow this type of
structure to exist.
Council responded by authorizing City staff to work with the City Planner
and City Attorney to determine the necessary zoning ordinance
amendments required to potentially allow the Methodist Church to use it
temporary structure as proposed. The authorization was not necessarily an
approval of the concept or a pre -approval of the zoning ordinance
amendment. It simply authorized City staff to work with the church to
initiate the process of obtaining the necessary zoning ordinance
amendment(s).
In response, City staff has prepared it zoning ordinance amendment that
would allow temporary structures such as it classroom as proposed to be
used in an 1.2 zone only. Under the proposed ordinance, it would not he
possible to place such a stricture in any other zoning district. In addition,
the ordinance singles out non -conforming uses in the 1.2 zone its tieing
eligihle to use a temporary structure. The provision allowing non-
conforming uses in an 1.2 zone to have it temporary building supercedes the
general requirements that till non -conforming uses cannot expand.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
IMPLICATIONS
On the positive side, the zoning ordinance amendment limits temporary
buildings to the 1-2 zone only. Furthermore, the 1-2 zone, being the heavy
industrial zone, would not likely suffer a depreciation in land values. The
nature of this zone is such that temporary structures may not have a
significant negative impact.
It does not appear likely that businesses and industries in the 1.2 zone %vill
likely take advantage of the opportunity to place a temporary structure on
site. To my knowledge, we have never received such a request. One could
imagine, however, the possibility of a company needing a temporary
structure on site to help them through a period of growth where perhaps
they need additional office space.
The ordinance amendment also allows a non -confirming use (a church) to
expand on a limited basis through placement of a temporary building on
site. After reviewing other existing uses in the 1-2 district, I could not find
any other non -conforming uses in the other 1-2 districts within the city;
therefore, this expansion of a non -conforming use will he limited to the
church.
On the negative side, the ordinance is set up w allow a temporary building
to be in place for a "limited" (2 -year) time period; however, it is possible
that "interim" can turn into long -tern. Enforcement of the time limit could
end up being a problem. Will the City have the will to deny an extension to
the interim use? And if the interim use extension is denied, will it have the
will to require removal of the temporary structure?
Planning Commission and Council may also be concerned about being
accused of favoritism. Other churches in the community have Iwught land
to provide space necessary to accommodate their growing congregations; and
in doing so, they have met the basic requirements of the city zoning
ordinance. One has to ask, would the City change the ordinance for other
nun -conforming businesses or institutions that wished to expand?
Finally, the proposed ordinance amendment states that the temporary
structure is not considered to constitute an expansion of it pre-existing legal
non -conforming use. This provision is inconsistent with the zoning
ordinance's general goal of converting lawful non-amfonning uses to
conforming uses. Planning Commission needs to det.ennine whether or not,
it wishes to undermine this general principal by allowing expansion of the
church at this location.
Cg r
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
Under alternative #1 below, Planning Comm i ssionJCouncil will need to
designate the duration of the interim period. How many years does the
Planning Commission feel that a temporary structure should he allowed to
he used on site. According to the Methodist Church representatives, it may
be as many as five years before the new church facility is constructed. This
time period may or may not be longer than the time period that the
Planning Commission would feel is acceptable.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment as proposed.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a
finding that the ordinance amendment is consistent with the
geography and character of the 1.2 zoning district and is consistent
with the comprehensive plan. Land values in the 1-2 zoning district
will not be impacted by the zoning ordinance amendment.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission finds that the
positive implications outlined above outweigh the negative D
implications with regard to the 1-2 zone and the zoning ordinance in
general.
2. Motion to deny approval of the ordinance amendment, ns proposed.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a
finding that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the
geography and character of the 1.2 zone, it is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and could result in a depreciation of land values.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission views introduction of
temporary structures in the 1-2 zone as creating a problem in the I-2
zone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
On one hand, there does not appear to be a demonstrated need justifying
temporary structures in the 1.2 zone. Without this special situation, would
the City have considered allowing temporary structures in the 1.2 zone?
Furthermore, it undermines the important general principal that non-
conforming uses should he converted over time to conforming uses.
to
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
On the other hand, despite concerns noted above, it does appear that the
ordinance amendment as drafted will not result in a proliferation of
temporary structures throughout the city, nor allow other non -conforming
uses to expand. Therefore, approval of the ordinance amendment merits
serious consideration.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
G
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10.16.3 RELATING TO ACCESSORY
USES IN THE 1.2 ZONE BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
16-3: ACCESSORY USES:
(A) Permitted Accessory Uses: The following are permitted accessory
uses in an "I-2" district:
1. All permitted accessory uses allowed in an 1-1 (light industrial)
district..
(B) Interim Accessory Uses: The following are interim accessory uses in
an "I-2" district:
1. One temporary structure as an interim accessory use, subject
to the following conditions:
(a) The interim accessory structure is not to exceed 700 sq
R.
(b) The property owneris) sign a development agreement
with the City controlling site development and use,
including a dale upon which the interim use is to
terminale.
(c) The termination date is established at u point not longer
than two (2) years following City Council approval.
(d) The property owner supply adequate security to ensure
removal of the interim structure and use upon reaching
the termination date.
lel All other standards of Cho Monticello Zoning Ordinance
are met.
(f) Any Interim Accessory Use or Structure approved under
this section will not be considered to constitute an
expansion of a pro -existing legal non -conforming use
where applicable.
Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of October, 1093.
Mayor
City Administrator O
8
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
9. Consideration of request by abutting property owner to construct a
fence around undeveloped West 4th Street --Jim Eisele. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As you may have noticed recently, Mr. Jim Eisele purchased a parcel of
land between 3rd and 4th Streets abutting Lite American legion Club's
parking lot on the north and undeveloped 4th Street on the south. The
property is adjacent to Elm Street and backs up to Pinewood Elementary
School. Mr. Eisele cleared the property of all its trees and buildings and is
in the process of planting new trees and ground cover. As part of his
cleanup efforts, Mr. Eisele also cleared out all of the trees and brush on
undeveloped 4th Street between Elm Street and the Pinewood School
property. In order to keep people from entering his property, Mr. Eisele
would like permission to construct a fence surrounding the perimeter of 4th
Street.
Normally, platted but undeveloped streets are maintained by abutting
property owners who are allowed to use the property as long as it is not
inconsistent with the adjacent property uses. In other words, undeveloped
streets lying between commercial properties are usually maintained by the
property owners and would be allowed to be used in a manner consistent
with commercial uses, although no permanent structures would be allowed.
While Mr. Eisele is not proposing any specific use other than enclosing the
property with a fence, the enclosure would restrict other people from having
access to the street right -of --way and would also restrict the abutting
property owner from having any access to half of the street right-of-way.
While it is our understanding that the abutting property owner does not
have a problem with the street right-of-way king fenced by Mr. Eisele, a
future property owner may question why Mr. Eisele hits claimed use of the
entire right-of-way when possibly half could have been used by someone
else.
As some of you may recall, Mr. Eisele also requested similar consideration
in 1989 when he requested permission to fence undeveloped Linn Street
between t 1/2 and Lith Street just west of the current new fire hall building.
Mr. Eisele had received permission to lease the cast half of Linn Street, as
he was the owner of the property to Lite cast and wanted to use the property
for parking and storage purposes. One year later in 1989, Mr. Eisele
purchased property to the west of Linn Street, and at that time he
requested permission of the City Council to fence in Lite entire property to
keep people out of his property, including Linn Street. 'rhe City Council
granted approval allowing the area to he, fenced but noted that the property
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
had to he used in a manner that was consistent with its current zoning use.
The property east of Linn Street was zoned commercial, which coincided
with his present use of a garage facility for repairing antique cars; but the
property west of Linn Street was multi -family residential. Mr. Eisele
indicated that he had no plans for using the property other than parking at
that time; but after the property was fenced, Mr. Eisele did construct a
concrete loading dock in the southwest corner of the property which was
zuoed residential. This use would seem to be inappropriate in a residential
district, and the loading dock was used at that time because of Mr. Eisele's
business venture, which was JME dumpster rentals.
While the Linn Street issue noted above is not directly connected to the
request to fence in 4th Street, they are similar in that a property owner is
asking for permission to enclose an undeveloped street with a fence that
will be in effect telling the public that no access is allowed to this area. I do
believe the City Council should be cognizant of the fact that a precedent
may be set if we allow individuals on a first-come first -serve basis to claim
use of undeveloped right-of-ways by constructing fences without giving
adjacent property owners an equal opportunity to utilize half of the street D
right-of-way. In Mr. Eisele's case, there is an adjacent property owner to
the south that would have just as much right two utilize half of the 4th
Street right-of-way; but once a fence is constructed, access will be denied to
everyone but Mr. Eisele.
While I believe Mr. Eisele feels it's important to construct the fence to keep
snowmobilers, 3 -wheelers, and other vehicles from entering his property, 1
do not necessarily agree that the right-of-way has to he included in the
fenced -in area; and Mr. Eisele could protect his property by simply placing
the fence along the north property line of 4th Street. It may he well for the
City to consider adopting a policy relating w fence locations on undeveloped
streets by adjacent property owners.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I 1uc. The first alternative would be to allow Mr. Eisele to fence in the
entire 4th Street right-of-way as requested.
The second alternative would he (,) allow Mr. Eisele to fence in up to
half of the right-of-way as an abutting property owner.
The third alternative would be to deny Mr. Eisele the right to fence
in the property and to require the fence to he placed on the property
line if he wishes to deny people access to his property.
10
Council Agenda - 10/1 V93
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While I understand Mr. Eisele's desire to enclose the area by a fence in
order to continue maintaining the property, I question whether the City
should be allowing one abutting property owner the right to fence in an
entire unused right-of-way, which essentially will deny access to the other
abutting property owner. While the present neighbor may not object, a
future property owner could be requesting permission to use half the street
for a garden or whatever purpose. From a visual standpoint, if Mr. Eisele is
allowed to fence in all of the right-of-way, it will appear to the general
public that Mr. Eisele is the owner of the entire piece of property when, in
fact, the right-of-way still exists. I think Mr. Eisele's concern of denying
access to his property by putting up a fence is justifiable, but it should be
located on his property line or, at most, on the centerline of the undeveloped
street right-of-way. This would allow the abutting property owner to the
south an equal access to the street in the meantime.
If you get an opportunity to view the property, you may notice that fence
posts have already been constructed on the south side of the right-of-way,
and Mr. Eisele has been instructed to stop further construction until the
Council has had an opportunity to review this request.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Map depicting area in question.
It
// � /J , ir' \ �•� \� `,� wi � � � � , ham\
/
hl `i \\ �. , �� .,` •% ..i
XC
cy
4v!
A
4 C,19. /
y
Ab
cr
1113110 . ti :. + i. `` i,4i $ w`" l�� Iwr1' ' • i .4R L'.". L'Q� : +-
• �' ,CVS u.u.
>+ ' ' i �>� 1 •� iii. ,� 8} • tro � �r � r� . i
•s ............. ... .... r' a i'} ----i--su.'T"- �pu�-U'iY M� 41t�41umt.(aw.
,i ! 7 ! � • � F 7 s !-? IY
.. 4CCL •w i�h
!...
—W� 'r 'A
• t'J � w�, V
' i ha J l9
OONTICULO
:ou" TRY
:LUS
:DURT
L q
hw
GOLF COLO?5Z
RD
JP 0
-77
•
04,
I
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 882
Key Douvote-
Sheldon D. Johnson, Superintendent
Ellamont incipal
295-5t8e
Telephone (612) 295-5184
BnNovak
Fax (612) 295.23.90
Elelrlentary, Principal
P. O. BOX 897
295�utw
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362
BOARD of EDUCATION
Superintendent of Schools
,tanwwrbst
October 11. 1993
Chair
SDJ/ja
Kathryn flpenW—
Clerk
Dennis 9uaQkeek
Treasurer
To Whom It May Concern:
Nancy Cassano
Dire"
It is my understanding that Jim Eisele, property owner
adjacent to the Pinewood Elementary School site, is
Jet"Bale tt
Director
requesting permission from the City of Monticello to
erect a fence between our two properties. The school
U'ltr
district has no problem or objection with this fence,
Dior
even if it extends across the street easement directly
south of Mr. Eisele's property.
ADMINISTRATION
I would like to point out, however, that the school
Ukhad BeneMeto
district would be in objection to this easement being
Asp. Supl.nnsuuction
surrendered to Mr. Eisele due to the fact that, at
` -95-5184
some point in the future, the school district might
Rktk"welns
want to extend a street from the Pinewood school
e"nessmanaper
buildings to 4Lh Street extended.
295-5184
LV dol
In my conversations with Mr. Eisele regarding his
H1ph School Principal
fencing request, I do not believe he is asking for
295-2913
this street easement to be vacated so I don't believe
Robs rl Voocks
a problem exists. I did want to point out the fact,
Hlph School Princnpal
however, that we would like to see the flexibility of
295-2913
4th Street. being extended at some point in the future.
KermK as me
Middle School Pflncipal
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
295-41e1
me.
Key Douvote-
Ellamont incipal
295-5t8e
S i eme re
BnNovak
'
Elelrlentary, Principal
295�utw
S. D. Jolt aon
William White
Superintendent of Schools
Activities Director
295-2913
SDJ/ja
Paul Zorn"
Special ECucatlon Diva"
295-5185
luam Oath
Community Educatbn Do.
295-2918
Ca deco BerAm
Apt. Community Educ. Du.
295-2918
City Council Agenda - 10/11/93
to, Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 JDl 9 (f) of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow curb cut widths in
commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of 24 ft at the
discretion of the Citv Engineer and Zoning Administrator. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Following is a copy of the agenda supplement. Provided to the Planning
Commission regarding this case. For the sake of efficiency, you are being
provided the same supplement. Planning Commission recommended
approval of the zoning ordinance amendment as proposed per alternative
#I. The vote was unanimous.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission agenda supplement of 10/5/93; Copy of proposed
zoning ordinance amendment.
OLD Lq-OGUAGE
(d) No curb cut access shall be located less than
forty (40) feet from the intersection of two
(2) or more street right-of-ways. This
distance shall be measured from the
intersection of lot lines.
(e) Except in the case of single family, two-
family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas
and their aisles shall be developed in
compliance with the following standards:
Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in
length.
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four
C�LA_A (24) feet in width.
(g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a
minimum three (3) feet from the side yard
property line in residential districts and
five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in
business or industrial districts.
(h) Driveway access curb openings on a public
street except for single, two-family, and
townhouse dwellings shall not be located less
than forty (40) foot from one another.
(i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall
not exceed five (5) percent.
(j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb
cut per one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of
street frontage. All property shall be
entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single
family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb
cut access per property.
(k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized
for parking space and driveways shall be
surfaced with materials suitable to control
dust and drainage.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/25/._
WALL
HALL TO
INTERLOCK TO
TO
INTERLOCK
INTERLOCK
ANGLE
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
30
148.6'
44.5'
40.3'
45
56.8'
53.4'
50.0'
60
62.0'
59.7'
57.4'
90
64.0'
64.0'
64.0'
Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in
length.
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four
C�LA_A (24) feet in width.
(g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a
minimum three (3) feet from the side yard
property line in residential districts and
five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in
business or industrial districts.
(h) Driveway access curb openings on a public
street except for single, two-family, and
townhouse dwellings shall not be located less
than forty (40) foot from one another.
(i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall
not exceed five (5) percent.
(j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb
cut per one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of
street frontage. All property shall be
entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single
family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb
cut access per property.
(k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized
for parking space and driveways shall be
surfaced with materials suitable to control
dust and drainage.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/25/._
)VOL) Lel-NJ6U46E
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10-3-5 [D] 9 (f) RELATING TO CURB
CUT ACCESS BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width with
the following exception: Curb cut access in industrial and conunercial
zoning districts may exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of
the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City
Engineer and Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of
twenty-four (24) feet may lie appealed following the procedures
outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council on October 11, 1993.
Mayor
City Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
Public Hearing—Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 [Dl 9 (f)
of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would allow curb cut
widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of
24 feet at the discretion of the Citv Engineer and Zoning
Administrator. Q.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission. H -
Window Company requested a variance to the 24 -ft curb width requirement.
The variance request was turned down due to the fact that a hardship was
not demonstrated; however, the Planning Commission requested that a
public hearing be held on the possibility of liberalizing our curb cut
requirement in industrial zones. City staff moved forward by calling a
public hearing and by researching the matter further. As a result of our
research, we found that the Planning Commission's hunch that the 24 -ft
curb requirement is overly restrictive is correct. According to the City
Planner, among other cities it is common to have the City Engineer be
authorized to allow wider curb cuts where appropriate. The proposed
zoning ordinance amendment prepared for Planning Commission review
simply adds a sentence to the existing language which provides the City
Engineer, in conjunction with the Zoning Administrator, to allow curb cuts
in excess of 24 ft.
As noted during our discussion with H -Window Company, it is very difficult
to provide safe and convenient ingress and egress for large trucks when
curb cut widths are limited to 24 ft. From a public safety and site usability
standpoint, it would appear that allowing wider curb cuts makes sense.
Obviously under the ordinance amendment, the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator are given considerable authority in determining what is an
acceptable and unacceptable curb cut width. Planning Commission may not
be comfortable with providing such discretionary power. Perhaps the
ordinance should include a maximum. The danger of providing a maximum
is that this number could become the standard.
The zoning ordinance amendment also includes a provision that allows a
developer to appeal a decision made by the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator. Please note that the amendment applies both to commercial
and industrial areas. According to the City Planner, the need for wider
curb cuts applies to both areas.
C/O
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the ordinance amendment which would allow curb
cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of
24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zuning Administrator.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding
that the wider curb cuts are necessary to allow adequate access to
commercial and indnst.rial sites and, therefore, enable reasonable use
of commercial and industrial property. Planning Commission is
comfortable with providing the City Engineer and City staff with the
latitude to determine the appropriate curb cut widths.
Under this alternative, the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator
would carefully scrutinize requests for curb cuts wider than 24 ft and
determine if the need for such curb cut widths are justified. Factors
that will be considered include the type of vehicles using the access
point, proximity to intersections, turning radius needs, etc.
2. Motion to denv the ordinance amendment which would allow curb cut
widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of
24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the
existing ordinance is satisfactory and that there is no need to update
the ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment as
submitted. It is our view that the existing ordinance is too restrictive and
will continue to result in variance requests. Allowing wider curb cut widths
in commercial and industrial zones will enhance the usability of commercial
and industrial property without sacrificing public safety or usability of the
public right-of-way. Staff is not overly concerned that the City Engineer
and Zoning Administrator are given too much discretionary power when
reviewing curb cut width requests in excess of 24 ft. It is our view that the
City Engineer and staff have the expertise that will enable them to make
good decisions in this area.
D, SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
12 0/0
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
11. Consideration of transient merchant ordinance amendment. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
During our recent Recycling Committee meeting, it was noted that our recycling
tonnages in all areas were lower than they have been for a number of months,
including a reduction in aluminum recycling. Randy, of 1) & K Recycling, has
questioned City staff a number of times on why the City of Monticello allows outside
recyclers, such as Evergreen Recycling from Buffalo and the Can Man, to set up their
mobile equipment at various locations in Monticello for the purpose of purchasing
aluminum. As I'm sure you are aware, Evergreen Recycling (formerly Polka Dot)
buys aluminum every Monday afternoon at the VFW Club parking lot. The Can Man
sets up their portable purchasing station at the K -Mart parking lot. D & K Recycling
feels that making these sites readily available to the competitors only cuts into the
amount of aluminum that is recycled at curb side.
In reviewing our ordinances, it would appear possibly the City should he addressing
those firms or individuals who set up temporary recycling centers in the same
manner we treat other transient merchants who are trying to sell items on a
temporary basis. While our ordinance under transient merchants currently defines
a transient merchant as a person who engages in selling items, it would he easy to
modify the ordinance to also include individuals who purchase items, such as
recyclers. The same concerns exist for those businesses that purchase items as those
that sell merchandise in that we want to make sure that the activity is located in the
proper zoning district and that adequate off-street parking is available, etc. Whether
the person is selling paintings or flowers or buying aluminum cons, there should not
be a difference in our treatment of these temporary businesses.
In the long run, it may he heneficial for the City to regulate recyclers from
temlxararily conducting husiness in Monticello which competes with ourown recycling
program. The ordinance covering transient merchants could easily he amended by
simply inserting verbiage that defines a transient merchant as an individual who
engages in the temporary business of selling and delivering goods, wares,
merchandise or buying and receiving goods, wares, and merchandise. If the
amendment is adopted, recyclers such as Evergreen Recycling and the Can Man
would he subject to the same restrictions as other transient merchants, including the
$50/day permit fee, should they desire to continue operation in Monticello. It was the
recommendation of the Recycling Committee that the amendment be brought, before
the City Council for approval.
13
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the ordinance amendment as proposed which would include the
definition of a transient merchant to be either buying or selling merchandise
on a temporary basis.
2. Do not adopt the ordinance amendment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since one of the main concerns of having an ordinance dealing with transient
merchants is to insure that temporary businesses are located in the proper district
and also are located in areas that have sufficient parking and meet other zoning
requirements, the same provision should also apply to a temporary business that
buys items from the public. If it becomes more difficult for an outside recycler to
locate temporarily in Monticello, we may see a decrease in the number of incidences
were items are removed from curb side recycling bins for the purpose of selling the
items to the recycler. In addition, the more items our recycling firm (D & K) can
collect, the better chance we have of keeping our price for collection services ai a
reasonable level since D & K depends on the aluminum as a major portion of their
revenue from recycling. It is the recommendation of the Recycling Committee and
City staff that the ordinance be amended as proposed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of present transient merchant ordinance; Copy of proposed ordinance
amendment.
14
Present crdt*ozzrnce_
CHAPTER 10
TRANSIENT MERCHANTS
SECTION:
3-10-1: Definition
3-10-2: Permit Required
3-10-3: Exemptions
3-10-4: Application
3-10-5: Religious and Charitable Organizations, Exemption
3-10-6: Investigation and Issuance
3-10-7: Duty of City Administrator to Enforce
3-10-8: Revocation of License
3-10-9: Appeal
3-10-10: Reapplication
3-10-11: Expiration of Permit
3-10-12: Penalty
3-10-1: DEFINITION: When used in this ordinance, the following term
has the following meaning:
(A) "Transient merchant" includes any person, firm, or corporation,
whether as owner, agent, consignee, or employee, who engages in a
temporary business (five days or less per calendar year) of selling
and delivering goods, wares, and merchandise within the city and
who, in furtherance of such purpose, hires, leases, uses, or
occupies any building, structure, motor vehicle, trailer, tent,
railroad boxcar, boat, public room in hotels, lodging houses,
apartments, shops, or any street, alley, or other place within the
city for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares, and
merchandise either privately or at public auction, provided that
such definition does not include any person, firm, or corporation
who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from
stock but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for
future delivery only. Location utilized by transient merchants
shall be consistent with uses identified as permitted in particular
zoning district and adequate off-street parking is available.
3-10-2-.* PERMIT REQUIRED: It is unlawful for any transient merchant to
engage in any such business within the city of Monticello
without first obtaining a permit therefore in compliance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
(A) A daily permit shall be required for any "transient merchant" as
defined in Section 3-10-1(A).
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE III/Chpt 10/Page I
®R
proms arncndment
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
ORDINANCE SECTION 3-10-1 (A) RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF
"TRANSIENT MERCHANT" BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
3-10-1: DEFINITION: When used in this ordinance, the
following term has the following meaning:
(A) "Transient merchant" includes any person, firm, or corporation,
whether as owner, agent, consignee, or employee, who engages in
a temporary business (five days or less per calendar year) of
selling and delivering goods, wares, and merchandise, or buying y/M m
and receivine mods. wares. and merchandise within the city and
who, in furtherance of such purpose, hires, leases, uses, or
occupies any building, structure, motor vehicle, trailer, tent,
railroad boxcar, boat, public room in hotels, lodging houses,
apartments, shops, or any street, alley, or other place within the
city for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares, and
merchandise either privately or at public auction, provided that
such definition does not include any person, firm, or corporation
who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from
stock but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for
future delivery only. Location utilized by transient merchants
shall be consistent with uses identified as permitted in particular
zoning district and adequate off-street parking is available.
Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of October, 1993.
Mayor
City Administrator
(The underlined portion is the amendment.)
/n
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
12. Consideration of approving renewal of Joint Fire Deoartment
contracts with Silver Creek Township and Citv of Otsego. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Monticello Joint Fire Department contracts for fire protection services
covering a portion of the City of Otsego and approximately half of Silver Creek
Township that will be expiring December 31, 1993. The City Council and the
Monticello Township Board are being asked to approve rontrart rrnewal'; for
the two jurisdictions based on recommendations of the Joint Fire Board.
The fire department has provided service to Silver Creek Township for a
number of years and recently began servicing the western portion of 0tsego on
January 1, 1992. The latest contracts for both jurisdictions were only one year
in length to allow the Joint Fire Board an opportunity to review its cost
structure in anticipation of raising the fees to contracting jurisdictions.
The Joint Fire Board recently met for the purpose of reviewing 1994 fire
department budget and at that meeting discussed increasing the contracting
fees from the current $25 per parcel to $35 per parcel for both Silver Creek
and Otsego. It was noted that the Elk River Fire Department has, for a
number of years, been charging the City of Otsego approximately $35 per
parcel, and recently the City of Otsego decided to contract with the City of
Albertville for a small triangular portion of Otsego that lies south of 1.94
starting October 1, 1993. This small triangular parcel containing
approximately 39 homesites was previously serviced by Monticello, and Otsego
will now he paying approximately $72 per parcel to the Albertville Fire
Department.
When reviewing the City's fire department costs, Monticello Township
representatives felt the charge imposed on contracting communities should he
increased Ui $35 per parcel to better reflect the actual cost of providing
protection. With the City of Elk River currently charging Otsego in this range,
Otsego should he willing to pay $35 to the Monticello Fire Department for the
territory we serve. Township Board members RIsO noted that the cost to
Monticello Township for fire protection is closer to $35 per parcel than the $25
we are charging other jurisdictions. Therefore, the Township has a difficult
time charging contracting communities less than it is costing their own
residents for fire protection.
At the time of last year's contract renewal, each ju risdiction wits notified that
the Joint Fire Board would be reviewing the fees for 1994 and anticipated an
increase to the $30 to $35 per parcel range. Both jurisdictions were given
15
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
ample time to increase their budgets if necessary to cover the anticipated
increase starting in 1994. In the case of Silver Creek Township, the contract
increase to $35 per parcel would change their annual charge from
approximately $12,100 to $16,900. For the City of Otsego, the increase to $35
would change their annual contract from $6,800 to approximately $8,150. It
was also the recommendation of the Joint Fire Board that the Fire Department
offer each jurisdiction 3 -year contracts for fire protection at the $35 per parcel
amount. Contract arrangements in the past have typically been for three
years, and this will allow the jurisdictions to know in advance what their
anticipated cost will be.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the renewing of fire protection agreements with the City of
Otsego and Silver Creek Township for a 3 -year term at the rate of $35
ti f� C0 per fire parcel. Under this alternative, Silver Creek Township would be
expected to pay approximately $16,900 and the City of Otsego $8,150 in
1994.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Joint Fire Board, 3 -year contract extensions are
recommended at the $35 per parcel charge for both contract renewals. While
the Joint Fire Board is not opposed to 1 -year contracts, it felt the offer of 3 -
year contracts may be more acceptable. It was also noted by the Joint Fire
Board that with the anticipated need of the fire department replacing one of
its pumper trucks at an estimated cost of $200,000 in the near future, an
increase in the contract fees would be appropriate at this time. Since both
jurisdictions were advised last year that an increase may be forthcoming, we
do not anticipate any objections from either community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed contracts; Map outlining service areas.
FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT between the City and Township of Monticello, Minnesota, hereafter
referred to as the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT, and the Township of Silver Creek,
hereafter referred to whether in whole or in part as the TOWNSHIP, both agree as
follows:
ARTICLE I
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish fire service and fire protection to all
properties subject to the terms of this agreement, within the TOWNSHIP area, said area
being set forth in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto.
ARTICLE II
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will make a reasonable effort to attend all fires within
the TOWNSHIP area upon notification of such fire or fires, and under the direction of
the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief, subject to the following terms and
conditions:
A. Road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can be made
with reasonable safety to the firemen and equipment of the JOINT FIRE
DEPARTMENT. The decision of the Fire Chief or other officer in charge
of the fire department at the time that the fire run cannot be made with
reasonable safety to firemen and equipment shall be final.
B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall not be liable to the TOWNSHIP for
the loss or damage of any kind whatever resulting from any failure to
furnish or any delay in furnishing firemen or fire equipment, or from any
failure to prevent, control, or extinguish any fire, whether such loss or
damage is caused by the negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of
the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT or its fire department, or otherwise.
ARTICLE III
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT further agrees:
A. To keep and maintain in good order at its own expense the necessary
equipment and fire apparatus for fire service and fire protection within the
town area so serviced.
B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall provide sufficient manpower in its
fire department to operate fire equipment.
FIRE.AGR: 10/6/93 Page I /, _1
ARTICLE IV
The TOWNSHIP agrees:
A. To pay an annual fee of $35 for each tax identification parcel containing a
building structure as determined by the Silver Creek Township Assessor
and/or Wright County Auditors office for years 1994 through 1996. These
fees shall include all standby charges and fire call costs.
The total annual fee is estimated to be $ based on an
estimated parcels 0 $35 each.
B. Annual fee shall be paid as follows:
prior to July 1 of each year - 50%
prior to December 31 of each year - 50`/0
C. All payments must be made in accordance with this schedule to render this
agreement effective for each calendar year of the contract. Additionally,
any amount past due for 1993 must be paid by March 31, 1994.
D. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will submit a summary to the Township
of all fires on a monthly basis.
ARTICLE V
In case an emergency arises within the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT while equipment
and personnel of the fire department are engaged in fighting a fire within the
TOWNSHIP area, calls shall be answered in the order of their receipt unless the Fire
Chief or other officer in charge of the fire department at the time otherwise directs. In
responding to fire calls within the TOWNSHIP area, the Fire Chief or other officer in
charge shall dispatch only such personnel and equipment as in his opinion can be safely
spared from the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ARTICLE VI
In cases where the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT receives a notification of an emergency
other than a fire, and its assistance is requested in the area defined in Exhibit A of this
contract, it shall respond to such emergency in the same munner as a fire as outlined in
this contract. Charges for such service shall be as outlined in ARTICLE VI.
ARTICLE VII
The TOWNSHIP agrees to make a fire protection tax levy or otherwise to provide funds
each year in an amount sufficient to pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT the
compensation agreed upon.
FIRE.AGR: 10/5/93 Page 2 �}
ARTICLE VIII
This AGREEMENT shall be in force for a term of three (3) years beginning on January
1, 1994, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1996. This contract may be
terminated upon a six-month notice by either party.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this
day of
1994.
TOWNSHIP OF
MONTICELLO
By:
Chairperson
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this
day of
1994.
FIREAGR: 10/6/93
TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK
By:
Chairperson
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this day of
1994.
Page 3 0-1-1
EXHIBIT A
This EXHIBIT is a part of the attached FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT, and its
purpose is to designate the area covered under this AGREEMENT and referred to herein
as the TOWNSHIP area. Therefore, the TOWNSHIP area in which protection for fires
is agreed to involves the following sections of the TOWNSHIP herein:
Sections 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, North half of Section 20,
Section 21 except Southwest Quarter, and Southeast Quarter of Southeast
Quarter of Section 33, Township 122, Range 26; Section 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 except
Southwest Quarter, all in Township 121, Range 26.
CITY OF MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP OF SILVER CREEK
By: By:
Mayor Chairperson
Attest: Attest:
Clerk Clerk
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
By:
Chairperson
Attest:
Clerk
FIRE.AGR: 1015/93
Page 4 /g
7 j'I' 4FrZ� D/f iPl'i
{',1Jn11''c�G
=k< SILVER CREEK
':�„p'^,., °' - •' a ; ,j ? J s f sr.creun�e coi..*.'
, rl 73�41'�Z�[° - '`� '�Mi: ///M, ,j `i!` 1•}lig,.,.'"..i%-`a.:•...
it
,,,i _!-�.,�,��r ,�i�{-M ".'y�'`l. r:r�;��ir_.+�I ••' � :i5•I •w,M'.•,'-7
fl
y� : r`^: f{ ry� .u..p l.c � _ - °",,:�..- 4tJ �• ..,• .. "� _:-..•-;,..I:yl_ I, «'#�"- " ��q _.=.7'� �.
.54j1j,r�:a«'mss"e��°'�'•
i� [4""'l j, jar,. �,i�A '�1,.-� c�%<«. �'�";,y; `�""�,�,•"`"� M -^� ' Itl .°,'€�' ;
� ..� `.. •�. �! �« ^%" aie'�`.i NTN � L;{��.` �^ .� b �1: ,•
,4 a !amts WE s
�" 2r�.;-'n' 'i s:� : oL: e i ,>. •r••• s ,
10
+j { tyk"'���'i e, �• n A A NAR/A •—�•„"; ~ .,"=t `wyaso
f.�N r,. 77tt
7A 1-E • P;RX 'rs.`w:r... .�. S'I lS �St
f , � �^ ,.�., 1 e � �..'. � �'t{i ,°.T ! +rt � � �;, � • L1r N °" ^ C 'C, "'l. -y f���6' 'tw (•.-+••���
-+,S' '.. �Gv y�,�,�„ W r9'.�� •y�.rrW^�'Y� Y'N�I ���ST ��•,w u��y __, 'y
'4 � l��i .. 1 i�: ..r• yr f . .,.:
. y o�.)4 v^J�t8... .wrr. • S A.vL �i `7� � +: rr '"• "�' •� • A r✓w�.0 � �..n �>j.Y ^� t,�' ,ayw..w :
..1' �,'`�+3, [: of ".i i a u u ".'�'�,•r',. wij i �' il�If7 ��_+� 1��
.�i � fie'-}t'�.1`,l.•r�' Srr.1l��R •gip r�� y• �7ry,• j` .. � �,
FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT between the City and Township of Monticello, Minnesota, hereafter
referred to as the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT, and the City of Otsego, hereafter
referred to whether in whole or in part as the CITY, both agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish fire service and fire protection to all
properties subject to the terms of this agreement, within the CITY area, said area being
set forth in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto.
ARTICLE II
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will make a reasonable effort to attend all fires within
the CITY area upon notification of such fire or fires, and under the direction of the
JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT fire chief, subject to the following terms and conditions:
A. Road and weather conditions must be such that the fire run can he made
with reasonable safety to the firemen and equipment of the JOINT FIRE
DEPARTMENT. The decision of the fire chief or other officer in charge of
the fire department at the time that the fire run cannot be made with
reasonable safety to firemen and equipment shall be final.
B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall not he liable to the CITY for the
loss or damage of any kind whatever resulting from any failure to furnish
or any delay in furnishing firemen or fire equipment, or from any failure
to prevent, control, or extinguish any fire, whether such loss or damage is
caused by the negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of the JOINT
FIRE DEPARTMENT or its fire department, or otherwise.
ARTICLE III
The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT further agrees:
A. To keep and maintain in good order at its own expense the necessary
equipment and fire apparatus for fire service and fire protection within the
town area so serviced.
B. The JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT shall provide sufficient manpower in its
fire department to operate fire equipment.
PROTECT.AGR: 10/6/93 Page Ico--
J
ARTICLE IV
The CITY agrees:
A. To pay an annual fee of $35 for each tax identification parcel as determined
by the Otsego City Assessor and/or Wright County Auditors office for years
1994 through 1996. These fees shall include all standby charges and fire
call costs.
The total annual fee is estimated to be $ based on an estimated
parcels ® $35 each.
B. Annual fee shall be paid as follows:
prior to January 1 of each year - 2.5%
prior to April 1 of each year - 25%
prior to July 1 of each year -25%
prior to October 1 of each year - 25%
C. All payments must he made in accordance with this schedule to render this
agreement effective for each calendar year of the contract.
D. The .JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT will submit a summary to the City of all
fires on a monthly basis.
ARTICLE V
In case an emergency arises within the .JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT while equipment
and personnel of the fire department are engaged in fighting a fire within the CITY area,
calls shall be answered in the order of their receipt unless the fire chief or other officer
in charge of the fire department at the time otherwise directs. In responding to fire calls
within the CITY area, the fire chief or other officer in charge shall dispatch only such
personnel and equipment as in his opinion can be safely spared from the JOINT FIRE
DEPARTMENT.
ARTICLE VI
In cases where the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT receives a notification of an emergency
other than a fire, and its assistance is requested in the area defined in Exhibit A of this
contract, it shall respond to such emergency in the same manner as a fire as outlined in
this contract. Charges for such service shall be as outlined in ARTICLE VI.
ARTICLE VII
The CITY agrees to make a fire protection tax levy or otherwise to provide funds each
year in an amount sufficient to pay the JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT the compensation
agreed upon.
PROTECT.AGR: 10/5/93 Page '��
ARTICLE VIII
This AGREEMENT shall be in force for a term of three (3) years beginning on January
1, 1994, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1996. This contract may be
terminated upon a six-month notice by either party.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this
day of
, 1994.
TOWNSHIP OF
MONTICELLO
By:
Chairperson
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this
day of
, 1994.
PROTECT.AGR: 10/5/93
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
Signed this day of
1994.
Page &
EXHIBIT A
This EXHIBIT is a part of the attached FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT, and its
purpose is to designate the area covered under this AGREEMENT and referred to herein
as the CITY area. Therefore, the CITY area in which protection for fires is agreed to
involves the following sections of the CITY herein:
Area: No. of Parcels
Range 24
Unplatted Areas
Section 10 4
Section 14 30
Section 15 31
Section 22 14
Section 23 19
Section 26 21
Section 27 11
Plats:
Island View Estates
93
Arrowhead Estates
4
Billstroms Riverview Addition
8
E -Z View Hills
4
TOTAL NO. OF PARCELS
239
CITY OF MONTICELLO CITY OF OTSEGO
By: By:
Mayor Mayor
Attest: Attest:
Clerk Clerk
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
By:
Chairperson
Attest:
Clerk
PROTECT.AGR: 10/5/93
Page!-
l�
v.00.ree by: Ban Map by: crr4O8
1- If=. t OTSEGO
r
ON TIM OW" R1M ROAD
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
13. Consideration to adopt a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's
Sponsorine Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of The H -Window
Company. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of a Sponsoring Unit
of Government Resolution on behalf of The H -Window Company. This
resolution is a normal procedure of the final application process for the Central
Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF).
The CMIF is a private non-profit rural development corporation committed to
providing financial assistance to programs which promote and strengthen
Central Minnesota. The fund is supported by McKnight Foundation and
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), and provides financial assistance to
businesses located in the counties of Benton, Cass, Chisago, Crow Wing, Isanti,
Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, Sherburne, Steams, Todd, Wadena, and
Wright.
The requested CM!M dollar amount. for H -Window is $100,000. This amount
is to fill the $100,000 "gap" created by the reduction of State dollars
anticipated for final approval ($500,000 to $400,000). The preliminary CMIF
application has received approval from the Initiative Board. The CMIF
equipment loan terms arc requested at 514 interest rate amortized over 10
years.
The H -Window expansion will increase the property's estimated market value
by a minimum of $731,200 and create 60 new jobs.
Adoption of this resolution will satisfy the requirements of the 1987 Rural and
Economic Development Act; and it will affirm that the City of Monticello has
received it resolution request on behalf of the H -Window Company, that the
resolution is consistent with the local economic development purpose, and that
the Council supports the H -Window expansion project as submitted to the
CMIF Board.
The City of Monticello is not liable for the CMIF.
After discussion of the project and application, the Council is asked to consider
adoption of the CM I F Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of
the H -Window Company.
17
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund Sponsoring Unit
of Government Resolution on behalf of the H -Window Company.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the said resolution.
3. Motion to table the agenda item.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative q1. Staff views the H -Window expansion project
to be consistent with the local economic development purpose and an asset to
the City of Monticello. If approval is received from the State and the CMIF,
this would complete the public financing portion for this expansion project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution for adoption.
to
RESOLUTION 93 -
SPONSORING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the 1957 Rural and
Economic Development Act, the local governing unit is required to issue a
Sponsoring Resolution on behalf of businesses requesting financing through the
Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's
Challenge Grant Program, and
WHEREAS, this body has received a request to issue a resolution on behalf of H -
Window Company, and
WHEREAS, it is consistent with the purpose of this local governing unit to
encourage employment, enhance the tax base, and create more opportunity for its
residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this local governing unit supports
the project submitted by H -Window Company to the Central Minnesota Initiative
Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's Challenge Grant Program.
Minutes of the meeting of this Local Governing Unit adopting this resolution are
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Adopted this 11th day of October, 1993.
Mayor
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
14. Consideration to adout a Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's
Saonsorinu Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron
and Wire Works. Inc. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of a Sponsoring Unit
of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc.
This resolution is a normal procedure of the final application process for the
Central Minnesota Initiative Fund (CMIF).
The CMIF is a private non-profit rural development corporation committed to
providing financial assistance to programs which promote and strengthen
Central Minnesota. The fund is supported by McKnight Foundation and
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), and provides financial assistance to
businesses located in the counties of Benton, Cass, Chisago, Crow Wing, Isanti,
Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, Sherburne, Stearns, Todd, Wadena, and
Wright.
The requested CMIF dollar amount for Standard Iron is $100,000. This
amount, plus Wright County's request for Suite dollars in the amount of
$250,000, the forthcoming Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) dollar
request of $75,000, and equity of $25,000, will finance the company's $450,000
Horizontal Machining Center. The preliminary CM IF application has received
approval from the Initiative Board. The CMIF equipment loan terms are
requested at 61&, interest rate amortized over 10 years with a 7 -year balloon
payment. The balloon payment is necessary to comply with the GMEF policy
guidelines.
The Standard Iron project has a minimun estimated market value of
$1,250,000 and creates 115 jobs over 3 years.
Adoption of this resolution will satisfy the requirements of the 1987 Rural and
Economic Development Act, and it will affirm LhoL the City of Monticello has
received it resolution request on behalf of Standard Iron, that the resolution is
consistent with the local economic development purpose, and that the Council
supports the Standard Iron project as submitted tai the CMIF Board.
The City of Monticello is not liable for the CMIF.
After discussion of the project and application, the Council is asked to consider
adoption of the CMIF Sponsoring Unit of Government Resolution on behalf of
Standard Iron and Wire Works, Inc.
19
Council Agenda - 10/11/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund Sponsoring Unit
of Government Resolution on behalf of Standard Iron and Wire Works,
Inc.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the said resolution.
3. Motion to table the agenda item.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative A. Staff views Standard Iron's project to be
consistent with the local economic development purpose and an asset to the
City of Monticello. If approval is received from the State, the CMIF, and the
EDA/Council, this would complete the public financing portion for the
Horizontal Machining Center. An additional $805,000 of equipment will be
financed by the bank, SBA, and equity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution for adoption.
20
RESOLUTION 93
SPONSORING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions and requirements of the 1987 Rural and
Economic Development Act, the local governing unit is required to issue a
Sponsoring Resolution on behalf of businesses requesting financing through the
Central Minnesota Initiative Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's
Challenge Grant Program, and
WHEREAS, this body has received a request to issue a resolution on behalf of
Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc., and
WHEREAS, it is consistent with the purpose of this local governing unit to
encourage employment, enhance the tax base, and create more opportunity for its
residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this local governing unit supports
the project submitted by Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc., to the Central
Minnesota Initiative Fund's partnership with the State of Minnesota's Challenge
Grant Program.
Minutes of the meeting of this Local Governing Unit adopting this resolution are
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Adopted this 11th day of October, 1993.
Mayor
City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT
REPORT
Moron 0 Saplom0ar.
1993
PERMITS 9 USES
Last
Tnl.
Sam$Manor
Lan Y..,
Thb Yel
PERMITS ISSUED Mph
AUGUST IAWIn SEPTEMBER
Lav Yaw
To Dale
To Data
RESIDENTIAL
Numba7
16
24
17
116
111
ValuauM
1725,70000
3972.10000
1502.60000
$2,%].20000 $4.222.40000
Fan
12.592.75$6.686
84
$4.11596
127.19107
L71, 715 32
Surcharge
1160.65
6487.55
$75055
$146465
$2.09760
COMMERCIAL
Num1Na
7
2
2
19
22
VLuallon
11,019.600.00
$226.500.00
317,00000
$1,005.90000 $1.697.20000
Fen
17,04192
$1,792.05
$11900
$7487.19
$12.61697
Suran.rgn
9509.60
$11700
$650
1501.70
11842.10
INDUSTRIAL
N.m
1
2
4
......
160.200 00
63U.7c.0 00
9751.767 GG
Fan
475966
97.041 98
$2.96911
S-11.194,1197010
$192.75
$17518
PLUMBING
N-1-
6
14
1049
SO
Fan
$14600
SW OD
$22800
$1,275,00
$1,59700
Sumhwgn
$7.00
$7.00
LS 00
$2150
a2800
OTHERS
Numb.
5
1
V.1-11.
$000
1%.900 00
ran
$5000
$75902
Surcharge
$250
$.^920
TOTAL 9PERMITS
29
41
29
197
290
TOTAL VALUATION
11,714.900.00
11,218.600.00
9515,00000
114,343.800 00 98,728.26700
TOTAL FEES
19,76067
$9,50655
11.520 g6
177.05120
$40,01006
TOTAL SURCHARGES
$67745
1617.65
$202,05
$2,16500
$7,17376
CURRENT MONTH
FEES
NUMBER TO DATE:
PERMITNATURE
Nut".Pamll
swchalga
Va1U.11-
This YNr L=Year
Singh amp
cy
17
$6.50711
$45110
$71.,20000
1977
U-..0
0
Muhl-F-Ill
2 1
Crohn W
I
$1.77705
$1,250
$225,00000
7 7
IAew ll.
Signa
0 0
Puptla OMOs
2 0
A111 IIATIONNeEPA,R
D. 110 1
1
1171.00
M q
117,10000
M 66
CammwClal
1
11100
1050
11,50000
29 16
InOuvnn
1
1750 rib
17010
160,20000
7 1
PLUMBING
All Type
14
93M 00
17 00
6000
la 49
ACCESSORY
9IRUCTURES
9.emming Pod.
0 0
0...
3
MS 00
1150
M.500 00
22 11
IFMPORARV PCRMIT
00
IN.MCN IRON
2 S
TOTALS
99,501,65
U13 es
11,218,800,00
727 197
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month 01 SaWamber, 1993
(PERMIT
NUMBER a DESCRIPTION
TYPE _ NAME&CCAnON
93-2129 INou. en0 Garage
SF Value Plus Homes/5401 Falcon AVenue
93-2i 29 {House andGarage_
gSF Wubams OO -on and construchml8tw aiverwew Onve
93-2130 1Hou. and Garage Retool
IAD IROOaId antl Rom POtius/bU3 Weal bin bVee,
93-2t 3l JHouaa and Garage
r
SF Vatua PrW MomosaKon Avenue
Sr
193-2132 House and GWago Rer001
EIw00d and St,rlayyS3U
Haaland1337 Ri"-Ow Dnvu
193-2133 {Hou. and Garayo
ISF IVatue Plus HOmOvb5A1 Falcon Avenue
93-2134 JHWW and Gwaao Retool
JAD (Cud LarsoN241 Mlsersiup Unva
93-2535 (Glazed Porch Addfw
AO (Gerald D0hna/t335 Waft Rlwu S1fa01, Lot lU
193-2139 HourO and Galata
$F IValu3 Plus HOMOs154W FVe
alcOn Anuo
193-2737 House RetoolAD
(W4114m E,!,OIl /1569 West Nwp Suoot
193-2138 lDopk
A�IFrenF antl Joan Opay/tqO llloCreit Cl+c.9
193-2139 IDack
AD 1Jamas and Alice AahwOV1U/ Uakvaor. UtCia
93-2140 IHouso and Garage
$F IVaIUO Pius Homosr5131 Marin Unve
93-2141 1tHou. and Garago
$F �Vakro Plus Homaw5331 Slarhrl8 E n,-
-2U2 iHousO and Garago Rastdo
IAD ICathenne VOW 12 Kew t.rnloY Unwa
(193
93-2143 (Hou. antl Garago
ISF {Vic Hallman CanuructioNU59r Ulllald Avenue NE
(93-2144 and Ortega
ISF {Vahu, Plus Homo515421 Falcon AVOnua
�H-so
193-2145 Hou. :noflange
ISF IP,OSI !e Bwldanit Its EnNColl ball
j93-2146 (Hou. and GaragegSF
{Vacua?W{HomasJb491 Snrnlrg Un.
93-2147 IHWI. and Garage
ISF I Value Plus HOmow";U Yalcon A"o w
93-2148 iConvomOnca Store
IC IHoway Station Sam, 23 West ltl, Sttaet
03-2149 1Dack
1AD IDonnle and Myrna Amo lsm*5i tau aro blrorll
93-2150 (Homo and Ga Igo
ISF (Ryan ane Boll, i6aaCAotV15S1 gnat aakee BaWema
934151 Mouse and Glar Ret OrllA�
D 1JOWpn HolthauNl US Washulglon W100i
93-2152 Huu. and Gan�ge Rerout
IAD Lurry and Joyce Wlppo11707 East O'asdway
03-2153 IDptm Porcn Addaw
-
IAC IRlv01 Park View Apenments121a waw Hrval Sllael
193-2154 161ag Add Figs S Fuund. Wall
I 11
I
;AU INA WCO M1nna.ta, Inc /1324 East DakwoUve
Od n
I I
I
FhEB
VALUATION
PERMIT (SURCHARGEPLUMBINfl
ISURCHARGE1
553,300 00
$388 41 1
726 65
$2300
$0 50
f 103,600 00
$587 52
551 90
531 00
$4 50
$I,aw 00
6150000
$0sod
I
I 5l13, 1(w UO
5428.10
$31 55
S2300
$050
I SI.Sw Vu
sib UJ
50501
I
I
1 $58.800 00 1
$40059 1
$28.40 1
$2300
Soso
L St,500W
615.00 1
$050
I t1.50009
$1500So,
SO
1 $58.500 00
$40747 i
529 25 1
$2300
1150
52.500 W
115.000
SO.50 I
i 5,,50000
$25.00+
t050I
1
I $1.50000 1
7!500
10.50
{
SSB. I UU 0506
1405 85
i29 05
723 00
$050
1 . W
$3664 t
IN 65
f23 00
f0 50
62.9w W I
$L9 do
It 45
I
I $98.00000 1
$567 45 1
$4900 1
$27 00 I
$O 50
I $53,30000 f
$38641 g
$2665 1
S2300 1
1050
I $93,200 00 f
$54801 Ij
$4660 1
$2100 {
t0 50
$b8. i UU uU2446.35
i
$34 05 i
$2300
1050
Sbll 50 . W i
$40747 I
S29 25 I
$2300
S050 I
f225.0U0001
$1.07700,
$I 12.501
$A1001
SO 501
I 5,,4w UO 1
$15.401
$0.501
I
I
I S96.2O0 00 I$560
16 (
HB 10
$2700 {
$O SO 1
$1,50000
f1500I
$o 50
S l 500 W
$1 00
i $0 90
_
00 1
6255,60 {
$050 1
$60.200 00$460
40
$30 10
TOTALS I $1,210,80000
$7.647.60
$6178.85
1380.00 {
5700
CITY OF MONTICELLO
MIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month at Sepbmow. 1993
FEES I
(PERMIT
NUMBEH DESCRIPTION
TYPE NAME&OCATION
VALUATION PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE(
I PLAN REVIEW
i93-2128 House and Gaspe
SF
Value Plus Homa✓5401 Falcon Avonue
13864 I
193-2129 House ane Garage
SF
Wn14ms Daa and Con✓rucluxV680 Riverview Orive
158.75 I
193-2131 House and Garage
SF
IVolue Plus Nome✓5330 Falcon Avenue
$42.61 I
193-2133 .louse And Garspa
SF
�VauA Plus Homes/5541 Falcon Ave uo
$40,06 I
193-27 36 House end Gaage
SF
IVAue Plus Nome✓5400 Falcon Aw
$40 75
193-2140 House And G✓ape
ISF
IVaue Plus Home✓5131 Martel Dnva
N0.59
193-2141 House and OaapA
ISF
Veale Plus Nome✓5331 Slerun�Orrve
t36,&
193-2143 House And Garspo
ISF
IVIG Hellman ContttuclroN9597 Glsud Avenue NE
[56.75
93-2144 House and Ganpo
ISF
1Val. Pus Home✓$421 Falcon Avanue
$3864
93-2145 Mouse and Gan pa
ISF
1Proaige Bullder✓1 115 Endkon Ti"
$5480
93-2146 House antl Oanpo
ISF
IVANs Pim Home✓539t S1Arllnp Onve
N4 M
93-2147 IHpuso and Gu4ga
1SF
IVAIUI Pus Homo✓5480 Falcon Avenue
N0 75
93-2146 IConvanwnca $two
IC
IHolidAy Slnuon Slam 23 Went lin S1roe1
$70005
93-2750 ( House Antl Oan{In
ISF
IRron ana Beth IMACAQW2531 StallOakesBoulevard
$5602
93-2154 (Slog. Add Flee A Founa Wall
AI
INAWCO minneaota, Inc./1324 Eno Oakwood Onvo
$29926
I
I
I I
I
I
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
I
I
�$1,S9e95
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I TOTAL REVENUE
I
$10.212.20 _
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
October 11, 1993
Enforcement of earaee sale occurrences --Arnold Strehler. (R.W.)
This note is intended to provide the Council with a brief background on the
possible appearance at the Council meeting by Mr. Arnold Strehler complaining
about harassment by City staff concerning his garage sale operation.
Mr. Arnold Strehler, of 1115 West Broadway (adjacent to the West Side Market),
was contacted by myself on Thursday afternoon concerning his conducting what
the City staff felt was his fourth garage sale this year. As some of you may recall,
the City enacted an ordinance a few years ago that limited the number of garage
sales a person could have to three per year; and in Mr. Strehler's case, it becomes
very obvious when he has a garage sale due to the traffic problems and congestion
it causes. Both Jeff and myself become aware of when Mr. Strehler has garage
sales simply because we drive by this property on a daily basis. Both Jeff and I,
along with Gary Anderson, will make a mental note and have kept a Ing of the
occasions when Mr. Strehler does have garage sales. From our records,
Mr. Strehler has had a garage sale on the weekends of May 7, May 14, and
July 30, in addition to the one he just had this past weekend, October 8.
Upon questioning Mr. and Mrs. Strehler as to why they were having their fourth
garage sale, the Strehlers denied that they had held one on May 7 and that the
City staff must have just noticed that their garage door was open and it looked
like they were having.a garage We. While there may not have been a garage sale
sign at the end of their driveway on this date, I du believe that it appeared to the
staff that a garage sale was taking place due to the fact that people were stopping
and approaching the property as they would during a normal garage sale. While
there may not be a garage sale sign, Mr. Strehler has set up a welcome sign at the
end of his driveway, giving the appearance of an attention -getting device for a
garage sale.
Giving Mr. Strehler the benefit of the doubt, 1 did allow him to continue with his
garage sale this past weekend and advised him that this would be the last one
this year. Mr. Strehler did comment that he feels the City is harassing him
unnecessarily and that the City is not enforcing this ordinance against other
property owners. I informed him that we do keep track of some property owners
who appear to have frequent garage sales; we do not make a habit of marking
down every garage sale that occurs in Monticello, and in his case, it is very
obvious due to his location along West Broadway and the traffic problems it does
create. While most garage sales are intended as a family activity that allows a
homeowner to get rid of unwanted items, in Mr. Strehler's case, I firmly believe
that it is bordering on a flea market type commercial activity and not just a
normal garage sale. Mr. Strehler and family have had probably more garage sales
than anyone in Monticello the past live years, but for one reason or another, he
never seems to be able to get rid of his merchandise. It certainly appears that the
items are continually replenished, which is why I believe this is closer to
resembling a business venture versus a residential rummage sale.