Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-22-1979 ~r )yJ .... ~~ ~t'} )f\ 'Y \d"'" C). \ \..... V "')'\1' ~ ,~.~. ~v Consideration of Approval of Simple Subdivision of Land - Troy Chaplin \t~ and Lawrence Hoyt. j7~Review of proposal by Howard Dahlgren Associates regarding Oakwood .. \~ School Property. ~1 t-'\O.1 q <..-. \, \ \ '?1 ~ ri~ ~ rI~. f~~ " ~ E. . v~;ct. vlI. /12. . . ie.' ~\~9I. ..~~ '\~ ~. ~~. A. ~\}) 0/13. -, AGENDA ,if /' p) ,,-v ~ {~b ;r ^~V , IT q 1~"- ,,\L- White. ~ ~ V' ~ p~l'?- Mayor: REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL October 22, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. I ~ +~ Arve Grimsmo Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip Meeting to be taped. Citizens Comments. Consideration of Approval of Purchase Agreement for Oakwood School Property. Consideration of Accepting Transfer of OWnership of Montissippi Park from Wright County for $1.00. Consideration of Approval of preliminary Subdivision Plat - Curtis Hoglund's Macarlund Plaza. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Townhouses - Curtis Hoglund. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Variance Request for a Beauty Shop within an R-2 Zone. Review of Off-Street Parking Requirements for a Commercial Office Pro- posed by Samuel Peraro. Consideration of Extension of Time for Hook-Up to Sanitary Sewer System Completed in 1976. Consideration of Resolution to Grant Senior Citizens Hardship Special Assessment Deferral on the 1978-1 Improvement project. Quarterly Department Head Meeting with Paul Klein, Monticello Fire Chief. Approval of Bills for October, 1979. Approval of Minutes for Regular Meeting of October 9, 1979. ~ . \s~. 2, 1979 at 3,00 P.M. ~" "9"- II'" .J... Meeting Tuesday, November 13, 1979 due to ,I \t~~. . observation on November 12, 1979. {\",.-'o ~.~I>~.L,,\~"''':''''' ~,..,~' l.~.Jl ...."V ~ ~ . ,,~. (\ ~.,,' -~..... -( 'V" :, \'\; ,"" ~ ~ ~,,~ . Unfinished Business - ~ Union Committee Meeting proposed for November New Business - Next Regular Veterans Day ~\l~ .)\ \.-" ). \..\ \ r,~, AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Consideration of Approval of Purchase Agreement for Oakwood School Property. Purpose is to review the proposed purchase agreement whereby the Indepen- dent School District #882 transfers to the City of Monticello the Oakwood School Block in exchange for $100,000 and the City agreeing to assume responsibility for providing public library services for the Monticello Community. Intent of this agreement would be to satisfy the School District's obligation under a law that was created in 1929, which enabled the School District of Monticello to put up a public library facility. At that time, a memorial left by W. worth Brasie with the Village of Monticello of $14,000 was then transferred to the School to construct a library which was added onto the School addition that was being built. According to the law created in 1929, a school district cannot abandon a library once it was enabled to provide such library services without a referendum. It is hoped that this agreement would satisfy that requirement and additionally, would resolve the issue of the W. Worth Brasie Memorial. . A copy of the purchase agreement is enclosed. This purchase agreement was initially drafted by our City Attorney and reviewed and revised by the School District's attorney with input from the School Superintendent and City Administrator. It should be pointed out that the closing date has been set for August 31, 1980, or at the time the legal issues are resolved, whichever comes later. Reason for this closing date setback is that the School, then, will be responsible for the maintenance, heat and janitorial services for the building through the time they vacate their administrative offices, which should occur by August 31, 1980. It should be noted in a later provision that the school does retain the right to rent from the City at a set figure per month from August 31, 1980 to November 30, 1980 in case they are unable to vacate the administrative offices by August 31st. The rental figure will still have to be determined, but I would suggest a rental figure of $500.00 per month. . One other item that I might point out is this agreement would also grant the City the option to acquire for no additional consideration parts of Lots 9 & 10 in Block 17. This is contingent upon a library being con- structed there, and the City notifying the School District of its inten- tion to exercise this option on or before November 14, 1979. Out next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is November 13, 1979, and it is hoped that the City could come to a decision on this block by t~atdate. The City should be able to make a decision by that date at least if there is a good possibility that the City might construct a library there. Should it so happen that the City does not construct a library in Block 17 by November 14, 1981, this site would revert back to the School District. ~~ ../ .,' ~~ , j ~ V n' . ~ , ,., ! .. ", ">~ . " < l ~~ ,,0 );, lp ~ ,OJ ~ , o~ ,y q ... o.r . COUNCIL AGENDA ~ October 22, 1979 If Howard Dahlgren is engaged to do a study of the Oakwood Property, this is one concern that should be addressed immediately. Additionally, we might want to get Howard's initial comments on this site.* For your information, this site is about .44 acres. Jim Metcalf, Attorney for the School District, and Gary Pringle, Attorney for the City, will be at Monday night's meeting to review the purchase agreement with the City Council and if this is approved by the City Council this item will go to the School Board's meeting Monday night for final approval. If approved in the same form by both bodies, it will then go to the Attorney General for his opinion. One item that is not in the purchase agreement is the indication of earnest money. It would seem to me that $1,000 would be adequate. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of purchase agreement with any revisions, plus amount of earnest money and also setting of rental fee for school district to rent back the offices from the City if necessary from August 31, 1980 to Novem- ber 30, 1980. ,~ ~/ Q\\\ / REFERENCES: Enclosed purchase agreement. 2. Consideration of Accepting Transfer of OWnership of Montissippi Park from Wright County for $1.00. Purpose of this item is to consider the action of the Wright County Board at their September 25, 1979 meeting, at which they decided to formally offer the ownership of Montissippi Park to the City of Monticello for $1.00. Enclosed is their October 12, 1979 letter, indicating the reasons for their offer. Following is a brief summary of their reasons and my own comments: A. Policy of the Wright County Park Department is to transfer park lands initially acquired by the County to the City when they become part of the City. ,rl , ~ ~o COMMENT: No such parkland has ever been transferred within Wright County. In talking further to Mike Schmidt, Wright County Park Administrator, there are currently two other County Parks within city limits - one being in Clearwater and one being in Hanover. Although no such similar offer has been made from the wright County Board of Commissioners, he indicated that such an offer may be shortcoming very soon to these cities in the future also. Whether this comes to pass or not remains to be seen; however, I would like to point out that the parks in these two areas are considerably smaller, one being only 5 acres and the other being 17 acres compared to the 170 acre park in Monticello. B. Some interest had been expressed by the City of Monticello in this property. COMMENT: I have been here since December 27, 1974, and there hasn't been any interest expressed during my tenure as City Adminis- *Note: Mr. Daro Wiley, with the Great River Regional Library System, will also be at Monday night's meeting to present a study that he has done on prospec~ tive sites for a library in Monticello. At this time, I have not yet received this report. COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 trator, nor am I aware that there had been any previous intent for the City of Monticello to purchase this park. C. Wright County has a $40,000 grant to develop the park further which requires a matching grant of $40,000 from the County, which apparently the County indicates they will not be using to develop the parkland as originally intended, and this money will go by the way-side, so to speak. ~~I . lOMMENT: J.,JJ f' ~D )0 ~Q~ ~ ~O f (' p~ In talking to Mike Schmidt further, he indicated this grant, on which we will elaborate more at our Monday night meeting, , includes picnic shelters, sanitation facilities and trails. I~D~. There is an advantage to taking over the park relative to this grant as it appears quite likely that the County will not develop the park any further in the meantime unless the City of Monticello takes it over. However, there certainly is a disadvantage in that the City of Monticello would have to come up with an additional $40,000 to finance this project. This comes at a time when the City of Monticello is attempting to develop various neighborhood parks that it has received as a part of subdivision plat park dedication requirements. As indicated in his October 12, 1979 letter, the City of Monticello does not have to accept the grant, but they still could obtain the park from the County for $1.00. . Also indicated in the October 12, 1979 letter is an indication that the maintenance costs are not that great, approximately $1,380 per year. It would seem to me that if the maintenance costs are not that great, that the Wright County Board of Commissioners would not be contemplating trans- ferring the park in the first place. One of the problems with the City taking over the parkland is its size, and a question might arise if the City, if it did take over the park, would have the right to sell off a majority of the land to reduce the park to a more manageable size of let's say 10 to 20 acres. It should be pointed out that the park for the most part is not within the flood plain and would appear, on surface at least to great extent, to be buildable. There are some advantages in taking over the park, and one of these would be that the City would have the control over this area as opposed to the County. In addition, the City could develop the park as it sees fit and if there ever were pressure for additional playground areas or parkland areas, it would have a lot of expansion potential. However, in reviewing the entire situation, I would recommend that the City of Monticello does not purchase the entire 170 acres from wright County for $1.00 for the following reasons: A. Maintenance - I would place the maintenance at approximately 3 times the $1,380 figure used by Wright County. This has to take into account not only the labor used on the park itself, but also the equipment, gas and oil, maintenance of the equipment, etc. If Wright County can main- tain this park for $1,380 and we do decide to take over the park, we should contract out for this service with Wright County at that figure. . - 3 - \~ ~e~ Q <:f ~ V ~ t'4, tI ~Q .0)' POSSIBLE ACTION: -v."''' ~ Cl ,.) tt J.'7 " ""~ t.9.; < REFERENC~ : (\1' tf . .) .. "" J,)f; W %~ ~" cJ> ,V ~\" '" I' ('l IJ:/ '" '1.1 '" ~ '" <c; fir \~~~l'//.."" lJ':)J /, ; ~ . ft~ '" \ .f - I Q.?- '" J/' jou ~ . COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 E. Vandalism - There is quite a bit of vandalism caused by snowmobilers, etc. in this area. C. Patrol Service - However, I d9 believe to a great extent that the Wright County Sheriff's Depart~ent is patrolling this area and, since it is part of the City, the City is already paying for this. D. Cost of Improvements and Maintenance of these Improvements - Initially, there is a question of whether the City would want to pur~ sue the grant that has been offered to Wright County, and even after that, there would be constant improvements that would be made to the park. E. Question policy of Wright County turning Parks over to the City when they become part of the City - Whether the park is in the township or a city, it would seem to me that the wright County govern- ment is for all the people of the County and has responsibility to maintain parks in both areas. Just because a park is annexed to the City does not necessarily mean that the usage by its citizens has increased. I would imagine there are township residents that use the county parks in the City and there are City residents who use the county parks within the township. F. Quantity of Parks already in City - With park dedication in Balboul Estates, Anders-Wilhelm Estates, Ritze Manor and Hillcrest 2nd, there appears to be an abundance of parkland already in the western part of the City. G. Taxes - If the City takes over this park, real estate taxes will be increased to its residents. One possibility may be that the City of Monticello could obtain a portion of the park. One possibility could be the portion of the park that lies immediately south of the NSP ballpark. This would allow the City of Monticello, in the future, to develop additional ballfields as they are needed. Mike Schmidt, Wright County Park Administrator, and Lowell Zachman, Wright County Commissioner, will be at Monday night's meeting to review this item with the Council. Consideration of Accepting Wright County's offer of $1.00 for the entire Montissippi Park or possibly conveying an offer for some portion thereof. October 12, 1979 1etter~ Mike SChmidt~ ~.J'~l' 'If'_/^>~Q-~ . ((Ie / ~ '"" J..''''V tL art-. J.,J '\ _ ~ '\ ,{- "\) IV - ~; .'l" ,j~' i 1'. 'V I'.i . ,I" (~. ~- 4l- / } ~ r. ':-" \~ COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 3. Consideration of Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plat - curtis Hoglund's Macarlund Plaza. Purpose of this item is to review a preliminary plat submitted by Mr. curtis Hoglund, of approximately 9.4 acres in size. This property is located where Curt's storage & Sales is situated on East County Highway 75. Currently the property is zoned as R-3 and B-4, and the subdivi- sion plat presented is consistent with the zoning of this parcel. For your information, a copy of the preliminary plat has been enclosed for reference. A park dedication of approximately 41,000 square feet would be neces- sary, and developer is proposing to give the City Lots 13 and 14 in Block 3 of Hoglund Addition, which he owns, to the City for this dedica- tion. These two lots amount to approximately 31,000 square feet and the remaining portion, or the equivalent of 10,000 square feet, would be granted to the City in cash. Basis for park dedication requirement is the assessors fair market value of the property. It should be noted that the City has a choice of whether to acquire cash or parkland and whether to accept any particular park land proposed. While Lot 14 could be buildable, it would require a lot of fill for an individual to put a residence on. However, it would appear that Block 14 would be suitable for parkland along with Lot 13. In the eastern part of the City, there currently is no parkland that is City-owned. This park could serve the residents along East County Road 39 in addition to Macarlund Plaza and Hoglund Addition. Our engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat and his main concern was with the drainage of this property. John Badalich is proposing that the developer obtain an easement from Maurice Hoglund to the west to allow ~Q this area to be drained eventually between Lots 16 and 17 at which .~ point, the City of Monticello does have a stormsewer manhole that outlets \ ,~~ into the River. Presently, developer would like to drain this area ~. ~ through Lot 14 which is being proposed as park dedication and tie into ~ " the storm sewer on Mississippi Drive. Our engineer is concerned about /. Q~ ~ this since the storm sewer pipe at this point is not adequate, in our J~! engineers opinion, to handle all the drainage that could come from ~ ~ ~ Macarlund Plaza. This is currently being reviewed with the engineer and y ~ ~ ~ \ ~the developer, and comments will be made at Monday night's meeting in ~t; /iJ-' ':J"'c ('J this regard. Please refer to John Badalich' s October 16, 1979 letter. ..Y ve" ~. ,.>..' ~ ~Q ",.' ~v , ~... ,," Q VO . . Additionally, our City Engineer had indicated at a previous meeting, August 13, 1979, that the northern portion of the plat proposed for townhouses could be served with sewer and water either from Mississippi Drive or from East county 39. Initially, the developers would like to obtain sewer and water service from Mississippi Drive, but are consider- ing a petition for 1981 to have sewer and water available to the entire plat, which would mean having sewer and water available on east County Road 39 and on County Road 75. Currently, our engineer is reviewing this to give the developers a preliminary cost estimate for this service. It should be pointed out that our engineer does feel that the water pressure on Mississippi Drive would not be greatly affected if the ini- - 5 - ~~ ~o y ~ ~ ~ . . COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 tial part of the development to the north of the Plat, that is the townhouses, are serviced off of Mississippi Drive. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat provided that our engineer felt comfortable with obtaining sewer and water services for the townhouses from Mississippi Dr. At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, there was no objection to the preliminary plat. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of preliminary plat and preliminary indication of accepting parkland pro- posal along with difference to be made up in cash. REFERENCES: Enclosed preliminary plat. Also, Planning Commission Minutes. And John Badalich's October 16, 1979 Letter. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Townhouses - Curtis Hoglund. 4. Purpose of this item is to review a proposal by Mr. Hoglund to be granted a conditional use permit for the construction of five townhouse-complexes of six units each, or a total of 30 townhouses. Reference is made to the previous agenda item for additional background and to the preliminary plat. The townhouses proposed are approximately 1,440 square feet per unit. Each unit would have one garage that would be attached to the townhouse of 312 square feet. In addition to these garages that are attached to the townhouses themselves, the developers are proposing to build five complexes of six garage stalls to the south of the townhouses themselves (see enclosed preliminary plat) and as a result, each occupant of a town- house would have one attached garage and one garage assigned to him as part of the garage complexes to the south. In accordance with Monticello Ordinances, an association agreement has been presented by Mr. Hoglund's attorney, which has been reviewed and approved by our City Attorney, and is enclosed for your information. Additionally, all the other items of our City Ordinances relative to townhouses have been adhered to. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit contingent upon further review by our City Engineer to make sure that these townhouses could be served with sewer and water from Mississippi Drive. At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, there were no comments from citizens relative to the proposal. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of conditional use request. REFERENCES: Preliminary plat and association agreement enclosed, and also Agenda Item 3. Also, Planning Commission Minutes. - 6 - COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 5. Public Hearing on Consideration of a Variance Request for a Beauty Shop within an R-2 Zone. Lori Vogt, on behalf of a client who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, has applied for a variance to allow an individual to operate a beauty shop within their own home. Located on the N~ of W~ of Lot 3 and N~ of Lots 4 & 5, Block 38, Lower Monticello. This property is presently owned by Ralph Kiffmeyer. Zoned R-2. Beauty shops are allowed in a B-1 Zone. A home occupation is defined as follows: . "Any gainful occupation engaged in by the occupants of a dwelling at or from the dwelling. Such activity shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. Permissable home occupations shall not include the conducting of a retail business other than by mail, manufacturing business, or a repair shop of any kind on the premises, and no stock in trade shall be kept or sold. No other than persons residing on the premises shall be employed, and no mechanical equipment shall be employed that is not customarily found in the home and no more than one (1) room may be devoted to home occupation use. Such home occupation shall not require internal or external alterations or involve construction features not customarily found in dwellings. The entrance to the space devoted to such occupations shall be within the dwelling. There shall be no exterior display, no exterior signs except as allowed in the sign regulations for the zoning district in which such home occupation is located. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or materials used in the home occupation. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking at anyone given point in time. Permissable home occupations include, but are not limited to the following: Art Studio, Dressmaking, Special Offices of a Clergyman, Lawyer, Architect, Engineer, Account- ant, or Real Estate Agent or Appraiser, when located in a dwelling unit occupied by the same; and Teaching, with musical dancing and other instruction limited to one (1) pupil at one time." A variance would be necessary to allow mechanical equipment other than normally found in the home, and additionally, a sign is also being requested to advertise the beauty shop. . All of the other above conditions have been agreed to and will be conformed with. At the Planning Commission's last meeting, this variance was recommended for approval contingent upon the Building Inspector approving of the sign that would eventually be put up. Public Hearing for a variance is held at the Council level; however, [at this time there have been no comments, pro or con, by neighboring property owners. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variance request. (Note: variances need 4/5's approval to pass) ~ . REFERENCES, Map enclosed depicting location of property. Also, Planning Commission Minutes. - 7 - COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 ..... 6. Consideration of Approval of Simple Subdivision of Land - Troy Chaplin and Lawrence Hoyt. Mr. Troy Chaplin, who owns Lot 1 of Block 1 in Hoglund Addition, and Mr. Lawrence Hoyt who owns a lot immediately to the east of Mr. Chaplin, would like to exchange portions of their lot to resolve a problem which came about after it was found out that Mr. Hoyt's driveway was on part of the land owned by Mr. Troy Chaplin. Mr. Hoyt has agreed to exchange a triangle parcel from his lot which is approximately 1,675 square feet and depicted on the enclosed map and described as follows: That part of Lots 1 and 14, Auditor's Subdivision No. One, accor- ding to the recorded map thereof of record and on file in the Office of the county Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: . Commencing at the northeast corner of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25; thence south along the east line of said Section 13, a distance of 297.3 feet to the center of State Aid Road Number 39 thence west along the center of said State Aid Road Number 39, to the southeast corner of Hoglund Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof of record and on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota; thence north along the east line of said Hoglund Addition to the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said Hoglund Addition; thence continuing north along said east line, a distance of 82.13 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence northerly deflecting 110 03' 31" right to the shoreline of the Mississippi River; thence westerly along said shoreline to the intersection of said east line of Hoglund Addition; thence south along said east line to the point of beginning. In exchange for this parcel, Mr. Hoyt would pick up a triangle parcel which would be approximately 700 square feet, and described as follows: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Hoglund Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof of record and on file in the Office of the County Recorder, wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 1, thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 1, a distance of 16.00 feet; thence northerly to a point on the east line of said Lot 1, distant 82.13 feet north of the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence south along said east line to the point of beginning. . According to Monticello Ordinance Section 11-1-7, this qualifies as a simple subdivision and only needs the recommendation of the Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council with proof that it has been properly recorded for acceptance. This exchange would neither reduce anybody's lot size less than the minimum requirements, nor would it reduce the minimum width that is required by ordinance. In fact, it would actually resolve a current legal non-conforming use in that Mr. Hoyt's home now is less than 10' from his sideyard line, and this sub- division would actually place the property line at its closest point - 8 - - <. \' \fiI 1\' ~J; fi''- ~.f ~~ 'v '\' ~....~ 7 \" .J... -... . . , l I ,~ ....~ , ~\J ~ ~ ~ .G.\) t\..,) ;or '{\ ,~ .., ',i,?, 0' <t," ~ COUNCIL AGENDA - october 22, 1979 11'7" from his newly created property line. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of this simple subdivision to the City Council con- tingent upon proof of recording. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of simple subdivision contingent upon proof of recording. REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting exchanges of land, and Planning Comm. Min. Review of Proposal by Howard Dahlgren Associates regarding Oakwood School Property. Purpose of this item is to review with Howard Dahlgren and John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren & Associates, their proposal dated October 5, 1979 that was handed out at the last City Council meeting. This proposal would study the land use of the Oakwood School property and the block to the south and also study the desirability of the utiliza- tion of Lots 13 & 14 in Block 51 for parking purposes (land currently owned by the Monticello Development Corporation and offered to the City of Monticello), examination of existing structures, and the potential for site expansion at the present City Hall. Fee for this work would be $3,500. Although the scope of the study to be done by Howard Dahlgren & Associates could probably be reduced somewhat to decrease the cost, I think the elements that are going to be part of the study are important. probably as significant as the land use is the question of whether the existing Oakwood Structure or any part thereof would be feasible for remodeling. In the proposal, Howard Dahlgren & Associates would contact an architectural firm familiar with the preservation and renovation of older structures and this would be incorporated into the study. A point could certainly be made that the City of Monticello could hire such a firm directly without using the services of Howard Dahlgren & Associates and this is certainly a legitimate comment. If this were done, however, other aspects of the proposal by Howard Dahlgren & Associates would still be left undone. .~ ~ possibly at Monday night's meeting we can discuss reducing the scope ~r .~ )~ wlth Howard Dahlgren & Associates in possibly the area of the research " analysis and land use. Unless the City decides to retain any or part V ~ ~ of the building for public purpose, it seems that the best use of the ~~ ~ ~ land by concensus is for commercial property.* Additionally, whether a ~ JjV ~ ~ vast amount of research has to go into such a study remains to be seen. .1 i However, I do think there are certain aspects of land use that might be t:h a Y l af) ~ t; _? 'v.~ touched upon. For example, not only the question of commuter parking, ~ t~\" but the question of downtown parking as a whole. This is evidenced in \r J ~~ the question that is raised in the next item, Agenda Item 8, relative to the whole downtown area. Possibly, within the Oakwood Block, a certain amount of municipal parking could be part of the overall plan for develop- ment of the Oakwood block. . *Referring back to Item #1, a decision on Block 17 should be made by our next Council meeting, November 13, 1979. - 9 - l"" ~v ~~ v,) ~ \~POSSIBLE ACTION: \',,\V - ~ \J>L no.. f (<l\ ~ ,. ., 'GJ 0V ~",... 8 . (}f; )l ~ ~\\~VV :;r~~:~h:: ~~~sC~~~i~sW~~,~i:;p~~eS~ :e~:~~':c~r;~~~~~e~:~i~:t~~n ~ ~ ,40ff-street parking spaces reqnired for his proposed office building. ,~~ Mr. Peraro has indicated he would like to construct a 3-story, 13,500 ~ C.Y square foot building on Lots 14 and 15 in Block 34. Currently Season ~ ~ 7, All Sports is located on Lot 14 and previously, Lot 15 was the site of (~ t~~.~ S the Phillips 66 Station. Mr. Peraro has bought these two lots, a total \/ \J" AI' area of which is 10,890 sq. ft. ~\ ~ Q~ In 1974, the City of Monticello acquired two parcels of land approxi- tv ~~ Y mately 1/2 acre each in Block 34 and also Block 52, which is the Johnson ~~.l\~' Department Store block. These parking lots were then paved and in addi- \'~ ~ tion, alley-ways were improved to each one of these blocks. . . COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 Consideration of approving of letter agreement with Howard Dahlgren & Associates relative to proposal dated October 5, 1979. REFERENCES: October 5, 1979 proposal from Howard Dahlgren & Associates. Review of Off-Street parking Requirements for a Commercial Office pro- posed by Samuel Peraro. It was decided to assess the $159,000 cost of this project 100% against the benefitting property owners in the 6-block downtown area. The 6-block area is bounded by River Street on the North, Cedar Street on the East, 3rd Street on the South and Locust Street on the West. Specific blocks are 34, 35, 36, 51, 52 and 53. Each property owner in the downtown area was assessed a proportionate share of this downtown parking lot improvement project based on the total parking space factor allocation computed as follows: A. One space was required for each 300 square feet of floor area and one space for each apartment, if applicable. B. One space was required for each fulltime employee and one-half space required for each parttime employee. C. Credit was granted for each parking space a property owner provided on his own property that was properly striped and hardsurfaced. D. A distance factor multiplier was determined as follows: A factor of 1 was used if the property owner was in the same block of improvement - that is, Block 34 or Block 52. A distance factor of 1/2 was used if a property owner was in a Block that was adjacent to the Block of improvement - that is, Blocks 35, 51 and 53. A distance factor multiplier of 1/4 was used for the remaining block, that is, Block 36. Formula then is as follows: (A + B - C) x D - 10 - COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 -- As part of this project, the lots that Mr. Peraro has purchased with the buildings on them were assessed for 5.5 spaces. If the same formula is applied to Mr. Peraro's proposed building of 13,500 square feet and assum- ing an employee factor of 45 fulltime employees and 5 parttime employees, this area would require 92~ spaces and would have been granted credit for 8 which are to be provided according to Mr. Peraro on his site. As a result then, Mr. Peraro's proposed building would require an additional 84~ spaces to be provided, and currently, the area is only being assessed for 5~ spaces and there would be 79 spaces short. Mr. Peraro would like to know if the City of Monticello would allow such a large building in the downtown area with the realization of the deficit in spaces that would be created. The only precedent similar to the proposal made by Mr. Peraro is in the case of Marn Flicker's new building for his TV & Appliance Center. Previously, this was the site of Fullerton Lumber Company and they were assessed for 23 spaces. When Marn Flicker built his new building, it was determined that his business would require 23~ spaces; however, he did provide 9 on site and no variance was necessary. Furthermore, at that time, it was indicated to Mr. Flicker that should he build on the remaining lot to the south, that he would be granted credit through the municipal parking lot assessment project for that portion that was initially assessed through Fullerton Lumber Company 23 spaces, less the amount that he is currently being assessed, 14~ spaces. All remaining parking would have to be provided on-site unless a variance is granted. . Although this is not a formal request for a variance, it would seem very difficult for the City to eventually grant a variance for the difference between the parking spaces needed and those currently being assessed because it is so vastly different. For your information, an office building would require 64 spaces according to the ordinance. However, it has been the policy of "the City in the past to allow buildings that are built in the 6-block downtown area an exception from this variance provided adequate parking space is available in the municipal parking lot. However, in this case as previously men- tioned, the difference seems too great in that the municipal parking lot would not be able to handle it. Currently, there is a problem in the very block that Mr. Peraro is proposing to put his office building, in that the commuters are using a large portion of the parking lot and it is intended to have the commuters moved out of this area. It would seem that we would be just increasing the problem if we would put a heavier demand on this parking lot than there already exists at this time. One way to eventually resolve this problem would be to obtain additional municipal parking lots and assess them against the benefitting property owners in the downtown area, however, this would involve the feasibility report, hearings, etc., and take some time. . POSSIBLE ACTION: Although no formal action can be taken on the variance request, an indication possibly by council concensus could possibly be given to Mr. Peraro relative to his request of a preliminary indication of the variance. /:) l j ~,~'/ -n/x \1 ~ . , . COUNCIL AGENDA - october 22, 1979 9. Consideration of Extension of Time for Hook-Up to Sanitary Sewer System completed in 1976. Purpose of this item is to consider an extension of time to hook onto the sanitary sewer for those property owners who were served as part of the 1976-1 improvement project. Ordinance section 7-2-3-(B) requires that a property owner hook onto the City's sanitary sewer system within three years after its availability. property owners on this project were notified May 3, 1979 with a follow- up letter sent September 18, 1979 that the three-year period expired October 15, 1979. Following are a list of property owners who have, as of this date, not hooked up: Kermit Lindberg Daryl Tindle otto Griefnow Joyner's Lanes Crandall Holister Gordon Hoglund Most of these property owners have been in to indicate that they are having trouble obtaining a contractor to do the work. It would be my recommendation to grant them a similar extension to those granted on the 1975-1 improvement project, and this extension could possibly be granted until July 15, 1980. As you might recall, those property owners on the 1975 project who did not hook up after the initial extension of time was granted were turned over to our City Attorney for prosecution. Our City Attorney is handling the matter at this time. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of allowing extension of time for sanitary sewer hook up to those property owners served as part of the 1976-1 improvement project. 10. Consideration of Resolution to Grant Senior Citizens Hardship Special Assessment Deferral on the 1978-1 Improvement project. Purpose of this item is to consider the possibility of granting the above deferral on the above project for senior citizens aged 65 or over. This came up at our last meeting specifically in response to a request by Mr. William Hoffman, who was representing Minnie Ruff, who is a senior citizen and has homestead property that was assessed. It should be pointed out that the assessment against Ms. Ruff's property was $2,051.76. This was for two units for water, and only one unit would actually be applicable to her homestead, so the item for consideration would be an assessment of $1,025.88. In reviewing the entire 1978-1 project, it would appear that only one additional property owner, Ms. Lela Panter, would be eligible for this deferral. Her assessment under the project was also $1,025.88 for water. - 12 - ~ . . COUNCIL AGENDA - October 22, 1979 As you recall, on the 1977-3 project, the City of Monticello did decide to defer assessments for all senior citizens that were assessed for streets, curb, gutter, storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer. It appeared that only Ms. Hulda Pearson would qualify, and her assessment was $4,190.48. There are other senior citizens who had assessments of $754.80 for a typical lot and some had assessments up to $1,300 to $1,400 but the City did not decide to defer assessments for senior citizens unless they were assessed for sewer and water in addition to the street improvements. As a result then, it should be pointed out that the assessments against the Ruff and Panter property are less in some cases than the 1977-3 assessments for senior citizens that were not deferred. However, Ms. Panter was assessed $788.10 for the 1977-3 project also. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of enclosed resolution to defer assess- ments on the 1978-1 Improvement project for senior citizens. REFERENCES: Enclosed Resolution. 11. Quarterly Department Head Meeting with Paul Klein, Monticello Fire Chief. Purpose of this item is to allow Paul Klein an opportunity to meet with the Council since he was unable to attend our last meetings regular Quarterly Meeting due to the fact that the quarterly reports issued by the fire department were not ready as of that date. REFERENCES: Enclosed fire department quarterly report. - 13 - "- })"-' -... . . . ,",'.IJP" QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE MONTICELLO FIRE DEPT. President - Jim Maurice Vice President - Elwood Haaland Secretary - Lee Trunnell Treasurer - Willard Anderson Joint Committeeman - Lee Trunnell Training Officer - Willard Farnick Ass't. Training Officer - Gene Jensen Chief - Paul Klein Assistant Chief- Gordon Link The following is a quarterly report of the Monticello Fire Department from July 1, 1979 thru Sept. 30, 1979. There were 17 personal assists by the Chief and/or Assistant Chief. There were 8 fires which required 168 man hours. The average attendance at a fire was 12 men. During the past three month period there were 3 training sessions which required 112 man hours. The average attendance at these training sessions was 20 men. Also, 4 men attended sectional school at Owatonna and 5 men attended sectional school at Montevideo during the past 3 month period. Respectfully submitted by, .II 't:.1 LJ ,/ .{f;~6e.~' 1"61. /~~ David B. Kranz l3- Reporter DK/bjk lit 4~Y/IJ" J../I- Si&1!. t;;: ~ J~ YS- & IU-"" ~.,4' 30 - ~~4,. ~ .,-. - tz;.- -...- 6-- ..... ,.., ... ...... &;-4- ---- 70 IS- ~ ',I.IK I P -1-. - Q S' - 5' A' Y'L 117 ~L ." l.- Y-z.. . f' _JC.:':} f'R,., ,),'L...I (J Jt.iIf tJ,n 1'1 "-'l ~ s E's.sI:t> r - rT Yz.. S ~""L - 77 J.fr,. -! ,,.,, ./~- ~CJ~ 'I.~ ~ ( rJ 0&. 1.. ~~I);,P' J.~- . S p4tl s 8" 04~ 10 ~",&J. So . /% 2--% C.CNt.:3 '-0 )""1- ~ ''"6' VD -- z,.,O % C,% ~ 31- '32- oj y5/J . (' JQ'D ~~~ ;:-.J- 8' rp~~"..r ,t?~JI<<<~ . . . . / , I I \,- MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION I Tuesday, October 16, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer. Loren Klein (ex-officio) Members Absent: Dick Martie, Fred Topel. 1. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 18, 1979. 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Recommending Approval of Curtis Hoglund's Subdivision Request for Macarlund Plaza. Mr. Ron Hoglund presented to the Planning Commission the intentions of Mr. Curtis Hoglund to subdivide his property (9.4 acres) on East Broad- way into 67 lots. The purpose of the request is to develop commercial property on Lots 2 thru 6 of Block 1 and residential property on Lot 1, Block 1 and the balance of the Lots on Block 2 through 11 and Outlot A. The immediate plans are to develop townhouses on Block 2 thru 11 with outlot A to be used as common shared ground for the townhouse owners. There was concern expressed that if the property were given services off of Mississippi Drive as to whether or not adequate water pressure could be developed. HoweVer, at a previous Council meeting, Mr. John Badalich, the City Engineer, informed the members that plans and specifi- cations could be developed that would make servicing Macarlund Plaza from Mississippi Drive feasible. Presently, also, the developer is considering requesting looping of the water services from the east end of Mississippi Drive along County Road 39 and East Broadway to approximately Dino's Other World to give better water pressure and circulation. other affected property owners would have to be contacted in this case, however, and a public hearing held. Mr. Badalich recommended approval of the preliminary plat of Macarlund Plaza if the developer would drain the hardsurfaced parking and road area to a catch basin or series of catch basins along the route to and at the west end of the road area and then drain the runoff through a series of storm sewer and manholes across Lot 14, Block 3 of the Hoglund Addition, which is owned by Curtis Hoglund, and into the existing storm sewer line on Mississippi Drive. 31 Cf, S t:J-? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10/16/79 Mr. Hoglund is proposing to dedicate all of Lot 14, and whatever part of Lot 13 of Block 3 in Hoglund Addition that is necessary to meet the park ordinance requirements. . A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dave Bauer and unanimously carried to recommend approval of Macarlund Plaza's preliminary plat contingent upon following the engineer's recommendations and recommended that the looping of the services from Mississippi Drive at County Road 39 to Dino's be given consideration. 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use premit - Curtis Hoglund. In conjunction with Item #1 above, Mr. Hoglund is requesting a condi- tional use permit to develop townhouses on Blocks 7 through 11 and garages for those townhouses on Blocks 2 through 6. Each individual townhouse would have a single attached garage and a single detached garage. Outlot A would be owned by a townhouse owners association and by agree- ments signed by all parties and binding on all property owners would pro- vide for maintenance of all common ground areas. The owners association agreement has been reviewed by Gary pringle, the City Attorney, and has received his preliminary approval. On a motion by Dave Bauer and seconded by Ed Schaffer, the recommenda- tion for approval passed unanimously. . 4. Consideration of a Variance Request - LaRayne Vogt. LaRayne Vogt, on behalf of a client who presently wishes to remain anonymous, requested a variance to allow an owner-operated beauty shop in a residence located On the N~ and the w~ of Lot 3 and N~ of Lots 4 & 5, Block 38, Lower Monticello, currently owned by Ralph Kiffmeyer. Zoned R-2. The prospective operator would agree, if granted the variance, to be the only operator of this shop, and to not have any employees, and to place a sign on the property nO more than 2' x 3' for advertising the business, if a sign were used, and this sign is to be approved by the Building Official. There were no comments, pro or con, offered prior to or at the Planning Commission meeting from affected neighboring property owners. Motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously carried to recommend approval of this variance request. 5. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision of Property - Troy Chaplin and Lawrence Hoyt. Mr. Troy Chaplin and Mr. Lawrence Hoyt, who are abutting property owners, made a request to make some exchange of property between themselves to better arrange their property lines, and resolve a problem which exists because one of the owners has a driveway which is partly on . - 2 - . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10/16/79 the others lot. Both property owners made the request which would tend to make their lots more rectangular rather than the present wedge shapes. Motion was made by Mr. Dave Bauer; seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously carried to recommend approval contingent upon the certificate of survey being prepared and recording be done by the process outlined in the Monticello Ordinances. 6. Miscellaneous. Mr. David Klein came before the Planning Commission to get a tentative response about rezoning Lots 9 & 10 of Block 4, Lower Monticello, from R-l to R-2 so he could remove the existing house and build a new duplex. The Planning Commission members indicated they could possibly be favorable to his request, but clarified that any decision would have to be,., made after holding a public hearing on the matter. The l~ting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. j/ 1(' -\tU2U:L~~~ Loren Klein, ^'. '\ Building Official, LDK/ns - 3 - 31 </, Sd- t, ,. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors ORR 'SCHELEN' MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ! OCtober 16, 1979 Mr. Loren D. Klein Building Ofticial City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re. Revi.ed Preliminary Plat Macarlund Plaaa Dear Loren. . We have reviewed the Revi.ed plat received from your office on OCtober 9, 1979. The changea have been made as per our comments of September 24, 1979. The propo.ed drainage plan indicatea all surface water from the driveway and parking area within the MaoarlWld Plaza Plat will be diacharged to the weat. This surface water will then drain northerly to Misai.sippi Drive where it will enter the storm sever syatem. It ia our recommendation that the runoff waters fro. thia platted area be piped direotly to the atorm .ewer syat.. on Miaais.ippi Drive. To allow this rWloff to run down hill, via a drainage awail to Mis.is.ippi Drive, will cau.. severe erosion problema in adjacent property to the west and also between Lots 15 and 16 of Hoqlund Addition south of Mi.sissippi Drive. Thi. coupled with the potential of debris being carried onto Mississippi Drive and the limited capacity of the catch basins on Miaaia.ippi Drive, opoaite Lot 16, could caua. .evere flooding problema to down hill re.idents. It i. therefore recommended that a ato~ .ewer be constructed from the wa.t. edge of the propo8ed blaok top area of Maoarlund Plaa. development down bill and direct.ly int.o manhole 7A in Mis.i..ippi Drive. Adequat.. capacity i. available in the 24- outlet pipe from manhole 7A to the Mia.iasippi River. Capacity i. not available in any other .e9JD8Dt of the exJ.stinq storm Bever on Mi..i.aippi Drive. Our caloulations indioate that the new .torm aewer syatea to ..rve Macarlund Plaaa should be si.ed for a minimum of 10 era inoluding the same inlet capacity for the catch buin at the t.op of the hill. . 2021 East Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238 . Mi'lI]eap 0 lis, Minnesota 55413 . 612/331- 8660 --.-5 . Mr. Loren D. Klein October 16, 1979 Page 2 I One copy ot the plan 1a enoloaed along with a copy of Plan Sheet 7 indicatin'll the existing storm sewor system. I have noted in red the approximate location of the proposed atorm .ewer system. If you have any questions in this regard, pIe... give me a call. Yours very truly, P. Bade11ch, P.B. Engineer eel Gary Wieber M.J. Weber, Inc. JPB DBA File . JPB/vkj . ,3 . ''', 1 ",?~;",>:, '-~"~~~ '- ". ',., ," ~ . I , ~ Y/~~ .' "', ~ ", '. . ~ . . "" or " If., : ' l/' j :0 ::. .....~ ' ';':' l7;;7l!;;,. <? II ' ,'.... >;!("ll"'~~';:<'jl;~ .' /',,\ "'.' ';/;....",~'If" .:~,;;;.~ i;,j~"....'. '<:;fr'" '.< ( ,!~", ~I(__~ \~ "'" " · ......,. ''''.. , "'- , . / , " "' ',~ .... ~ '1/ "... A /# P", ",---. i :;:1 ~ ! /'::};!'J-1f >:-.jl "'~ >~ ?-;.. " If} '::-:rl;- ~r.':':: ~ , ." t, I")/';'/~D--"':.. '" "!'r'~;"" '';:;!J, 'f;;-") "/1',,',/1/)- <::-0. ",,- ' ~. /'1 ".. i" ", . .. , ". 7;, ",' /;;' tl,~,.,(. f''-~'' ,7.".' / " / 1;;, "'""" . ':y (, .. ~ /::y p~';; ", . "1.1 f:2;~ ~ t.,,/;p.,o';~. ...;.{/'/ / ~ '" ' ~})~,,~f:;L-.j,~..,j IT "; r/cj;gt~l( f''fh~~ l~:~ ,:;'!,~/II7.{;)~::~~Zi!!/7.l;t~,- ~ b ;!, , N " ~~ ',;, I' ., I /' ", : to.'" ''fl' ,-. " ~ , I i1;;!j~ I u ' ,..../4( ~' ", '/: . "V.,,~ ,~' '//'~J~ )r'~':.~' { 'J. (1[' :'2~""" '".: ' ""'/J'h" 'Y:' 'iJ,.,.,.~>?"-i.< ~/1t%~:'0" /:~t;~"21: '~''''''0 '0"/'1/' , ',' ~ ~, I.} .'" . ',' ., ," ~J'" / . .... t I , ~ "/1 ...' ?:y t;",. . " ., ~"" "" ., ~ ., '~....~..... ;'~ &:0 '1/1/..., '. ";,,>> '" , " ! ' ~'':::::-:: ' "", , " -'7.).. ";". < . , , !"'- //'''', " " .. , . .,1' ~ -.,:,.:,...." , ~ '> '!' .,' ..... ' ../ "". '''1 .'''' , c"",.~, ,j 1 "r~';'~ /' ,;.;..: ;It;,. ',..J .~ t Shop : '.('fr ,~;;., 'k. "'..., .~1"'''-i.~~:'''~')I<~i;':''~~''~~~'~''~~:~.~;;'/4~!:J?1;'!1 VARIANCE REQUE~T ; Beau y II' ~,: ~~, '. J"I "', ;,,> ';-.. '" .l h 's:!F!" ".,', La Rayne oq "'" ./,1 ';" \, ..,~"i , 2.' .,"' ------------"J J; IJ:---"l ~ ~,. < ,., ',. '/~ '--<..J /'''~.'/'./r. "I', "'-.,.,,,;'/ "$, ,'. '':'<,..'q.... '1l.",~ ~,/ "'I ..... ., f '-" <.: tc ',' I .. " " ..'/ ""'(",'... 'Y ., ,,", 0., '- " ,.' .. , ';., '''". " " """, '; . ,. ......-......; l,' '/-' '/ /'U . .. " ; <', II "">', '1"'1-' '-, ....".J ". r-"",,,,,,.,. 6 . .', ,. '''", or """", " ,f~ ' , ", .,,, "! ~-", , . " , " , .... "I .., I "n, , ,,,. f.>-.:::.~-f...: '1~ ~!' :-I:J' ..... ;)' .~<", 1.1.,.'.' ! >...; , . /)' '. \., ' , , .' '.' , '. 'j "'.. 0' ,. · ' ( ; '"" .. / /. 0 /", itl' J", l . :1 '. "':,j;>, 'z ' U;'":"., i ' , . f .;).' 'r~ ~,~ J:~~"7)'r':t., '$0 ' '.., I ',! , " "" _ : ~ / "V",~ / 'iI~,., "9 ' , / />-,., J \jIi ~.,tIII ~ ''''- . !" .' " ,i1 .;t,:-<. ,/ ''1{), :~, .' '/. . J' > l ~ ,:"~:,.. .. ',..,."" ....... '..N,?; i;~ ~ . , ;: 1 "" . _I.!. ~--) I, J., '~~l-;- '!, ',;-.. ,~<"'Il '/~':A/ "f:,l '~> ~_'- -.; -.:..._ ".. . .," . "... ' ., "'''0. '... ~ ~ ~ . A r '" ___ :__'_---=--_ _ _- -....._ ""'4~ ".. ~-,- '~ "i . ". : ' ; . , ! ',' '. . "{,.. ':., A"j ;:;-'1 __ '"'__'-. " '" . ~ .' ~. :' '~ , If RHJ\CI::1 j:":, 1 (."..'" ~ _ ; \' -.'., I / . · / , '/'I'.;//~", ", 'If' _'; I '" "'-c..,,,-,,,~, ',0'. . '.&",,,11~ II~\ ~,,~ .. - -r~"~- "0. 9............ '-..~...., J /.'~""I!, I ------.-\ --- , ..... _ __ --"'>:.J.' I . ~'""... " 'I . \..., (.-". , '.. , , -""" 'r' " l "','';' .... .~," . . . ,......." '~ \ ", ," , , '''''', ....., . , , "~>_. -', .......... . , <PI f.lA1 I -",. "~'.'~lI' ", PM,~ .... ~':)>_ "_"'_" .' '.......;:., ' \ . ( / ~:')'-0..' ( f ~. F ':19f "". -- j "L '- '-'I~:,..~_:_,_"",,, 4 " "''-''"j r, '~:'.:!..!t ' \ '/. .z,~ , ~";,.~'."., .~. l: h"" , 't: ~" ----..., . "C " '" I " '-"-' I ' v:~:;,:. I' "', ~'"", I -,. .":.., / 1"-.. , ; , , '", ,'.:.. '", '~ '~ '\ \' ,. :!;k ~"l /.~ ~/' /""" '........ :':1,:J;- i --', : ,"r ' N. '........: '.' ~..,..r ..... ','" .", ,,::. I '....... ,. .'.'_ " ,.,\. ' ;1 .. ! "'-"', ' ..,.. '. '.. . " ...., , , "--'~~"'..(;r:~'/, ;':; Ii ""\O'l'\IL, I" _,1.,... '~'~""I'I _", \ ':~~.' '-'. .'. '" \J I. ""~-+-.~---' . I .. · \'lff.:" /,,/1 ]. '\'. ~'~'~-::1.~- ~:'t\-,., ":j \';~..,,- "1.1 ( "l:" 'ii "\" ., 1 i /::,",~: 'I .~ ~~'*'... ";; .",~. " . ,-"'-> ' ", ;'i.l , .. ,) , . ' ; ',1 .'1 .. . .., _ , .. _ \''''' :::tt / .... _of- ~~ . .- ~ . . --. ',) ./ . 7~o-{ C I-IIJI'I.IIY 70 GA '''J e~T /~?S- 5j ~,-.}- . ", " l-'\.1 " I ::> $ 7DC >$ JC;<r-___...- I SS, Pp ,..., .....CP I I I GP t ,/Z....., '- J<JAIJ.lAl To;) t.=YCHAN~< ("~r '.. .... , 1 -----, \ ".... "'. - I,.... ( ~ '~..... l ~'l r ,.. ~ tJ ,......, I I I li-- I ,..... ~' . ,: . v7 '. c '_ , r ..... ../ xf / J --.........:.... -t!_ " --.., ~ /'&....>": t 1,...1 t .~ ;. ~..: I ":'." ~ 'c. \ "'t / . I l I / S i ' :< ) '.1 '" 'J . (, (,1 , 0) ,,' I.j; -C r--1 I I 7 ' J , I" ) , '" 4 --......... ( ~.....\:..J rl-j ",' "",r, , ''''r=. I ......:..- ";:-JJ _ . t i, ...... h. (::1'5 0. \, ~ "/', . ,I :' ..... "-- ( -1 --. '. ',- I 0 \ . , f2. J V E f2.. /' l _~,~~,p __ '______...... '"A.,jl' ~I I I I I --,.-!.... li { I I ! I ~" : ~ ........_ l+-. ,. ,,'. ~ 11 HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES t NCORPORA"ftO . CONSULTING PLANNERS ONE GROYE:LAND TE:RRACE: MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5';403 612...17., ,)536 5 October 1979 City Council City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 ATTENTION: Gary Wieber, City Administrator Members of the Council: This Letter of Agreement will serve as a contract confirming our verbal agreement to perform certain planning studies for the City as reviewed at our meeting in Monticello on 18 September 197? ...T .. .~"~.J.,i,::.,QPi'f~~e .d~",~J.ne""JflOre'>'~p~ci:f!p ly d aCW ' '~"Y":,~i::'~~*~I'cI~ 'fe9ardlnc;,.",~"d!."JI oa,o ta 13. and 14, Block st (~o~!.t~~~~~~4j;~~lont,1q~110 Ford f';lci1ities'). r/1 Qoth 'Qali~li, rec~~,~~Qnli _;!, to approprl.ate land u~e ~"alJ...~d.,.l.,lel~;".PPt'bltriate research, an,., lYMs, .1Jlter,view.""wit&..pat,d8.''i,;!nVO~V.d, and input from p~\mityrepr".nY.li~..1 In all cases, land use recommendations will be"c'onsistent wi th overall communi ty interests as expressed by the Comprehensive Plan, current regulations, and objectives of the City as reviewed in the process of the study. . The work shall be conducted in the fallowing steps: l~ Research Analysis We shall conduct interviews with City staff personnel, Monticello Library representatives (including regional offices in Saint Cloud) , Monticello School administrators, retail merchants representatives, and others as may be appropriate so as to determine objectives, development criteria for various potential uses, and areas of concern with respect to the potential development solutions. . ') c~~y Ccu~cii City of Monticello 5 October 1979 Page Two . 2. Examination of Structures We shall examine the existing school structures and determine their feasibility for the possible re-use of all or portions of the existing buildings. We shall hire an architectural firm to assist us in this work. The firm selected will be one having had experience in the preservation and renovation of older structures (architects for the Butler Square Building in Minneapolis). Following the conduct of this analysis, the results of these investigations will be presented in graphic and memo form to the City Council. 3. Land Use Recommendations We shall prepare recommended land uses for the properties in question in the context of an examination of the total corridor along Walnut street and Trunk Highway 25 from the shopping center to the river. We feel that any land use decisions for the school pro?erties should be in the context of the ultimate development . pattern for this vital corridor in the City of Monticello. . 4. Downtown Parking We shall examine the feasibility and desirability of utilization of Lots 13 and 14 of Block 51 for parking purposes. This examination shall be done in the context of the overall parking need, and in specific reference to potential use for this land as commuter parking facilities. A review of the commuter parking function, and its relation- ship to the downtown and the City of Monticello shall be included in this analysis. 5. City Hall Site~~sion In the context of the conduct of the afore- mentioned items of research and planning, we shall look also at the potential for expansion of City properties in the vicinity of City hall as reviewed at the 18 September meeting. The review of the potential for these properties and its . . . . , C :,X_]""'J ....~-;.c;::.. ,_ City of Monticello 5 October 1979 Page Three relationship to the Ci ty .Is needs is deemed to not be a significant cost item, but will be conducted in the context of the rest of the work so as to offer a timely consideration of possible potential with respect to these properties. The results of these studies proposed in this Letter of Agreement will be documented with memos and appropriate graphics for public presentation and consideration by the City Council. During the conduct of the work, we shall keep in close contact with representatives of the City, the School Board, Library Board, and others as may be appropriate. We propose to begin the work immediately following agreement by the City Council and anticipate completing the work within ninety (90) days. Our overall Objective shall be to arrive at the best land use proposals accomplishing the City's objectives, consistent with the best interests of the downtown district and the City as a whole. Our fees for the conduct of the work as described shall be Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500), payable as the work is conducted in proport~on to the amount of work accomplished each month. The fee shall include a total of three (3) public meetings, exclusive of meetings held by us with representatives of various City agencies and the City itself. We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with the City and present this proposal for your consideration. We pledge our complete cooperation and commitment to carry out the objectives of the study as contained herein to the satisfaction of the City Council and its representatives. Cordially yours, ( IWt:;d7~N~. fJ:ard Dahlgren i \,_. ( vI ".~ ~;; V- 'I /7 "C C. John Uban ". \.!/ /' t{J/~ /7r Date ! . / /\ I T -. / '" 7 J ," , . ~ -)- ;/ (- ! - '--!- Date 7 C~'':j 2C'u~lC::"::'" City of Monticello 5 October 1979 Page Four . CONDITIONS HEREIN AGREED TO: Arve Grimsmo, Mayor Date Date Gary Wieber, City Administrator . . . STANDARD RATf. SCHEDULE HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES, INC. STAFF MEMBER RATE PER HOUR Principals . Community Planner. . . . . . . $35.00 to 50.00 $20.00 to 30.00 . 11II .. . Architect. . . . . . .. . . . $20.00 to 30.00 $20.00 to 30.00 Project Manager. . .. ill . . Landscape Architect. .. 11II . 11II . . . . $17.50 to 25.00 Urban Designer . . . . . . . 11II $17.50 to 30.00 Market Analyst . Draftsman. . . . . . . . . . $20.00 to 25.00 . . . $17.50 to 20.00 . . $17.50 to 20.00 . . $10.00 to 17.50 . $15.00 ....... Research Analyst . .. 11II .. . . Graphic Designer . . . III . . Secretarial. . Outside Consultants. . Per Job Basis Supplies . . . . . . . . . Cost Plus 15% Mileage. . 11II . ... $0.20 per mile Expert Testimony . III . . . III . l~ Times Hourly Rate . r; . . . RESOLUTION TO GRANT SENIOR CITIZENS HARDSHIP SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL ON THE 1978-1 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Monticello finds that special assessments often result in severe hardship for Senior Citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello did provide for improvements consisting of streets, curb and gutter, storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer exten- sions as part of its 1978-1 Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, only certain benefitted properties were assessed for streets, curb and gutter, storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provide for assess- ments to be deferred by a municipality for senior citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Monticello will defer assessments on the 1978-1 Improvement project under the following conditions: 1. Real property subject to special assessments must be homesteaded by the same senior citizen according to records of County Assessor on both the date the City Council ordered the improvement and the date of the adoption of the assessment roll. 2. Termination of assessment shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statute 435.195. 3. Interest on special assessments shall accrue at 6~% annually on principal amount from date of adoption of assessment rolls to termination date in Item 2 above. 4. Assessment deferral shall apply only to first 80 feet of frontage and 12,000 square feet of area unless parcel cannot be shown to be subdivided according to City of Monticello ordinances. 5. Property owners may make application for special assessment credits in accordance with this resolution by applying to the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after adoption; forms will be provided by the City Clerk for such application. Motion by adopt resolution. , seconded by to Voting in Favor: Opposed: Resolution adopted October 22, 1979. Gary Wieber, City Administrator /0 . . . QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE MONTICELLO FIRE DEPT. President - Jim Maurice Vice President - Elwood Haaland Secretary - Lee Trunnell Treasurer - Willard Anderson Chief - Paul Klein Joint Committeeman - Lee Trunnell Assistant Chief- Gordon Link Training Officer - Willard Farnick Ass't. Training Officer - Gene Jensen The following is a quarterly report of the Monticello Fire Department from July 1, 1979 thru Sept. 3D, 1979. There were 17 personal assists by the Chief and/or Assistant Chief. There were 8 fires which required 168 man hours. The average attendance at a fire was 12 men. Du ring the past three month period there were 3 trai ning sessions which requ ired 112 man hours. The average attendance at these training sessions was 20 men. Also, 4 men attended sectional school at Owatonna and 5 men attended sectional school at Montevideo during the past 3 month period. Respectfully submitted by, ") 4ae?~-t.t? /3 I~~~ David B. Kranz 0 Reporter DK/bjk /1