The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-07-16 CC Agenda/Packet• ' NI fflm�I.M� i 0115z ♦i a 1' ' 1!' i.r i C�' . I C+ :' Lti 1 � �►� 1 D I A i •Z. P 1. s - b. ENGINEERING * - Feasibility Report for Barthel's Parks Edge * - Feasibility Report for Sanitary Serer Trunk to STMA Him School ( For Review Only --Work Meeting Schedule for Tuesday Evening at 7:00 P.M.) - Other Business LEGALc. Adoption of the AMMdDent to FL-raoinnel Policy Adoption of Ordinance 199WS; AN ORDINANCE AtOMING ORDINANCE NO 1989-15 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE C►. `?.1NG RULES ! 1 REGULATIONS GOVERNING PARKSCITY 11 FFDVIEDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION .tKR�- ]Erf THE CFERATION OF CERTAIN VEHICLES AND DUICES ON 'III TRAILS • • 0 THE USE OF OUTDOOR AREAS OF ON -SALE INTMCAT LIQUOR ES'i C "'i C+ 1 ES AND PROVIDING A MCI FOR VIOLATION.E'iG!' Other - -- d. ADMINISTRATION * - Income Received and Bills to be Paid * - Recycling Information - Discussion on the Location of the Park Shelter in the Four Season's Park - Dumping of Items on the bull Concrete Site * - Animal Impound Agreement - Additional Items r 1l 1' 1 `li+�Co' ! ' Notice of Hearing Regarding THE MATTER OF THE WEE I • THE INCORFORATION OF TBE TOWN OF OTS11t PURSUANT.! MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 Thank You from the STMA Seniora .:d.•. Party IC 1 ! 1 tfZ r5Z0h COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 17, 1990 The regular meeting of the Albertville City Council was called to order by Mayor Gary Schwenzfeier. Members present included Bob Braun, Don Cornelius, Donatus Vetsch, and Jim Krystosek. Others present included Maureen Andrews, Bob Miller, Thore Meyer, Kevin Mealhouse, Ken Lindsay, and Jackie Peterson. The agenda for the evening was reviewed by the Council. Maureen Andrews noted that three additional items needed to be added, that were not included on the agenda. 1. Call from Pete Radaca, Frankfort Engineer regarding a possible Joint Power's Agreement with the City of Albertville and Otsego Township for the purpose correcting the water problem in Frankfort Township. 2. The public acknowledgement of the Lion's Gambling License application. 3. The firemen's request for additional training money and discussion on the need for a new water truck. The Council reviewed and made note of Maureen"s additions. A motion was made by Don Cornelius to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion was carried. The minutes of the July 2nd Council meeting were reviewed. A motion was made by Donatus Vetsch to approve the minutes. Don Cornelius seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was carried. The first item on the agenda was a request to allow for a variance in size for a storage shed for Ken Lindsay. The Council was informed that Ken had made request to remove it from the agenda. Under Department Business the first item was Maintenance. Ken Lindsay informed the Council that he had no updates at this time. The issue of the Maintenance Department purchasing radios was brought up. Maureen told the Council that she had been talking with Brad at the Wright County Communications office. Maureen said that Brad told her that he could not tell how old the radios were unless she could provide him with serial numbers. He informed her that if these used radios were on repeaters it could be expensive to switch over to our frequency. He stated that if the City could get the serial numbers he could tell what the dollar value of the radios would be also. Jim Krystosek said that the Midland radios were the same frequency. They are exactly the same as the other ones except that they are 5 years older. It was also noted that the pagers the City owns are on a different frequently and that we would need to get a separate frequency for the radios and pagers. Jim then said he would get the serial numbers together for Maureen to give to Brad. Jim Krystosek made a motion to have Maureen schedule a meeting to review the facts and findings, and to make a decision at that time. Bob Braun seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. The next item on the agenda was Engineering. Thore Meyer gave a brief Presentation of the Feasibility report for Barthel's Parks Edge. Thore explained that since there was only one property owner there would be a 1 Petition for Improvements. It was questioned whether or not an Improvement Hearing would need to be held in this case. Bob noted that it was his preference to hold the hearing regardless. The Feasibility Study noted that the project would be served by the existing sanitary sewer on Barthel Industrial Drive, noting that a manhole would need to be cut into the existing line. All the service connections to the individual lots would be made from Lansing Circle. The watermain will consist of the extension of the existing 8 inch service lead originally installed as an industrial site sprinkler service. By using this existing service the City will eliminate the second cutting of Barthel Industrial Drive. The water mail will also be extended from the end of the cul-de-sac through the walkway to connect to the existing park service line, thus providing a water loop instead of the deadend lines for Lansing Circle and Larabee Circle. All water service will be made to the main on Lansing Circle and not Barthel Industrial Drive. The report noted that all storm drainage within the development will be handled by surface drainage, utilizing the proposed streets as the conveyance system. No storm sewer is being proposed. A cross -gutter will be constructed where Lansing Circle intersects with Barthel Industrial Drive to maintain the existing flow on Barthel Industrial Drive and provide an outlet for Lansing Circle. The street improvement will consist of 3 1/2-inch bituminous pavement and surmountable concrete curb and gutter placed over a 12-inch gravel base on Lansing Circle. The boulevard section shall be shaped to the proper cross-section with the existing soils. It will be the responsibility of the developer to provide the 4-inch topsoil and sod at such time the homes have been constructed. The contractor shall seed the existing materials to provide only a temporary grass cover. PAGE 2 The report suggested for the curb and street preservation's sake, the City should let the bituminous surfacing in two separate contracts.. The first surfacing contract would be for a 2-inch base course, followed with a second contract, after all homes had been built. This would consist of a 1 1/2-inch wearing course. The report suggested that the walkway to the park area would be covered with 4 inches of topsoil and sodded by the street contractor. The path would be located between lots 4 and 5. Thore noted that he had received a copy of the draft copy of the Developer's Agreement for the subdivision. It was Pointed out that the developer would be responsible for the installation of a bituminous parkway. Thore stated that there was enough money in the improvement project to cover the installation of said walking path. Thore then went on to explain some of the costs involved in the project. COST SUMMARY The estimated costs for the above improvements are: Sanitary sewer $18, lfdO.00 Water main 17,700.00 Street construction, Phase I 23,000.00 Street Construction, Final Lift 6,000 00 $64,000.00 5% Contingencies 3,240.00 18% Engineering 11,660.00 TOTAL $79,700.00 Thore also pointed out that no bonding, financing, administrative or legal costs have been included in these figures. The report noted that the improvements were feasible and should be be done as proposed, and will be a benefit to the abutting properties, so therefore can be fully assessed. There was then discussion the some of the issues discussed in the report. The issue of two contracts for the blacktopping was questioned. It was Pointed out that this process would save the condition of the blacktop which can be severely damaged during the home construction. By letting two contract the final lift would go in after any necessary repairs are made to the street and there would be a clean look to the street. PAGE 3 Maureen then suggested that if the City was to undertake the project in this fashion that the second lift of blacktop should be figured in for assessment purposes. Bob Miller stated that he did not know if these option could be undertaken because of the requirements of Minnesota Statute 429. He stated that under the 429 financing that there is an one year stipulation regarding awarding the contract after holding the improvement hearing. He also pointed out that may be a problem with trying to assess for work that has not been undertaken prior to assessing the improvement. He said that he would check with Mary Ippel to see what her opinion on the issue would be. Assuming that this option is allowed, Thore suggested that the cost for the second lift of blacktop would run about $6,000.00 to complete the project. Jim Rrystosek asked what would happen if the final lift should cost $8,000.00 dollars instead of the the $6,000.00 that would be assessed for, who would be responsible to pay the difference? Thore pointed out that there should not be much difference in the quoted price. The cost of repairing damage done to a second lift built at the same time would outweigh the small difference in cost in waiting to construct. Don Cornelius questioned whether there were to be 8 or 9 lots. Maureen said that the lots were to be cut down to 8, only if they could not meet the conditions set in the Planner's Report. Donatus Vetsch had a question in regards to the placement of the fire hydrants. Thore explained that the report is suggesting that they be located 300 feet apart instead of the 250 feet required by Joint Powers. It was noted �— that if Joint Powers does not relocated accord Sze`' the placement that they will be ingly. Bob Braun asked Thore if there would be storm water drainage from the industrial drive. Thore said that the way the drainage is designed that there would not be any. A motion to accept the feasibility report and set a hearing as soon as Possible was mad by Bob Braun. The motion was seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and the motion was carried. The Council then discussed briefly the Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer trunk to St. Michael -Albertville High School. There was a work meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening. After some discussion the meeting was rescheduled for 5:00 p.m.. The next item on the agenda was legal business. The Council discussed the Adoption of Ordinance 1990-6; AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF OUTDOOR AREAS OF ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE PREMISES AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. Specifically the bar owners of the 152 Club, requesting to put in a garden bar, which would serve liquor and play recorded music. Bob Miller briefly described the ordinance. PAGE4 He said the bar hours requirements are as requested in the July 2nd meeting. He did add an emergency exit to the fence. He included the stipulations that - the fence would be 6 feet in height for visual, aesthetics and noise control. He also reiterated that this is a draft copy only. Mike Zachman and Mary Vetsch, two of the bar owners were present to discuss the issue with the Council. They expressed their concern regarding the early hours. Mike said the reason for the garden bar is to provide room for special occasions, such as Friendly City days, the Smelt fry, and Softball tournaments, etc. Donatus Vetsch also thought the time was to strict and should be moved to 11:30 for serving drinks and the music to be turned off at 11:00 p.m. Bob Miller pointed out the possibility of issuing special permits for special events, as the City does with Beer Permits, and Bingo events. This way the ordinance could grant extended bar and music hours. The ordinance could include the stipulations needed regarding the special events permit. He suggested that the ordinance could also include a limit as to how many time a year a special permit could be issued. Jim Krystosek questioned if the Council adopts the ordinance now, and the bar becomes a problem with the residents, how long would the ordinance be in effect before it could be change? Bob Miller said that a new ordinance could be adopted at the time of their renewal of their liquor license. Donatus Vetsch questioned the size of the patio. Mike explained they had Planned on the patio being 25' X 35' and wish to put in a volley ball court. The Council felt that their request was appropriate and that this would be a standard size. The Council further discussed the ideas with Mike and Marv. The Council felt the number of special events should be limited to no more than 6 times during the Year. The Council considered the fact that many of the occasions the City has may run for several days. Don Cornelius suggested that the event permits be limited to 6 times per Year and each permit be limited to no more than 3 days. The Council requested that Bob redraw the ordinance. There were several different time stipulations discussed as well as each of their merits. It was finally agreed that the ordinance should read that there be no music broadcasted or played in the outside area after 11:00p.m. on regular days, and no music played or broadcasted after 12:00 midnight with the special events Permit, The Council also stipulated that there be no alcoholic beverages served after 11:45 p.m. nor consumed after 12:00 midnight on regular nights. Occasions with a Special Permit may serve alcoholic beverages between 12:00 and 1:00 a.m.. PAGE 5 At this time Don Cornelius made a motion to have Bob Miller make the necessary changes to the ordinance by changing the time set forth in the discussion and to add the stipulations for Special Events permits. Jim Krystosek seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was carried. The Council then discussed the drafted amendments to Personnel Policy Section .19, regarding vacation leave. Bob Miller noted the only changes to the policy was the word "temporary" to clause (A), and the addition of clause (I), regarding full-time permanent employees. He pointed out that everything else is as it was. At this time Donatus Vetsch made the motion to approve the amended personnel policy. Don Cornelius seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. The Council discussed the Park Ordinance No. 1990-5; ON ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1989-15 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CITY PARKS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF" BY PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN VEHICLES AND DEVICES ON PAVED TRAILS. The purpose of the amendment was to stipulate the use of certain vehicles and devices that would be prohibited in the Four Seasons park. As requested at the July 2nd meeting, Bob had drafted the Ordinance to prohibit the use of motor vehicles, motorcycles or motorized bicycles, bicycles, all -terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and skateboards. There was several minutes of discussion between the Council and members of the community regarding the prohibiting of bikes in the park. It was i- pointed out that because of this parks location that there may be people who will want to take their small children down to the park to ride bikes and that the ordinance would not allow this. After some addition discussion it was a agreed that the City would try allowing bikes on the paths, but that if there are problems that arise that the ordinance could be amended in the future. Hearing no other comments or discussion, a motion was made by Donatus Vetsch, to approve Ordinance No. 1990-5; ON ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 1989-15 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CITY PARKS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF" BY PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN VEHICLES AND DEVICES ON PAVED TRAILS with the deletion of the word "bicycles". Bob Braun seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. It was suggested that because the 152 Club was looking to construct the deck yet this summer that it might be advisable to adopt the ordinance Pertaining to the sale of intoxicating liquor outdoor prior to the August 6th Council meeting so that they could start the construction of the deck. A motion was then made by Don Cornelius to accept the Ordinance 1990-6; AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF OUTDOOR AREAS OF ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUORLICENSE PREMISES AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF with changes. The motion was seconded by Jim Krystosek. All were in favor and the motion carried. Next three members of the Albertville Fire Department, Eugene Valerius, Rick Wacker, and Dave Vetsch were present to request that the Council approve PAGE 6 f additional compensation for the firemen who go through the EMT and First Responder classes in addition to the regular training completed as a requirement of being on the Fire Department. They explained that the total hours put in for the EMT training is 110 classroom hours and 100 hours study time at home. The First Responders class has 40 classroom and 40 home study. The cost of the EMT training is $250.00 and the First response class is $125.00. Every two years they can attend refresher classes at half price. The Fire Department feels that the volunteers who take these classes, should be reimburse for the cost of the training. After some discussion Don Cornelius made a motion to to pay for EMT and 1st Response training upon completion and certification of the course. Jim Krystosek seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. The members of the Fire Department then raised the issue of the condition of the water truck. They explained that the truck is 15 years old with 95,000 miles on it. The brakes constantly go out, it does not start easily, it does not have enough generating power, and they also feel that 12,000 gallon capacity is not enough for many of their calls. They requested that the Council please consider purchasing a new unit. Their request is for the largest water capacity single axle chases truck available. They estimated the cost would be in the range of $65,000.00 and $70,000.00. Maureen Pointed out that the 1991 budget has allowed for a new truck. The firemen said that by the time all the pricing of trucks, and the ordering of the new truck was complete, it would be 1991. So would it not be better to not spend a lot of money on the old truck, and save it for a new one. Gary Schwenafeier said that the Fire Department has to have something now. So they will have to repair the one they have. In the mean time he suggested that the men check into the costs of a new truck. Maureen pointed out that if the Department did not do something about the Problem, the Department could loose their rating. Jim Krystosek offered to check into some prices on an 18,000 gallon, single axle truck with 2 built in 8" X 8" outlets. Dave Vetsch said that the Department would also form a committee to check into the matter. All agreed and the issue was tabled. The Council then reviewed the Bills to be Paid. Jim Krystosek made a motion to Pay the bills, check number 10662-10696. Bob Braun seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. Bob Miller then informed the Council that the new owners of Wright Recycling should sign a new contract with the City since the original contract was with other owners. He also made note that the July Payment be sent to the old owners. PAGE 7 r- The Council then discussed the Park Shelter at the new park. The Lion's Club has agreed to put in the shelter, and will put it in on the lower pad, which is closest to the parking lot and the proposed restroom facilities. The next item on the agenda was the dumping of item on the Eull Concrete Site. Donatus Vetsch informed the Council that he went out to take pictures and look at the problem. He said that people have been dumping Iron, Pump tanks, different crating materials and other misc. materials. Maureen Andrews suggested that Kevin Mealhouse go out and inspect the problem and follow through with appropriate action. There was no further discussion and the issue tabled till the next meeting when Kevin could update the Council of what he feels should be done. Next the Council reviewed a letter received Monticello's Animal Control Shelter. The letter states the increase needed to cover the costs of impounding animals. The current fee is $6.75 per day and effective August 1, 1990 the rate will be $7.25 per day. The issue of the water drainage problem in Frankfort Township was then discussed by the Council. Frankfort Township has asked The City of Albertville to share in 1/3 the cost to have a feasibility study done to resolve the water drainage problem. The cost of a study would be approximately $5,000.00 - $8,000.00 dollars. Their wish is to have the study include the land all the way to the river. The Council felt that if the City was going to participate in the feasibility study that it should include the possibility of outletting the storm water generated on the south side of the freeway through the major storm sewer system located in Barthel's Industrial Park. The Council discussed at length, different possibilities and ideas. There was confusion as to what exactly Frankfort Township's wishes are. Bob Miller said that the City of Albertville should write a letter to Frankfort Township asking them to respond with a letter of intent. That way there will be some documentation generated, and will show Frankfort Township that the City is not ignoring them, as well as the fact that the City of Albertville wishes to resolve the problem. After more discussion the Council felt that the City of Albertville should not have to pay for 1/3 of the expense of the Feasibility study, but would be willing to share their fair share. It would all depend on how much of the study included our land. The next item on the agenda was the approval of the Lion's gambling license. Bob Braun made the motion to approve the license. Don Cornelius seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. In other business Maureen Andrews informed the Council that she had received a bid on a canopy for the front door. The canopy would be like the one that Vetsch Custom Cabinets has on their building. The cost would run $1,000.00 for the door and $125.00 for each window and a gutter on the back door. PAGE 8 Mayor Gary Schwenzfeier felt that we could have a nice "A" shaped covering over the steps with braces that extend back to the building to hold it up. This would eliminate any posts that could be hazardous or a nuisance. He said that he had discussed this project with Ken Wacker and he felt that the project could be completed, including labor for under $300.00 dollars. The Council then discussed the dimensions that the canopy should be. Gary felt that it should be at least extend 8" to 12" beyond the front of the steps, yet still stay under the roof line. Maureen raised the question as to what kind of railing the Council felt the steps should have. Donatus said that he would contact Ralph Lahn to get some quotes on railing. Maureen inform the Council that Gary and Donatus had worked on the landscaping of the building today. Gary said that there were some trees to be put in yet and that it should be done some time this week. At that time Donatus made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Don Cornelius seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. CITY OF ALBERTVILLE P. O. BOX 131 ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 The regi1ar meeting of the Albertville City C uncil was called to order by Mayor Gary Schwenzfeier. Members present included Bob Braun, Jim Krystosek, Donatus Vetsch, and Ion Cornelius. Others present included Maureen Andrews, Bob Miller, There Meyer, Ken Lindsay, and Jackie Peterson. The agenda for the evening`s meeting was reviewed by the Council. A motion was made for approval of the agenda by Dan Cornelius, and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. The minutes of the June 18th meeting were reviewed. Keen noted that the discussion on the discharging of the Waste Water Treatment Facility was incorrect. He stated that the discussion should have noted that it was the first discharge that was completed and not the second one. Hearing no other comments a motion was made to approve the minutes. The motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. The first item on the agenda was maintenance_ Ken Lindsay informed the Council that the bla,cktopping of paths in the Four Season Park was completed. Don Cornelius pointed out that he felt that there were some bad spots that need to be coed. Kean and Jim Krystosek said that they would go out and check it. Ken also pointed out that the park equipment will be installed in the next few weeks, depending on if the weather reams nice. There was some discussion regarding the leaky water fountain in the City Park and what steps were being taken to correct the Problem. Donates said that a member of the Jaycees had raised the question of why the fountain was not working with him. Ken noted that they had had Problems in the fall trying to get the water shut off and when they tried to reopen it in the spring they could not get the Make our Cirv........ Your Cite We invite Home, Industry, Business valve on again. It was also noted that the wrench was to short to use to turn the fountain on and off. He said that a piece could be added on rather than spending $85.00 for a new wrench. It was also noted that Ken should have a key so that he could go in and fix it. Ken said that the cap had been knock off during mowing last year but it had been replaced and that it should be okay. Ken brought up the fact that the pump from Norther has not come in yet, but they have brought one in to use in the mean time. Maureen then informed the Council that she received a call from Northern and that the pump was rely and sitting on the dock. Mayor Gary Schwenzfei_er asked Ken to explain to the Council the need for a Phosphorous Test Kit. Ken explained that the kit would allow for on -site testing of phosphorous levels instead of having to wait until the test results come back from the testing company. It was pointed out that with the kit the City could start the alum treatment process as soon as the level was known, which would likely cut down on the time it will take to complete the discharge process. Kan rooted that the kit oasts approximately $250.20. There was also some discussion regarding the problem of not meeting limits for discharging this year. It was pointed out that the likely cause for the problem arises because of a high algae problem which the ponds have been experiencing since last year. Some reasons that were suggested as reasons that the City is having problems. 1. There could be a large carp population in cell 3 of the pond. Noting that last fall approximately 200 carp were moved from the system. It has been suggested that carp is likely eating the Daphney, which is a bug that eats the algae which in turn keeps the phosphorous level down. 2. There could be a chemical reaction between the the copper sulfate, used to reduce the algae, and the liquid alum, which could be causing the alum not to work as effectively. It was suggested that if the problem is found to be that the carp population that it might be advisable to see about doing a "chemical kill" on the fish. It was noted that this may not be allowed because of DNR requLisements regarding carry over, since the pond water is discharged into the lake and out through the creek. The question was raised whether or not something could be being discharged into the sanitary sewer system and that is why the problem has arisen at the pond. It was noted that if a solution is not found to the problem then this possibility might need to be explored. After further discussion, a motion was made by Donatus Vetsch to purchase a Phosphorus Test Kit. The motion was seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and the motion carried. The next item discussed was the letter from Bob Miller regarding vacation pay and sick leave for persons who previously worked for the City, Page 2 specifically the hiring of Mike Rutkowski who worked 11 months for the City, a year earlier. The question that had been raised regarding what vacation and sick leave benefits is a new employee eligible for when they had been employed by the City at an earlier date, having left the position in good standing? Can the previous benefits earned to attributed to the current employment therefore making them eligible sooner for their vacation and sick leave benefits? In the letter to the Council from the City Attorney, Bob Miller, it was suggested that the philosophy of the Personnel Policy would indicate that it was intended to provide vacation pay based upon the total time that a person has worked for the City. There is noting in the language that says that a break in service before one year is completed would require the employee to forfeit his days worked towards accruing vacation and sick leave pay. He further noted that if the person is deemed fit for municipal employment during both the initial employment phase and a subsequent re-employment, that it would seem that a reasonable interpretation would be that the employee would be allowed all his "accrued" vacation and sick leave as an appropriate "fringe benefit". Bob noted that if the Council agreed with this interruption that Mike Rutkowski's 11 months of previous service would be coated towards his accrued time. He pointed out that the Council could stipulate special conditions regarding the use of the time during the probationary period for the new position. Bob suggested that the clarification of the issue should be so noted in the Personnel Policy, in the event the matter should ever arise again. It was suggested as a solution to the confusion that Mike's previous time be counted towards vacation and sick leave but not allow it to be used until after the six months probationary period has been completed. Hearing no other questions or comments, a motion was made allowing Mike Rutkowski's previous service (11 months) to be counted towards his first year vacation and sick leave with the stipulation that it can not be used until after his six month probationary period. The motion was made by Kim Krystosek and seconded by Donates Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. Bob then said that he will draft an amendment to be reviewed at the next meeting. The issue of temporary full time employees came up. What would the policy be towards their time? Bob said that he would look into the matter. Donates asked Bob if he will then draft an amendment to clarify any questions regarding full time/part time in the future. With no further discussion the issue was tabled till the next Council meeting. The issue of purchasing radios for the Maintenance Department was discussed next. The question of new verses used was raised by the Council. WERE Mayor Gary Schwenzfeier that he has done some checking into the price of new radios. He said that one new radio runs about $400.00 - $500.00 each. He said the price for 3 Midland radios would be $1,579.00 with everything that is needed, plus a warrantee of 2 - 5 years depending on the brand purchased. He also pointed out that if we purchased just 3 mobile radios for now, we can always expand at a later date. It was noted that one radio would be used as a base in the City Hall while the other two would be used in the City trucks (pickup and snow plow). It was noted that Jim Krystosek had brought some radios for the Council to look at. He informed the Council that he had 7 units which include: 4 three year old Midland and 2 Standard mobile radios, plus 1 portable radio. He said that he would sell them to the City for $1,500.00- Ken noted that he would like to see a base radio in the shop so that there would be communication between the shop and the the vehicles_ It was pointed out that if new radios were purchased that this option will have to be held off on. As part of the discussion regarding the Purchase of the used equipment there was the issue of needing to replace the crystals so that the radios would nun on our frequency. If we need to buy new crystals for the radios, how much will this cost. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the warranty issue and whether or not there was any merit for concern regarding the same. It was pointed out that these radios are solid state and there are not alot of things that can go wrong with them. After some further discussion it was agreed that Jim would hold the radios till the next meeting, when a decision could be made. There was no further discussion in this matter and the issue was tabled till the next meeting. Norman Barthel was at the meeting to expressed his concern regarding the had had someone come out site elevation so that the water would drain out to Main Avenue. Bob informed the Council that it appeared that there needed to be some additional corrections need to be made on the two developed lots east of his. It was pointed out that this work was scheduled for Thursday. Thor Meyer asked Maureen if she received a copy of the 100% Petition for Improvements from Ken Barthel. It was noted that the form had been pickup but not returned at the time of the meeting. Hearing no other comments a motion was made by Bob Braxul to order the Feasibility Study for PARKS EDGE'S Street and Utility Improvements. Jim Krystosek seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. There was discussion on the Kohnen bill regarding inspection services. Bob informed the Comcil that staff had reviewed the fees and was requesting that the letter be sent to Kohnen with the findings. The following is a breakdown of the billing: Schedule - A: $ 43,848.37 2,842.41 Schedule - B: $ 4,788.75 Scale - C : $ 6,275.58 Gary questioned whether or not there was any exposure to the City if some of the earlier questioned permits were paid. Bob noted that Koohnen had signed off on the permits limiting the City"s exposure. It was further noted that the purpose of the inspection is for the protection of the City not the contractor or the owner. After some discussion the issue of Building permits was tabled. The Council discussed the issue of adopting an ordinance for the use of the new park's walkways. The ordinance would state that there would not any motorized vehicles, skate boards or bikes allowed on the paths. The reason being, the grade of the paths are to great, and the chance of persons getting injured are to great. If the ordinance is in place and someone violates it and should get hurt, then the City could not be held liable for their injury. Ken Lindsay said that he has offered the signs for the paths. He also informed the Council that the signs were ordered stating the restricted items for the paths. He said he made some temporary signs and has put them up, till the new ones come in. Bob Miller was directed to make the changes to the existing ordinance to reflect these stipulations. Mike Zachman, one of the owners of the 152 Club, presented his idea of a Garden Bar with a patio to the Council. He wanted to know what he would need to do as far as the City Ordinances are stated. Kevin Mealhouse the Building Inspector for the City, said he would need a completely fenced in patio. The patio would have to be flat with the ground. The plans would also show that they would still be on their own property. The issue of music and noise was brought up. After some discussion some of the ideas were that the the fencing must have internal Lighting, and the music speakers had to be placed in such a way that the music would be directed internally, rather than outward towards neighbors. Also that serving of any drinks should be not permitted after a reasonable hour, such as 1O:00 or 11:00 p.m. It was decided that an ordinance would be prepared. by Bob Miller and reviewed at the next meeting. There was no further discussion and the issue was tabled. The issue of the vacation of the old 152 Right-of-Way`s Public Hearing was discussed. It was decided that a public hearing would be held on August 6th, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. PAGE 5 Prior to the meeting the Council had had an opportunity to see the new chairs being considered for the Conference Rocco. Mayor Schwenzfeier asked if the Council felt the price of the new conference chairs was acoeptable. Ion Cornelius made a motion to buy 8 new chairs at $207.00 each. Donatus Vetsch seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. The Council reviewed the Income and Bills to be paid. A motion was made by Donatus Vetsch to pay the bills. The motion was seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and checks 10619 through 10667 were approved. The resignation of Steve Klitzka as Park Board President was reviewed. Lisa Shulstad also has conflicting schedules with the board meetings. The board has two vacancies that need to be put in the paper and filled. The issue of the water drainage problem in Frankfort Township was briefly discussed. It is apparent that the water is draining and the water level is going down. Thore noted that the issue of the sealcoating job done last year has been turned over to the bond company and nothing new has been heard regarding the matter. There was some discussion regarding the job done with the red rock, it appears that there may have been more oil applied then necessary, but that it does effect the finished job. A motion was made by Don Cornelius to adjourn the meeting. Jim Krystosek seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried. FN Northwest Associated Consultants Inc. A ' C U R B A N PLANNING A N N I N G • DESIGN- S I G N • MARKET R K E T R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: Maureen Andrews FROM: Bob Kirmis/David Licht DATE: 12 July 1990 RE: Albertville - Lindsay Storage Shed FILE NO: 163.06 - 90.09 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation: Based upon .-the review by our.office as documented in the text of this report, we find no justification for approval of the Lindsay variance request as no qualifying hardship has been demonstrated to warrant deviation from ordinance standards. The only rationale evidence for support of the request is to eliminate existing non -conforming buildings, one of which is especially substandard and possibly subject to removal under the Building Code, plus elimination of improper outside storage which is a current zoning violation. These situations are not viewed as a basis for a variance and as a consequence our office recommends denial of the request as approval is unjustified per ordinance criteria and allowing the deviation would establish a questionable precedent for future similar situations. Moreover, we would recommend code enforcement measures be pursued relative to the existing buildings and outside storage. Alternative Action: Should the City decide the request is warranted, we would recommend that the variance be approved with the understanding that the Zoning Ordinance will be modified to allow all other property owners with the same privilege as will be given to the applicant. Furthermore, the approval be contingent upon the following stipulations: 4601 Excelsior Blvd. - Suite 410 - Minneapolis, MN 55416 - (612) 925-9420 - Fax 925-2721 1. All existing accessory structures are removed from the site. 2. The proposed storage shed is relocated to lie at least 10 feet from the subject property's rear lot line. 3. The City initiate code enforcement efforts which shall ensure that a no outdoor storage of debris considered inappropriate for a residential area is allowed on site. Background: Mr. Kenneth Lindsay has requested City approval of a variance to allow the construction of a 280 square foot storage shed within the rear yard of his property located at 11564 51st Street. The proposed storage shed exceeds the maximum 150 square foot size requirement for accessory buildings set forth within the City Zoning Ordinance. The said storage shed would replace three individual storage sheds which currently inhabit the applicant's rear yard. The subject site is zoned "R-3", Residential Single and Two Family. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Building Elevations Exhibit D - Site Photos ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Conditions. As shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant's rear yard currently holds three separate storage structures. The structures currently lie in varied states of disrepair and are flanked by a variety of outdoor storage materials including small trailers, wheel barrows, lumber, wire fencing, a cement mixer, etc. (see Exhibit D for site photos). The following is a summary of the existing storage structures data. K4 Setback from Rear Building Size Property Line Materials Condition East 8'x 10' 2 feet Metal Fair to Building (80 sf) Seam Poor Central 141x 14' 2 feet Wooden Lap Poor Building (196 sf) Siding West 12'x 10' 8 feet Metal Fair to Building (120 sf) Seam Poor Total Accessory Building Storage Area 396 square feet The existing structures upon Mr. Lindsay's lot exhibit a number of nonconformities with ordinance standards relating to accessory structures. 1. According to Section 1000.4 (b) 5, no accessory structure should occupy more than 150 square feet. At 196 square feet in size the central building exceeds the standard. 2. Section 1000.4 (b) 8 states that no accessory structure shall be set back less than 10 feet from a rear lot line. All existing structures violate this requirement. 3. According to Section 1000.4 (b) 7 of the Ordinance, no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one accessory building except via conditional use permit. If the multiple structures have not been allowed via a CUP, they obviously do not meet this requirement. As evidenced above, the subject lot's existing accessory structures exhibit a number of concerns relating to conformance with ordinance requirements. Variance Evaluation Criteria. As mentioned previously, the applicant has submitted a request to construct a 280 square foot accessory structure within his rear yard. According to Section 1000.4 (b) of the City Zoning Ordinance, no accessory building for a single family dwelling shall occupy more than 150 square feet when accompanied by an attached garage on the same lot. 3 According to Section 500.1 (2) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved. 1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. (Also see Section 1000.3 (c) of this Chapter.) b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter, or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use. C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. The request is not a use variance. f. Variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. Building Proposal. As shown on the submitted site and elevational plans, the applicant has proposed the construction of a 280 square foot barn shaped storage shed approximately 2 feet from the subject property's rear lot line. At 16 feet in height, the structure would comply with the maximum R-3 height requirement of 16 feet. .19 The applicant contends that the replacement of the three existing storage sheds with one newly constructed large shed shall improve the look of his rear yard. The applicant has also gained substantial neighborhood support of his proposal. Construction of a new shed would likely improve area aesthetics and would lessen an existing nonconforming condition by reducing the total amount of on -site accessory storage area from 396 to 280 square feet. For these reasons, the City may wish to consider approval of the applicant's request. While it may be true that construction of the new building would present a visual improvement of the site and would reduce total on -site accessory building area, the fact that the structure exceeds ordinance size requirements and may set an unwanted precedent. In addition, there is no guarantee that the newer, larger shed will be properly maintained nor any demonstration of hardship which would warrant the granting of the variance request. For these reasons, the City may wish to deny the applicants request. Because justification appears apparent for either the approval or denial of the applicant's request, judgement is deemed a matter of City policy to be determined by City officials. Setbacks. As shown on the applicant's site plan, the proposed storage shed would lie approximately two feet from the subject property's rear lot line. According to Section 1000.4 (b) 8 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the setback of an accessory building may not be less than 10 feet from a rear lot line. If the City finds the building size variance acceptable, the accessory structure should be relocated to conform to the stated 10 foot setback requirement. Code Enforcement. It is assumed that neighborhood support of the variance request hinges on the anticipated visual improvement of the subject site. It should be recognized that the present visual concerns which exist upon the applicant's property relate primarily to building maintenance and outdoor storage issues, both of which relate to primary code enforcement and are not typically justification for the granting of a variance. As such, it is recommended that whether or not the variance is granted, code enforcement be undertaken to remove the outdoor storage of debris judged inappropriate for a residential area (i.e., wheel barrows, wire rolled fencing, small trailers, cement mixer, etc.). 5 CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office sees no demonstration of hardship which would warrant the granting of a variance to allow an accessory structure to exceed maximum size requirements. However, it is recognized that the proposed accessory structure would likely improve an existing non -conforming conditio by aesthetically improving the site and reducing the existing accessory storage area. As such, a determination regarding the acceptability of the variance request is deemed a matter of City policy to be judged by City officials. If the City finds the request acceptable, approval should be subject to those conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. cc: Bob Miller Ken Lindsay '3AW V-Ibvvt 3N -NW 3ZN3), )n t v: 3N nv >v 3N 1 *0 F-3—DWIV -17 3 r— s 44p 3-N 3AV—M� NIVVY 3N. . ....... . .... tl -lcm, I 0 (n -3 N 3N 3 638wv-1 AV VVV 38 I 20, ft.. LL.1 ..I i > LLJ Z z < < EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION _....-�;. 10GIF ,� ij'f��//y vy.•"`•'v'r,r'•�,f� :.i': sa;+r�. :.��j:1F `- "�7�T 1 w-• :1� oJja t 17 rt,.:.�.p: .; E • r a r iC. e 1 r I tom.• pl 't� 5.-.-- �_�.•C', fib. � —1 f , 1 t ,�. ::.�.Y_t�_/: :=.•'• ..rr.::T •*_) ; Fr:. EXISTING BUILDING'. 77 ` PROPOSED BUILDING TF ±..f. i r. .r...l- - -1 1. _� _w•.J.t��.l.�.�} '.= i.; j -7 i ;. , j._ _ T_ -i..:_ :-A:. j• .�-. �_.'...:.-! --7_ :•1 ` I� . • . r I r.. t . a . ! l . �. i ' r • : t-Tk:� ' i __� :.r- _: i ..a_ •,•"�'s.t� _ t �j ' -F•� !S 1 t .1 ' �.��t_ a . -� � ;- t' !• - . i. :-f t-'••.'•t_ 7-i"' . _'; '_�- T-•� ., ":j;r , l}, i1F.-. r.--�- ..��'T:j i i •-+.r ,. (- I... 7_ r--•. D - •_. _ � +-�_+J -1 r '� 'ice-'�.-{�...Li-_ �r•i-..,...l---r, . � 'f% _i_�._.{ :d�'r •�-' -: j--j.:.•' �• t.: .t t•.ri: t .�:. :.. •k._t. ..r: ;'" r t'.T 't^j—i I 1 i. : j:; tr :S: - :. i-:.• •j-s 1�i :-1.--- ! r71:.1=: G. t •, t" i, •� • ,i • N � i'•i':"�•`., s - .{a•_ i 11 .i. (z ..lF (1 � •�t � �. : i 'j.:!'' l77 -—T------ - — ej% -- -- -- ^j}Ij��pIJ/�]1rTlyt►_y��''—........ f IAV- 57 i 77 - EXHIBIT 8 - SITE PLAN J EXHIBIT C - BUILDING ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT D1 - SITE PHOTOS 1 •� emu. +-, t , �� ` YI, '•r �i ��Af Irk Nam it1. �� •.' •�.F' .. �.'I! " SiP. 5 ..It: ♦� V...)t?�.,i L:V�it :ktS.S1�• Y .�svtri? A' F1Y c IY a{ W � • � T � y+,ltffs may, a� p' Y .. � ,1-fit✓ �A �� r -. �II/j�1{ i N,,. � � ••�' ! 1Y ` . •,i if �' � •• li I cV sm �' +fir " •n•<►r't'vi M y".S _�y+• + 4 y. Ar Iv - rim :'}~~11 ��: ��.a.,�,l +iir #.�'� ay, �t�•* eti Air t �,. /�� i 'r" aysi� a+ t y��+F.-ems C.r r1 en, � .. .r••i('. .1_." - 1 .. i�. r_ fir. •.t 'Bii _.' •1 I`�`. ., •, �. tom. `' rt'�• �", Oil L` A•• aaFjrr,. 1k ,Vt �. / '��' _ �t;�• �'r+r '1O- '• ��d� �� t'�r •C'11 � .tom,+ �� MIA r9:" t amr l \ i•FS4Zr.+ ��. !(a A.'S.l f.�'{1C4':�ItJflfl)YI'r '. �f. „�h, `.5= �7� � �n'J�'i l+? i� fi6Er:�U/�A 6 N 1 ••4 The regular meeting of the Albertville Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chair Donatus Vetsch. Members present included Vetsch, LeRoy Bern-in9 and Rick Bishop. Members absent were Chairman Tom Haller and Mark Daleiden. - '�`i• - _ • - . • • 1 ` !!. `1 lilt i 1 .► ��. /ti L"M Mr. David Licht of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. reviewed with the Commission the findings of the Planner's Report. David briefly pointed out that the request to allow the construction of a 280 square foot storage shed with the rear yard of the Ken Lindsay's property. The proposed storage shed exceeds the maxims++ 150 square feet size requirement for accessory buildings set forth within the City Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the request is to replace three existing sheds which equal 390 square feet which exist on the site. David went on to point out that existing conditions of the site, noting the outside storage of a variety of materials which include small trailers, wheel barrows, lumber, wire fencing, a cement mixer etc., along with the three separate storage structures that are in varied states of disrepair. The report provided a breakdown of these buildings and some of the nonconformities with the ordinance standards relating to accessory buildings. David reviewed these points with the Planning Commission: ssion A: 0 0 • onIW,4W,4Wt., CENTRAL 14 ` X 14 ` 2 FEET BUILDING (196 SF) WEST 12 - X 10' 8 FEET BUILDING (120 SF) :;1 1 1 :'t 1 .•r '11' V1: , 1• 1' it The report went on to list a number of nonaonformities with ordinance standards, which included the following: 1. According to Section WW.4 (b) 5, no accessory structure should occupy more than 150 square feet. At 196 square feet in size the central building exceeds the standard. 2. Section 100.4 (b) 8 states that no accessory structure shall be set back less than 10 feet from the rear lot line. All existing structures violate this requirement. 3. According to Section 1W.4 (b) 7 of the Ordinance, no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one accessory building except via conditional use permit. If the multiple structures have not been allowed via a CUP, they obviously do not meet this requirement. It was also noted that there was a clear violation of the ordinance regarding outside storage of materials, as well. It was noted that the review of the existing buildings and site conditions were not done as an official review, but David noted that under the Housing Maintenance Ordinance the City has adopted that it should be undertaken in the near future. David went on to discuss the Variance Evaluation Criteria. According to Section 100.4 (b) of the City Zoning Ordinance, no accessory building for a single family dwelling shall occupy more than 150 square feet when accompanied by an attached garage on the same lot. According to Section 500.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue ha dah _— will result if the variance is denied due to the of special conditions and circumstances which are to the land, structure or building invo ed. 1. Serial conditionsr may include �oept �l topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an ej�u 1 of or r+�w.ol of record ��s, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of -the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terns of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of loot size of building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. ( Also see Section 1000.3 (c) of this Chapter.) •�et• b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter, or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use. c. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. The request is not a use variance. f. Variance request is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. The report goes on to describe what is proposed for the site. It is noted that the applicant has proposed the construction of a 280 square foot barn shaped shed approi +a, feet the subject property's rear lot line. At 16 feet in height, the structure would comply with the maximum R-3 height requixiement of 16 feet. The applicant contends that the replacement of the three existing storage sheds with one newly constructed large shed would improve the look of the rear yard and has gained substantial neighborhood support for the proposal. The report does not deny the this point, rooting that it would likely improve the area aesthetics and would lessen an existing nonconforming condition by reducing the total amount of on -site accessory storage area from 396 to 280 square feet. It is suggested for these reasons, the City may wish to consider approval of the applicant-s request. The report goes on to point out that the construction of the new building would present a visual improvement of the site and would reduce total on -site accessory building area, the fact that the structures exceeds ordinances size requi ements and may set an unwanted precedent. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the newer, larger shed will be properly maintained not any demonstration of hardship which would warrant the granting of the variance Because justification, appears apparent for either the approval or denial of the applicant's request, judgement is deemed a matter of City policy to be determined by City officials. It was suggested that if the variance is approved that the setback of the accessory building should be relocated to conform to the state 10 foot setback requirement set forth in the ordinance. In the area of code enforcement, it is assumed that the neighborhood support of the variance request hinges on the anticipated visual improvement of the site. It should be recognized that the present visual concerns which ;.ti. exist upon the applicant's property relate primarily to building maintenance and outdoor storage issues, both of which relate to primary code enforcement and are not typically justification for the granting of a variance. As such is is recommended that whether or not the variance is granted, code enforcement be undertaken to remove the outdoor storage of debris judged inappropriate for a residential area (i.e., wheel barrows, wire rolled fencing, small trailers, cement mixer, etc.) Based on the findings of the review, the planners sees no demonstration of hardship which would warrant the granting of a variance to allow an accessory structure to exceed maximum size requirements. however, it is recognized that the proposed accessory structure would likely improve an existing nonconforming condition by aesthetically improving the site and reducing the existing accessory storage area. As such, a determination regarding the acceptability of the variance request is deemed a matter of City policy to be judged by City officials. If the City finds the request acceptable, approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1. All existing accessory structures are removed from the site. 2. The proposed storage shed is relocated to lie at least 10 feet from the subject property`s rear lot line. 3. The City initiate code enforcement efforts which shall ensure that no outdoor storage of debris considered inappropriate for a residential area is allowed on site. 4. The removal of the west driveway which is an existing nonconformity. 5. That a complete site check be preformed to bring the balance of the property into ordinance conformity. Noting that the front yard setback is not allowed for storage of vehicles. At this time the hearing was opened to the audience for discussion. Ken Lindsay stated for the record that the purpose of the application was so he could remove the existing sheds and construct a new one to improve the condition of his rear yard. He questions David on point of the size of the new structure, asking what size would be acceptable if the 280 square foot one was deemed not to be. David noted that according to the ordinance that 150 square feet of accessory building is allowable under the ordinance. At this time a letter from Mr. Timothy Raab was read into the minutes objecting to request, noting that he did not know what the impact the new structure would have on his property value, nor that there was no guarantee that the bigger shed would be properly maintained given the current condition of the site. LeRoy Bering raised the question regarding the size of Ken's existing garage. He was informed that the existing garage is 24' X 24'. He than asked if an addition to the garage would be allowed considering the fact that it currently sits four feet from the property line. David noted that if an addition was put on the garage the setback would be allowed to be continued because of its existing location. He then asked how large the garage could be? David noted that the combination of garage and storage could equal 900 square feet. David again noted that there were two matters for the Planning Commission to consider, the first being should the variance be allowed and secondly the policy issue of how much accessory use should be allowed in a residential neighborhood. It was also pointed out that if the variance is granted that there should be a directive to change the zoning ordinance, because of the precedent the granting of the variance would have. David reminded the Planning Commission that regardless to whether or not the variance is granted that the issue of outside storage would need to be reviewed and removed once the findings had been made. It was also noted that the structure standards of the central building was questionable and would need to inspected to see if it was structurally sound. Ken was asked by one of the neighbors what types of materials would be used on the new shed. He stated that he would be using a mix of some used and new materials that had been approved by the building inspector, but that it would be sided in like material as the house. A comment was made by a neighbor regarding the condition of Ken"s mowers, and whether or not his son would continue with his lawn mowing service, if the lawn mowers would be driven back and forth between the houses. David asked Ken how much on -site storage was needed, questioning whether or not the equipment was used for on -site purposes. Ken noted that his son mows one yard , noting that he did not feel that this issue should have any bearing on the discussion. It was noted that issue of home occupancy business could have a bearing on the matter because it requires a conditional use permit. Ken was asked by David how many mowers did he own? Ken informed him that he currently owned four mowers, but that he is planning on selling two of them once the market is favorable to sell them. David noted the the intent of the ordinance regarding accessory buildings is to keep an open area feeling in platted residential areas. Mr. Jerry Baron stated that he feels with the growth that the City is experience that it is important to keep as munch open space available as possible so that the community does not get the feeling of being closed in and crowded. David noted that because this area is a platted urban area, an approval of the variance would dictate an change in policy and should be reflected in the ordinance. The Planning C m m-fission was asked to evaluate the impact of a situational such as this one. • N� Maureen raised the question regarding whether or not the 25% yard coverage should be changed. David stated that he did not believe so because it is a protection device to keep some type of uniformity in a residential setting, in much the same way the the front and side yard setbacks do. Ken questioned the definition of "Hardship"? It was noted that hardship is defined under Minnesota State Statute and references conditions that are physical in nature and are unique to a given property. Mr. Rob Farrim state that he felt that the variance was not hurting anyone else and that he felt it should be granted since it would improve the condition of the yard. It was noted by one of the neighbors that the existing three sheds equal 396 square feet and now Ken is proposing 280 square feet on the basis that he want to improve the yard and clean up the outside storage, stating that he did not feel that this did not make any sense. The issue of outside storage was discussed in more detail. It was noted the Section 100.15 defines outside storage and that through observation the site was found to be nonconformity. Ken Lindsay requested an explanation of why the second driveway would have to be removed, stating that he did not feel that it had anything to do with the request. David pointed out that the storage of the motorhame and pickup on the second driveway is in violation of the ordinance. David pointed out that Ken had brought in an application to deviate from the standard which gives the City the authority to require all nonconfozmities be brought up to code. It was further noted that the second driveway was put in likely under the old ordinance and was therefore "grandfathered in" unless conditions are to change. It was pointed out that if the variance is granted than conditions will have in fact been changed and then the driveway would be considered nonconforming. David stated that Ken would be trading storage for storage. It was also noted the whether or not the variance is granted that is the planners recommendation that the code enforcement needs to be addressed. It was pointed out that if no action is taken the three buildings could stay as they are, unless they are found to structurally substandard. Hearing no other questions or comments a motion was made to close the hearing. The motion was made by Rick Bishop and seconded by LeRoy Berning. All were in favor and the motion carried. A motion was then made to recommend to the Council the application for variance be denied on the based of the planner-s recommendation, noting that the code enforcement nt be undertaken once the Council had made a final ruling on the matter. The motion was made by Rick Bishop and seconded by LeRoy Berning. All were in favor and the motion carried. It was noted that the matter would be brought before the Council on Monday July 16, 1990. The public hearing for the Ordinance Amendment regarding the matter of Adult Entertainment was called to order. The notice of the hearing was duly read. It was suggested that the hearing be continued Lentil a later date, because David is still working on the ordinance and the City of Ramsey is still being challenged on the constitutionality of the ordinance. A motion was made to continue the hearing Lentil the October meeting. The motion was made by Rick Bishop and seconded by LeRoy Berning. All were in favor and the motion carried. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting. The motion was made by Rick Bishop and seconded by LeRoy Berning. All were in favor and the motion carried_ City of Albertville Planning & Zoning In regard to variance applied for: I will not be able to attend the July 12th hearing on the variance applied for by K. Lindsay because of work commitment. I do however contest any variation from current codes and ordinances established by the City Albertville. I contest the variation because of the unknown impact on my property value and I do not wish to have this size structure in view of. my backyard. I feel the current sheds are poorly maintained and there is no guarantee this bigger shed will be properly maintained. Sincerely, Timothy Raab %-/1-c?O / 5-0 4-1 Src71' "L S -� I t Fea.MbilifY. Studyr,_ x♦ C t 50fo 'a sr'- 337 -� �� • � 7+ 1� a~ •I.} /tea/ �� f�,�` ',lr .ui y� ��iac`L'��, ^•+ .i.tt rf�i-•n x t,?,t.-i/i i`.r.rE. s< Y.:6y aj' $,yrr ry,. a~ !°7wti n tx-y+rr• tG•"" „'Tti�x'•N!•' ,,t• +i A• `;� h �. ye• .S �i �+ �J . ► <'� �,trs��y�� 4` +, �#`/', t;�uir�`� v* n►?y'r. � � 1i1: `A. .r •. ".. t� 1"' "Y�- K`.. t ,�+n• tLcl y- •71�"A``C.. *- 2'- ^4.r - i t"'7.C,; aAt:w TAEET:} SAND ::UTILIT ii �/ Mjj¢ ,kti er �♦ \e+ �w,-�w,J�,<� � tt}, �[ .! r ; Vs�i ro � 4 �. tr Y•l ✓��r .t .. Y ,,, r„y ,�. "46_ < }a _ tT i7'+ < '.. di 3`(.. ;. +R. •F p' imt :I`a"«; rttir �� ` •�'"l tR._��-:��I ,>.'�'�;►" s :.v. �t•... �'�.. �" ty � x" rf +;,�. _ ."�; ,�{YY"/.a { y.r .�y...� i� � � ice_. .� rr?; -•ia. •: :$ � iM ,�� fir. -.. ♦. :.��'�ub.»�"_a. .� f t:a1�'.'.lir�.!tv}Ai�-7+i'�. �•':1'� '•".�tF L1L"��e.•?vt.. A!�„♦.L Y..�?3rC �,��• Alb e r tv i I i e;�V4n�e s o *, kaL�ww t— nr;r,�� i1, s ..n, .. • a. Y•t' i aw'r - d*. . Yid `ta,'� ,,tl�S"}'' '?r,s f 7„ t . •.aa rt " s - s�. ii t'y��y�c, �. +' ,yam :� a � x r .j�.: _�,� y,.}' rc'•i..•,>er,�.,,,. .,, •. ac .}n �a-� �`, ,�. .a 4y� •y♦,r Y+'v. .r < ;. r�'.R7� - .ce,� r ..��,r.:. • aei. 1� ';,� �r "^•'S' a �'Y'y"`i-.. n+PJ� �J}�` �,•� _ 'r<' °� `; .+.��/`' .y. * L .:,� .,�' '... .-^ " .s.3•.. �' ',a�g.; "ie►�. ,a, ^4i• +i•'*', t " s. i r �4r.► - •a i. .Y.,. w• .y,.Y rsj¢ t ° �' ' .. o .. '... t1`ta � �5,��,. � _r ^�itt .. .y..,, } d � ;C .�' a 'r .'l�.yy��; �X �f F .a qis- � . k, � K o ♦ �43 �` '.�J1yS1�� y";�x��tc �i�, n tz'` rz�rk� r'`� �, :,.,ys � �^•'} 1, + lty *i{ ...r � T�;+�y+t 'y ir"�ip';• �,�k �... � e ,'��-fil "Cji�' :' ea Yi .J �Y + 'r► /C - �t. r _ d. W� 4-s .`.,�±'Y} Y '-• aY>.�.� s- s ^t - •1.-,Sin , h :S�;4. t r?r i '',y�r w F4 d3 • ,,�� h • it; .wa Y Ewa !A}s ' I . � � ,t '^t: ':. O°•• � .,N? +. a. a ' + �.iLth. � .71. �, �Sii�' �. ��ixM:'�i'.- .• ...,,y � �� y� � z � �♦,.-.kra� .: i y -�..n •+� z- �, c, 3.r�'• j� C sy, yam' • �,r. t"';�t•�5•� �ir Z� j1 t J^°< s .3 1 •1 irft f#� i i ` r 9 . • yr. hi ' r E s Z. 4 .. e. MEYER-ROHLIN,INC.:A.... � ,,_. . =2 �.�� '-� •��' ENGWEERS-LAND SlJRVMM Tm Hwy. 25 N. Buh1@4 55313 PHo/a 2 882 f78! w � ` \,.r, tR.>•C { i ,y,;. J '^ '�e �"_` +b +`i+f,.iazy _` / ,}y ♦+""5. ,.�,_.r +Yv * •" ,,�y�. .�V u a,,�°yA. '4 ,'µ'.li+s!'" `4''�I' w',y�'r - :.�. r•sr'"-J�• �*9 1t+f♦•+-'?P �% '"f ' is"`..• i _-' JrOr '.a „t;, t 3✓� W'-.•r"q°''•♦„ _: ♦..e� •t�.; ♦ _ 1 •�]"i�� . 4 ✓. aY - � � i :.�iY � %'(P �S.:f' � ry x t♦ t�' � y1 ✓ r '% � 'y,h.�30 t �� "`yS +�• "S3'.: '' f ii�j t � w. tti .-'"^ �� •�'�a �4 ,y�,��' Jdh x rY �� aj i �� r "4. �i �ya,�K• � •w.+� ,�_ � � ,k �� ♦ pe•�t , � •. ,,-�.�,�'yFr �R `�.,�� ;, °t''t' � w t �' ; I *. * 1» •t'•' �s� � 1 N r +' « .. '" s'. a =:.-iw.�• y,.,, "i' Y!i_ �" �' „S 4 ; ,at��Sca� � �r s AA, w i,- •a>1 �Zy i � .Jr � °�+ , � � ar� y< t y:',�!` trija►t.-"�! 'lC' . � �� l' t, � � . - :• r .^C }�R �•,, - r.�.� r _ � •� ,� ."Y a,i'> � Y .:�1'' �iY, A ��'1{i� aly � i..a t F'!. i1e" � x� ;�'3 •".•+i•� � 3 .�.at�.7w r•. �� s•�.,. c^`s � ...'a� -. ,e! .-.�.. s �� :: •.Y �`� 4a. e... �Z it; '�,Ri �{*:^w r •�_. .2:� � � * .y"., •i'�-yr`�-..r.'�: y �y ;1 lPRR � +k, R .. a• � n - +'4 'r a ��t�� t -- .•.. rr ��.�C � -� �*�S.µ _.' s } � . 4 r• 't "v..�♦5 i',T'+ir�t \`•�. - �'�'� Na� +�.�'� T V 4' : • '1 c' Spa .r h' . -- _ M , _ ti M �• '�. to � � .. ,-' S . �.,�.. i :.. 4C• ! rr, '.�' �� / � -;� a y FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PARKSEDGE ADDITION STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 1111 HIGHWAY 25 NORTH BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313 E-9001-F July 10, 1990 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervise n, and that I am a duly Registered Profes nal En inee under the laws of the St to of Minnesota. . Meyer y, NO. 5218 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 July 10, 1990 City of Albertville c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator Box 131 Albertville, MN 55301 Re: Parksedge Addition Street and Utility Improvements Albertville, MN Honorable Mayor and City Council: As requested, we have completed the Feasibility Study for the above -referenced project. The proposed project will consist of extending sanitary sewer, watermain and bituminous streets with concrete curb and gutter through the proposed Parksedge Addition development. The proposed project is a replat of that part of Lot 1, Block 6, Barthel's Industrial Park, lying south of the Barthel Maple Hills Addition. The site abuts Barthel Industrial Drive and is located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. See Attachment No. 1. SANITARY SEWER Parksedge Addition will be served by the existing sanitary sewer on Barthel Industrial Drive. A new manhole will be needed to be cut into the existing line, which is of ample depth to serve this entire addition. All service connections to the individual lots will be made from Lansing Circle and not from Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor Barthel Industrial Drive. The cost of the sanitary sewer would be fully assessable to the Parksedge Addition. See Attachment No. 2. WATERMAIN The watermain would consist of the extension of the existing 8-inch service lead originally installed as an industrial site sprinkler service. Using this existing service would eliminate the second cutting of Barthel Industrial Drive. The watermain will also be extended from the end of the cul-de-sac through the walkway to connect to the existing park service line, thus providing a water loop instead of the deadend lines for Lansing Circle and Lorabee Circle. All water services will be made to the main on Lansing Circle and not Barthel Industrial Drive. The cost of the watermain and services will be fully assessed to Parksedge Addition. See Attachment No. 3. STORM DRAINAGE All storm drainage within the Parksedge Addition will be handled by surface drainage, utilizing the proposed streets as the conveyance system. No storm sewer is being proposed. A cross -gutter will be constructed where Lansing Circle intersects with Barthel Industrial Drive to maintain the existing flow on Barthel Industrial Drive and provide an outlet for Lansing Circle. STREETS The street improvement will consist of 3-1-inch bituminous pavement and surmountable concrete curb and gutter placed over a 12-inch gravel base on Lansing Circle. The boulevard section shall be shaped to the proper cross-section with the existing soils. It will be the responsibility of the developer to provide the 4-inch topsoil and sod at such time the homes have been constructed. The street contractor shall seed the existing imaterials to provide only a temporary grass cover. See Attachment No. 4. We would recommend the bituminous surfacing be let in two separate contracts. The first surfacing contract in conjunction with the full street construction would be a 2-inch base course, followed by a second contract, after all homes have been built, of a 11-inch wearing course. iThe walkway to the park area will be covered with 4-inch. topsoil and sodded by the street contractor. All street construction costs will be fully assessable to the Parksedge Addition. COST SUMMARY The estimated costs for the above improvements are: Sanitary sewer $18,100.00 Watermain 17,700.00 Street Construction, Phase I 23,000.00 Street Construction Final Lift 6,000.00 $64,800.00 5% Contingencies 3,240.00 18% Engineering 11,660.00 TOTAL $79,700.00 No bonding, financing, administrative or legal costs have been included in the figures above. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the above -described improvements are feasi- ble, should best be done as proposed, and will be a benefit to the abutting properties. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Respecfully submitted, MEYER ,ROkILIN , INC. —Thore Meyer Professional Eng'neer sl cc: File E-9001-F 19...► ... ►-C r 1 . i t- - - - - - - - r---» .fv _.�u■II� R MF so�t sow kv.l I � CITY OF I .� ALBERTVILLE 4 ' Wrt10 MT COUNTY. MINNtfOTA I J PAAKSEDGE ----------- At „achment 1 Ile RI 3 P 0 \ \ �' � 9 ^IN07 Icy \ —; �.: ��n�a� r 1 1aJ2 �o '� \ n e^ ,a 0 • 9 4.11 �3 5E?dawr l�r,C� a.�y l - �' �• ti ' sse., �c^l \ SJ Iy �c .I aIu o� \ tier \ � 1\11 \ + h \ ( S i X , � . f. r•4 1 \ \ i 3 \ I a,,�.s, � CD Y Slock ' michael J. G Joyce e. \ \ \ \ \ 11619 LaSalle Circle N ,\ \ \ •�\ \ I :•gyp lbercville. MN 55301 u00JI-e n.t \ \�TR 6p— a'o369, ' \\ R- 3 ' 'decks Attachment 2 • \ f � v R-3 4 Q?- Iq�lUI h.�. \ \ .•a o-\ `Pr o d 6 9�q _Q7� tr .^rPk o y yb�AR�+ ° « t i A. \' r `,, 1 \ •� by / \ r 1R-3 LO / D 0 J \, G i li�i(( fi cso. c Michael J. Joyce C. Block v 11819 LaSalle Circle , N \\ \ \ h l �• `•" ' lbertville. MN 55301 i,,�� l�y`�t 1�` fry �K[, \ \ '• � .�� _ t R-3 \ " Existing 6Water derka ] r Attachment 3 � I N ' e 1 I Ab II 17Y B.f••q•J•J•• `J a/•L G.raa•� I(.. va c. 2s a.) I TYPICAL STREET SECTION I2• cam. a.. s Ac,ge trho f.. (sr.L. �I�e) No Scale ,; rl a NO \ \ \ F V G i121 X i �� ^ \ • �ti ISs C 1ISe1l `,e �,,j) 96 Apbe•a• J_u ` s \ qHy � a . q1, , ' • 10 h N / W a .�. 1 I° I I r l the \ • .i X.� -n- M r r�r r •r � I � B � •��.., Q,vov A� \ I i Michael J. G Joyce C. Block IV I, ` 0�� \ \ \ r\ 11619 LaSalle circle N ` tlbereeflle. 144 65301 4 J I \`"`riiifiii Ap 1. ll t Fevre V. ! I�_1 go_�1. v' � 6g � ae" P,a� idats ! a4�Y Attachment 4 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612 - 682-1781 July 12, 1990 City of Albertville c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator Box 131 Albertville, MN 55301 Re: Sanitary Sewer Trunk to STMA High School Honorable Mayor & Council Members: In anticipation of renewed talks concerning the providing of sanitary sewer service to the proposed St. Michael/Albertville High School, we would like to update the estimated construction costs as shown in the feasibility report dated August 31, 1989. These costs have been kept slightly high to allow for the construction in the next year or two. The adjustments apply to the sanitary sewer only, as the water mains already abut the proposed high school site. Option 1: Lift station with force main to the existing 8" trunk on Main Street Construction Cost $59,200 13% Eng. & 5% Contingencies 10,660 Total $ 69,860 Option 2: Partial trunk installation with lift station & force main to Pysk's Addition Construction Cost $135,400 13% Eng. & 5% Contingencies 24,370 Total $159,770 Option 3: Gravity sanitary sewer trunk from high school site to existing lift station in Sunrise Commercial Park Construction Cost $209,200 13% Eng. & 5% Contingencies 37,660 Total $246,860 These estimated costs should be interjected into the existing feasibility report dated August 31, 1989. If you have any Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor questions, please feel free to contact us. Yours very truly MEYE OHLIN, INC. ore Meyer Professional gineer sl cc: File E-8901-M Feasibilty Study for Providing Water and Sanitary Sewer Service to THE ALBERTVILLE-ST. MICHAEL HIGH SCHOOL Albertville, Minnesota MEYER-ROHLIN, INC E43V16ERS-LQ0 SLeVEY0AS YM M Y 25 K BUH&AM A&n5= Prom M2-set-V81 44 E-8901 NM FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PROVIDING WATER AND SEWER TO THE PROPOSED ALBERTVILLE-ST. MICHAEL HIGH SCHOOL MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 1111 HIGHWAY 25 NORTH BUFFALO, MINNESOTA 55313 August 31, 1989 E-8901-M I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Bob Sullentrop Reg. No. 17823 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 August 31, 1989 City of Albertville c/o Maureen Andrews, Administrator Box 131 Albertville, MN 55301 Re: Feasibility Study for Providing Water and Sewer To the Proposed Albertville -St. Michael High School Honorable Mayor and City Council: As requested, we have completed the Feasibility Study for the above -referenced project. Project Location The new high school would be located at the intersection of County Roads 19 and 35. The sanitary sewer interceptor would be located approximately halfway between Main Street and County Road 19, and would extend in approximately a north -south direction. The high school would be located in Sections 11 and 12, Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. The interceptor would be located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. The forcemain would be located in either Section 1 or Section 12, Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. See attachment No. 1. Project Description The project would consist of providing water and sewer services to the proposed high school. Since an exact location of the school building wasn't provided, we assumed a location roughly across the road from the Joint Powers office. As part of this study, three options are presented for extending the sanitary sewer to the site. - Water Service The Joint Powers Water Board previously placed a 16-inch watermain along County Roads 35 and 19. On County Road 35 the watermain is on the opposite side of the highway as the proposed high school. On County Road 19 it is on the same side of the highway. The assumed location of the high school would require placing the service across County Road 35. The service would be an 8-inch ductile iron pipe. The service would be jacked and bored under the highway and placed in an 18-inch steel casing. The service would be extended to the property line. It would be approximately 60 feet long. Costs would be Thore P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Licensed Land Surveyor less if the school building were placed closer to County Road 19, because a highway crossing would not be necessary. See attachment No. 2. - Option 1, Sanitary Sewer This option would consist of placing approximately 350 feet of 8-inch PVC gravity sewer along County Road 35. At the east end of the gravity sewer, a lift station would be placed. A 4-inch PVC forcemain would extend from the lift station to the existing manhole in the intersection of County Road 35 and Main Street. The forcemain would be approximately 1540 feet long. See attachment No. 3. - Option 2, Sanitary Sewer This option would consist of placing approximately 330 feet of 8-inch PVC gravity sewer along County Road 35. At the eastern end, the gravity sewer would discharge into a proposed 10-inch PVC sanitary sewer interceptor. The interceptor would extend across County road 35 and northward approximately 2115 feet. The interceptor would be jacked and bored across County Road 35 and placed in a 20-inch steel casing. At the northern end of the interceptor, a lift station would be placed. Extending from the lift station towards the east, a 4-inch PVC forcemain would be placed. This would extend to an existing manhole at the intersection of Lambert Avenue N.E. and 54th Avenue N.E. The forcemain would be approximately 400 feet long. See attachment No. 4. - Option 3, Sanitary Sewer This option would be the same as option 2 up to where the proposed lift station would be located. At this point, instead of placing the lift station, the interceptor would continue northward approximately an additional 2745 feet. At this point, the 10-inch interceptor would end and a 12-inch PVC interceptor would begin and extend northward approximately 670 feet, where it would connect into an existing 12-inch. interceptor just south of Sunrise Commercial Park. Cost Estimate Below you shall find the estimated costs of the above -described improvements. Please note that the estimate does not include administrative, legal, or bonding costs. - 8-inch Water Service Construction $6,400.00 Engineering (13%) 830.00 Contingencies (5%) 320.00 Total $7,550.00 - Sanitary Sewer Option 1 Construction $57,000.00 Engineering (13%) 7,410.00 Contingencies (5%) 2,850.00 Total $67,260.00 Option 2 Construction $108,900.00 Engineering (13%) 14,160.00 Contingencies (5%) 5,440.00 Total $128,500.00 Option 3 Construction $175,250.00 Engineering (13%) 22,790.00 Contingencies (5%) 8,760.00 Total $206,800.00 Conclusion The above -described improvements are feasible .and will result in a benefit to the adjacent properties. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. Bob Sullentrop Professional Engineer sl cc: File E-8901-M 0 in U . 2.9 F 1 .z 4 Wright County Hwy. No. 35 -2654 ?- -ES " ty, ADDITI P, 'ovrLor a .3= 4 Attachment I 0 r 3 Y izo zo C W J1' II^^ v/ Q � O �ri d -- _ — _bl UN dam__ _ 54 1I/2 1 SST I m a 4 H x s ng ani ary ewer Proposed Lift Station w U Propose Force Main I i I I I I I I i Proposed!10" 0 Sanitary ,Sewer i I q� Existing 16' TW.t,CO Y I HWY. N0. 35 Proposed 8" - Water and Casing r--� Proposed 8" Sanitary Sewe� TApproximate School Location City of Albertville, Mn. I 0 100 200 aoo Boo I Attachment 3 IF o4T I 615T 5T. NE I_ a - - - - 60TN 51 Proposed 12' I Sanitary Sewer I yTti I i Proposed 10* — — — _ — Sanitary Sewer I r � 9TN I i i I ai ' 56TN Si I I 3 _ I I SSTN I � I z 54 I/2 .sr N.E. a 1 0 / N L I d I I u — — — — — — -- — — I f I 5[ I ew � SIST I I I � II sT I I _ Propose ld 10' I) Sanitary Sewer L. +Cb r wr No 15 Proposed 8' Water and Casing __1 Proposed 8'ISanitary Sewer I �Apyroalm Na School Location City of Albertville, Mn. I Attachment 4 r-' DRAFT .19 VACATION LEAVE. ONLY (a) Person whose employment is part-time, temporary, casual or seasonal shall not be permitted vacation leave. (b) Full-time employees shall earn and may use vacation leave on a regular work week of forty (40) hours. Based on years of service, vacation leave shall be accrued as follows: (1) After one (1) year: 5 days per year. (2) Two (2) through ten (10) years: 10 days per year. (3) Eleventh (11) year: 11 days per year. (4) Twelfth (12) year: 12 days per year. (5) Thirteenth (13) year: 13 days per year. (6) Fourteenth (14) year: 14 days per year. (7) Fifteenth (15) plus: 15 days per year. (c) The annual anniversary date of initial employment shall be used to determine the days of vacation leave to be accrued ear year. (d) Vacation leave may be used as earned provided that approval has first been obtained from the department head. (e) Under no circumstances will employees be allowed to accumulate in excess of 20 days of vacation leave. No compensation will be given for vacation leave earned in excess of that allowed. (f) Any permanent employee leaving the municipal service in good standing and giving proper notice of such termination of employment shall be compensated for vacation leave accrued and unused at the time of actual termination. (g) No employee shall be permitted to waive vacation leave for the purpose of receiving double pay. (h) Vacation leave may be denied temporarily in an emergency or when the granting of vacation would result in insufficient personnel to carry out City functions. (i) A full-time permanent employee who either resigns from the municipal service or is laid off in good standing shall have his vacation leave accrue from his initial day of such full-time permanent employment, notwithstanding a break in service. Only periods of time in which the employee works as ---a full-time permanent employee (including probationary periods) shall count in calculating vacation leave. ORDINANCE NO. 1990-7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1989-15 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CITY PARKS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF" BY PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN VEHICLES AND DEVICES ON PAVED TRAILS The City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota ordains: Section 1. Section 2, Regulations of Ordinance No. 1989-15 entitled "An Ordinance Establishing Rules and Regulations Governing City Parks and Providing a Penalty for Violation Thereof" passed by the City Council on October 2, 1989 is amended by adding thereto Clause S to read as follows: "S. Use of Certain Vehicles and Devices Prohibited in Four Seasons Park. No person shall operate or knowingly permit the operation or use of: (i) a motor vehicle, motorcycle, motorized bicycle or bicycle (all as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01); or (ii) an all -terrain vehicle (as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 84.92, Subd. 8) or snowmobile (as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 84.81, Subd. 3); or (iii) Skateboards; on any bituminous, paved or blacktopped trail, walkway or path in the City's Park known as "Four Seasons Park". The Administrator shall cause an abbreviated notice of such prohibition to be posted in one or more locations in the Four Seasons Park." Section 2. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $700.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and Page 1 of 2 publication, according to law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Albertville this day of , 1990. Gary Schwenzf eier, Mayor ATTEST: Maureen Andrews, Administrator/Clerk (Published in the Crow River News on Page 2 of 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1990- ONLY AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF OUTDOOR AREAS OF ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE PREMISES AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF The City Council of the City of Albertville, Minnesota ordains: Section 1. Outdoor Areas. An on -sale intoxicating liquor licensee whose license permits the on -sale of alcoholic beverages on a licensed premises shall be permitted to sell, serve and allow consumption of alcoholic beverages in an outdoor area, provided the following conditions are met: (a) The outdoor area is immediately adjacent to the building or structure comprising the remainder of the licensed premises and such outdoor area is specifically described as part of the licensed premises in the approved license application; (b) The outdoor area is completely enclosed by a fence or other barrier preventing any external ingress or egress from the area, except for an exit usable in the event of emergencies, which will be controlled by a mechanical device or lock approved by the City's Building Official permitting controlled egress from the enclosed area. (c) Access to the outdoor area is available only through the interior portion of the licensed premises, other than as permitted in clause (b) above; (d) No bars or pass -through windows shall be permitted in the outdoor area; (e) There shall be no music audible off the property nor exterior lighting which casts direct light off the premises; (f) No alcoholic beverages shall be served after 10:00 p.m. nor consumed after 10:30 p.m. in the outside area; (g) the outside area shall be compact in size and shall not exceed an area as may be considered reasonable by the City Council, considering the physical lay -out of the building or structure, the area to be enclosed, the nature and design of the enclosing material, the visual and noise impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and the effect on the property values of surrounding neighborhoods; and (h) construction according to safety and design requirements of the City's Building Official, and if -1- requested, the licensee shall furnish plans prior to construction of the enclosed area, including the enclosing material. Section 2. Supplemental Ordinance. This Ordinance is supplementary to all other ordinances of licensing and regulating the operation of on -sale intoxicating liquor licensees and licensed premises. In the event of a conflict among any such ordinance, the most restrictive regulations shall govern. Section 3. Penalty. Any person violating any provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof may be punished by a fine of not more than $700.00 or imprisonment for not to exceed 90 days, or both, plus the cost of prosecution in any case. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Albertville this day of , 1990. ATTEST: Maureen Andrews Administrator/Clerk Mayor (Published in the Crow River News -2- This letter is to notify you of a change of ownership of the Wright Recycling business. On July 2, 19909 Ken Converse and P.J. Hanson of Rockford Minnesota bought Wright Recycling in its entirity, encluding all equipment and all existing contracts. The new owners would like to meet with all the council boards at their next monthly meetings. Pleas* contact them at 477-5426 or write to Wright Recycling P.O. Box 256 Rockford MN, 55373 All June payments should still be mailed to 110 Walnut Ct. Delano MN, 55328. Any questions please feel free to contact either party. Sincerly, Ken Kunkel City of Albertville June Recycling Report Date 6/7 6/21 Total clear Glass 1200 1050 2250 Brown Glass 225 187 412 Green Glass 150 150 300 Tin Cans 210 175 385 Alum Cans 103. 75 178 Car Batteries 4 1 5 Card Board 70 80 150 News Print 4500 3050 755E Total Weight 6455 4680 11135 MONTICELLO Office of the City Administrator 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295-2111 MEMO Metro: (612) 333-5 739 TO: City Clerks, City Administrators, Clerks FROM: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrat / DATE: June 18, 1990 RE: Animal impound agreements After analyzing the operating expenditures at the City of Monticello's animal control shelter over the past few years, it has been determined by the City Council that the City will be increasing its daily chart for housing of animals at the pound from the current $6.75 per day to a new charge of $7.25 per day effective August 1, 1990. The current charge has been in effect since January 1, 1988; and with the increased cost of operation the City has been experiencing, we had no choice but to increase the daily fee by approximately 7.4%. The daily fee includes the intake of the animal, housing, feeding, and caring for the animal while impounded, along with transportation to the veterinarian or adoption agency if disposal is necessary for unclaimed animals. The current disposal charge for all unclaimed animals will remain at $14 for the time being, and the City will continue to aGnitor this fee to determine if any adjustments in the future are necessary. Our billing system will remain unchanged, and you will continue to be sent monthly statements for the services rendered by the City. Should you have any questions regarding the new fee effective August 1, or should you have any suggestions on how we can operate our facility better, please give me a call. I-55 Otsego BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA John W. Carey Kenneth F. Sette Shirley J. Mihelich County Commissioner County Commissioner Chair Vice Chair Commissioner Ex-Officio Member Ex-Officio Member - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) THE INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF OTSEGO ) NOTICE OF HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Board in the above -entitled matter. The hearing will be held on the 15th day of August, 1990, in the Otsego Town Hall, Otsego, Minnesota commencing at 9:00 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally and to submit written data, statements or arguments concerning the above entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board. [The Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board may be purchased from the Documents Section, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612) 297-3000.] The property proposed for incorporation is all of the Town of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota. After all testimony is complete and the record is closed, the Board will meet from time to time to deliberate, approve and issue Parent Committee of the STMA Senior All NIght Graduation Party June 8, 1990 Albertville City Hall 5964 Main Ave. Albertville, MN Dear Sir: The tradition of successful all night graduation parties is something parents and community members are working for together. "Thank You" for your contribution to the annual St. Michael -Albertville Senior All -Night Graduation Party. You helped to make it a huge success. We appreciate your interest and concern for our graduates on their special night. Sincerely,] Beth Meyer, Parent, Committee STMA All -Night Party t 5i TOWNSHIP i 'i' WELL DRILLING SCOW NIELSON SUNRISE is WRIGHT GUARANTEE OFFICE OF COUNTY AUDITOR OFFICE OF COUNTY AUDITOR OFFICE OF COUNTY AUDITOR OFFICE OF COUNTY AuDITORI 14KITOR EXCAVATINGs. TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID JOLY 16, 1990 $ 2,603.94 10.00 3,694.51 29.37 200.00 25.00 10.50 35.50 34.95 42.00 6,666.66 261,629.52 7,503.06 18,356.70 14,218.91 70.00 $ 315,130.62 NOT WRITTEN t N1•..1 •:i1 I • $ 645.19 519.72 547.59 773.6'7 2,103.05 10669 KEN DS • 1I • 10670 FEED RITE CONTROLS iI /Zi //, • • • • 10672 C.L. PAULSON v ASSOCIATES 10673 POST E. 10674 i 1 10675 MTI DISTRIBUTING 10676 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS • ►: 10677 NORTHERN 93.C- 10678 SCHARBER AND SONS• .. • 1J.'S HOME CARE CENTER 10680 SUNSHINE LAWN SERVICE 1,960.Ok 10681 i. J. ARLIEN 2,978.2,' IM82 ROBERT MIT-1 OFFICES, • IM83 WRIGHT RECYCLING //.: ' SECURITY BANK NORWEST 4, r72: 30-1 10687 1.J.'S HEATING ANDCONDITIONING 1. 4i 10688 KEVIN MEALHOUSEfr TOTAL ADDITIONAL INCOME 7/16/90 SEWER ACCOUNTS $763. 84 THOMAS VANDER WEYST 26.90 PM t;0WI'R JCTION CO. 95.00 TOTAL $885.74 ADDITONAL BILLS TO BE PAID 7/16/90 1M9 NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MPLS. $2,365.00 IM91 .ti TRUST TRUST 25,714.38 `•• 10693 FIRST TRUST I.•• EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADM. CO 2,561.00 TOTAL $85, W.