Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 10-10-1978AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - M)NfICELIA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: C. 0. Johnson Councilmen: Daniel Blonigen, Arve Grimamo, Gene Walters, Philip White. Meeting to be taped. p� at, Citizens Comments. r , 1. Public Hearing - Variance Request from Parking Lot Curb Barrier Requirements - Silver Fox hotel. 2. Public Hearing - Variance Request from Parking Lot Hard -Surface Requirements - Mr. Bob Rasmussen. 3. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications for Marvin George's Balboul Estates. 4. Consideration of 1978-1979 Maintenance Agreements on County State Aid Highways. J 5. Consideration of Sale of Off -Sale Liquor Store. J6. Consideration of Allocation of &nds for the Senior Citizens Center. `/7. Consideration of Approval of Certificate of Correction to Commercial Plaza 25. J8. Quarterly Meeting with Department Heads. ✓9. Approval of Minutes - September 25, 1978 and Ocher 2, 1978 Meetings. J Unfinished Business - �101, 1 0. New Business ✓Curb -cut openings - Vivo Jew Abrahamson . . I ✓variance Request - curb -cut opening - Mike Erklo/ Step II Grant offer from State of Minnesota for i V / wastewater Treatment Plant. V4. on ion of time limit - Sewer Hookup - 1975 Project. r Agenda - 10/10/78 r r ` AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Public Hearing - Variance Request from Parking Lot Curb Barrier Requirements - Silver Fox hotel. Mr. Fd Larson, one of the principal owners of the silver Fox Motel, is requesting a variance to allow the elimination of curb barriers around his truck parking lot. This truck parking lot is situated just to the north- east of the hotel complex. Purpose of request as indicated by Mr. Larson is that elimination of the 1l curb barrier requirements in this area would allow for more maneuverability of the semi -trailers to get in and out of the parking lot, especially during the busy season. Mr. Larson has indicated that several of the curb barriers that he has currently installed on the remaining portion of the parking lot V `have been damaged by the heavy trucks. He thought this would be more of a �Problem in light of the fact that the area in question is specifically for * trucks. G At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve of the variance request. �Od POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of variance request from parking lot curb barrier requirements for the truck parking lot at Silver Fox Motel. 2. Public Hearing - Variance Request from Parking Lot Hard -surface Requirements - Mr. Bob Rasmussen. Mr. Bob Rasmussen, who owns a duplex at 201 New Street, has made a variance request to allow him to install a new driveway for his present duplex off County Road 75 (Broadway) and have only a Class 5 driveway up to 24 months. According to Monticello City ordinances, all parking areas, including drive- ways, must be hardsurfaced with concrete or bituminous. Mr. Rasmussen indicated the reason for the request is that his former parking area was off of New Street, and was quite a wide curb -cut opening for approximately four cars, but there was not sufficient room to allow a garage in order that a driveway would come off of New Street. As a result, Mr. Rasmussen agreed to close his curb -cut opening off of New Street if he were allowed to put curb -cut opening off of County Road 75, and therefore he would put a garage which would to situated in back of his house in such a fashion that it would meet all ordinance requirements in terms of setbacks, parking area, etc. However, oinco he did not plan to do the project immediately, he would like to have a variance request as indicated above. However, at their last Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission did recom- mend the variance request= however, the time period recommended was only 12 months instead of 24 months. Mr. Rasmussen did agree to the shorter dura- tion and it also was indicated to him that he would have the right to apply for an extension of the variance request. Agenda - 1010/78 SIBLE ACTION: Consideration of allowing variance from hardsurface requirements for a period of up to 12 months for Mr. Bob Rasmussen. REFERENCES: See enclosed map indicating area. 431-3. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications for Marvin George's Balboul Estates. At a previous meeting, City Council directed the City Engineers to prepare plans and specifications for the above referenced plat. As you may recall, it is the intent of the developer, Marvin George Builders, Inc. of Princeton Minnesota, to put in the improvements themselves, and it was agreed upon at the previous meeting by the City Council, to direct our engineers to prepare plans and specifications for the project. A copy of the plans and specifications for this project are available for review at the Monticello City Hall. Additionally, our City Attorney has reviewed the City's requirements when a developer puts in his own improve- ments, and has prepared an agreement with the developer including the items mentioned in a previous memo from myself to the City Council relative to the items that the City would want included. It should be noted that in the agreement, reference is made to a surety bond. Marvin George Builders, Inc. would like to submit a letter of credit from the bank and I am asking that our City Attorney review this matter to see that this type of surety would be just as secure as the performance bond. POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of plans and specifications and ordering project contingent upon the developer concurring with the develop- ment agreement, posting the necessary performance bond or letter of credit as approved by the City Council, and depositing with the City in cash the amount mentioned in Q the agreement of $25,177 to cover engineering costs, administrative costs, etc. It should be noted as stated in the agreement that the actual cost would be billed to n the developer and he would be refunded any amount of money that the deposit exceeds the actual fees or he would be billed for the reverse situation. REFERENCES: Plans and specifications available at the Monticello City Hall and the developer agreement with Marvin George Builders, Inc. 4. Consideration of 1978-1979 Maintenance Agreements on County State Aid Highways. Enclosed, please find copies of the proposed maintenance for County State Aid Highways in the City of Monticello for 1978-1979. The purpose of the maintenance agreement is to reimburse the municipality for the expense it incurs for the maintenance which consists of patching, crack sealing, mowing, snow and ice removal on County State Aid Highways. For a list of the roods within the City of Monticello, sea page 1 of the maintenance agreements. It should be noted that the miloage will increase from 3.876 miles to 3.920 miles as a result of a changeover and redesignation that the City requested on Walnut Street. - 2 - Agenda - 10/10/78 According to the agreement, the City maintains the items listed above, but the County is still responsible for all other maintenance including traffic services such as posting of truck load limitations, posting of speed signs, etc. It should be noted that the reimbursement per mile is $723.96 for the 1978 State Aid Agreement and $839.23 for the 1979 State Aid Agreement. The 1978 State Aid Agreement is based on actual cost figures by the County in 1976 and the 1979 State Aid Agreement is based onactual cost figures by the County in 1977. Depending upon the amount of snow removal, etc. that is experienced, there is a tendency for the amount per mile to fluctuate. For example, in 1977, our State Aid Agreement indicated a per mile figure reimbursement of $953.91, and the per mile figure for 1976 was $643.89. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of maintenance agreements on County State Aid Highways with Wright County for 1978 and 1979. i,REFERENCES': Fhclosed maintenance agreements for 1978 and 1979. 5. Consideration. of Sale of Off -Sale Liquor Store. At the Council's September 10, 1978 meeting, the decision was made by the Council to consider the possibility of selling the off -sale liquor store. At that time, the Council requested that information be submitted to them in advance so as to bring up the matter in 30 days at a council meeting. As you will recall, at their last Council there was enclosed with the agenda supplement a letter from myself dated September 22, 1978, relative to the possibility of the sale of the Municipal Off -Sale Liquor operation. As I mentioned at the last meeting, our fiscal consultant Springsted, Inc., that the City would be able to discontinue the Municipal Off -Sale Liquor Store operation. However, it was further indicated by Springsted that legal counsel should be sought once a decision has been made to discontinue the operation and got an opinion as to the procedure for establishment of an escrow account to retire the revenue bonds that are currently out- standing on the Municipal Liquor Store operation. It should be mentioned that the amount of the revenue bonds currently outstanding against the Municipal Liquor Store is $180,000. According to Springsted, Inc., there is some concern as to whether the City could earn interest on the funds deposited in the escrow fund. This could moan quite a substantial amount of interest could be lost and cer- tainly could play a factor in deciding whether to discontinue the munici- pal liquor store off -sale operations. However, it was decided not to seek legal counsel until such time as the City Council made a firm decision to discontinue operations contingent upon working out the details and approving the details of the escrow fund arrangement. Another possibility that has been mentioned would be for the City to lease the land and buildings and have a private party operate the liquor store establishment. It should be mentioned that this type of arrangement, if it were worked out, would mean that the City would still be able to take ad- vantage of any appreciation that took place on the land and buildings of the facilities. However, there is other aspects that might be a disad- vantage in that the City would realize no real estate taxes on the pro- -3- Agenda - 10/10/78 perty because it would still be owned by the City, plus the City would have to turn over 30% of the rents to the County according to State Statutes in lieu of property taxes. This is a similar situation the City had when it rented out the former house that sat behind the old senior citizens center. It would seem to me that the next action for the Council to consider would be the decision whether to discontinue the City's part in the opera- tion of the off -sale municipal liquor store, and if it was determined that the City should discontinue the operation, the details of the escrow fund arrangement could be checked out with legal counsel. It should be pointed out that this could cost the City in the area of $300 - $500 to determine the information. F1urthermore, either now or at a later date, this Council �a+ could decide whether to lease out the operation or to sell the buildings and land with the business itself. POSS�LE ACTION: Consideration of dispensing the municipal liquor store operations and contacting legal counsel relative to the u details of the liquor store revenue bonds. \ Consideration of Allocation of Fluids for the Senior Citizens Center. Members of the Senior Citizens Center operate the information center at the corner of Highway 25 and Broadway Street in the City of Wnticello. The arrangement previously approved by the City Council was to pay one- half (J) of the hourly salary (in 1978 the minimum wage was $2.30 per hour) to the individuals who actually operate the Center, and the other ono - half (J) would bei'built up in a reserve fund which could be utilized upon a request bylthe Senior Citizens Center provided it was approved by the City Council. At this point, one --half of this salary amounts to a reserve fund being built of $780.00, and enclosed, please find a request from the Senior Citizens Center to allocate the $780.00 towards the Center to pay the Center Ia share o;- $555.00 that went to the Title V Grant for the handicapped b thropma. Additionally, the Center is requesting the remain- ing amount allogated towards the $300.00 cash that the Center has to pay for cn in-ha:1d on the Title III Grant the Center has been awarded. This would cover the Center'a expenditure for these two Grant programs except. for $75.00. ' Enclosed, for your information, is a list of the items that would be funded through the Title III program, and also the written request from Karen Hanson, the Senior Citizens Center Director. i POSSIBLE ACTIO A: Consideration Of pe prova�o allocation of $780.00 towards the Siniodr-6lt4zens Center. REFERENCES: Enolosod letter from Karen Hanson along with list of items approved for the Title III Grant Application. -4- C IIII II.I II � Q IF rd Agenda - 10/10/78 7. Consideration of Approval of Certificate of Correction to Commercial Plaza 25. Enclosed, please find a surveyor's certificate of correction indicating that the Minnesota Registration number was not on the original plat filed with the City of Monticello, and apparently, by Statute it is required that any �4corrections to the final plat must be approved by the governing body. POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of the surveyor's certificate of correction. REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of surveyor's certificate of correction. 8.Quarterly Meeting with Department Heads. 7 The following Department Heads will be at Tuesday night's meeting for the quarterly meeting: 6ivil Defense Director N11 �' ✓� re Chief Q4{ ��� JRepresentative of Wright County Sheriff's Dept. p rti enior Citizens Director h Elding uor Store Manager 4 Inspecblic works tor tor City Administrator Q Some of the items that could be brought up would be the possibility of the additional civil defense sirens -that -were mentioned at the last meeting•. patro� 1 problems brought to the attention of the Wright County Sheriff's Department, specifically Ellison Park and West County Road 75. POSSIBLE ACTION: Quarterly meeting, are primarily for review, although specific items might come up that need Founcil decisions or action. e, s 1D tir1� �s 0 Aga VA ............ V7 4, CITY OF MONTTCELLO WVIGIfT COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONTRACT FOR DEVELOPMENT 01' BALBOUL ESTATES PLAT AND ADJACENT AREA THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 1978, between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, acting by and through its Mayor, and City Clerk, herein called the "CITY", and MARTIN GEORGE BUILDERS, INC., herein called the "DEVELOPER." Witness that the DEVELOPER, in considera- tion of the CITY accepting the plat of Balboul Estates Plat, agrees to furnish all labor, materials and equipment to install sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, permanent streets and appurtenant work, conforming with the approved development plan and in compliance with the City's engineer- ing plans and specifications prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron S Assoicates, Inc., hereinafter- referred to as "ENGINEERS.,, The above mentioned plans and specifications are hereby made a part of this agreement. The DEVELOPER agrees that. the work shall be (lone :and performed in the best. and most workmanlike manner; and all materials and labor shall be in strict, conformity with respect. to the plans and specifications approved by the Nuntior_Ilu City Cotlimil, October 10, 1978, and ordinances for the improvements of Bal bout instates Plat and shall b-: subject Lu the inspection and the approval of the C1111Y or a (tuly antha,rized engineer of the CITY, and in case any material or labor, supplied shall be rejected by the CITY, or engineer, as defective or unsuitable then such rejected material shall be removed and replaced with approved material, and the rejected labor shal l be redone to the. ,at.isfa..Limi and approval of the CITY or, engineer and at, the cost, and expense of Lhe DEVELOPER. The DEVELOPER agrees Lo have all work dune and the improvements fully completed to the n s"Lisfa,-tion and approval of the City Council of the ('it.y N of Monticello, Minnesota, before any building permits will be allowed. The DEVEL0PER shall not. do any work or furnish any [fill Lerials not, covered by the plans and specifivatluns and special conditions of this cont.racL, for which reiml.cursement is expected from the CITY, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the CITY as provided in the specificatians. 3 Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the contractor without such written order first being given shall be at his own risk, cost and ex- pense, and he hereby agrees that without such written order he will make no claims for compensation for work or materials so done or furnished. It is further agreed, anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, that the City of Monticello, City Council, and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the DEVELOPER, the DEVELOPER'S contractor or sub -contractors, materialmen, laborers or to any other person or persons whomsoever, for any claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or the performance and completion of the work and the improvements provided herein, and that the DEVELOPER will save the CITY harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of action or the costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same. It is agreed that the CITY will not accept the im- provements until they arc approved by the City Council of Monticello by resolution. The City Council shall. look to its engineers for recommendations and approval before final acccptante of the improvements. It is agreed that the CITY has authority to stop construction on the project if the engineers recommend a stop order because the project is being improperly constructed. The CITY'S engineers shall have. the sole responsibility to design the plans and specifications for the project, and to .inspect, the project. Any changes in the plans and specifications for the project shall. bt approved by the City Council of MOntillllo as recommended by the CITY engineer. It is further agreed that tho DEVELOPER, before / v stat ting the improvements, will provide a bond for one and one-half times the estimated construction cost, said cost boing One Hundred Forty eight Thousand One Hundred 41 Dollars ($10,100.00), in favor of the City of Monticello, .11 and additionally, place on deposit with the City of Monti , - i 1 o in the form of cash, the estimated cost for engineering scr�ices, lnupec•tion services, administration costs, legal posts, eta., in the amount of Twenty-five Thouwand One IIondred Seventy-soven Dollars ($25,171.00). �R• 3 _ _ a I.: CAfter the project is compl.-te and accepted by the CITY according to the provisions contained herein, a final accounting will be presented to the DEVELOPER by the CITY of actual engineering fees, inspection fees, ad- ministrative costs, legal costs, etc. related to the project and the DEVELOPER will either be refunded for the excess of the aforementioned deposit over the actual charges Or in the reverse situation, the DEVELOPER will, be billed the additional amount. In the event an additional billing is necessary to the DEVELOPER, actual acceptance of the project will be conditional upon payment of said fee by the DEVELOPER to the CITY. The indemnity bond with sureties mast be satisfactory to the CITY, conditioned upon the payment of all construction costs incurred for the making of the improvements. It is further agreed and understood that "Minnesota Department of Iligh ways, Specifications for Highway Con- s u•uction, 1959" and its supplements thereto is incorporated in and made a part of this contract by specific referen,.e and the same shall constitute a part of the plans and specifications referred to .in this agreement. SIGNATURE FOR DEVELOPER SIGNATURES FOR CITY OF MONT10E'LLO In C Marvin George, Conrad 0. Johnson, I'vesi dent. Mayor Gary Wieber, City Clerk Agenda - 10/10/78 ADDITIONAL AGENDA SUPPLEIENT 0 NEW BUSINESS: Consideration of Variances on Curb -cut Opendn&s - Viva Jean Abrahamson and Mike Erkle. According to Monticello City Ordinances, one curb -cut opening is allowed per lot. On the 1977-3 Street Improvement Project, if a property owner had previously more than one opening, or they used more than one area for a driveway, they were given the same number of curb -cut openings in return. Following are two requests for additional curb -cut openings that have requested to come before the City Council for a variance: 1. Viva Jean Abrahamson - Ms. Viva Jean Abrahamson lives on Linn Street between River and Front Streets„and is requesting two curb -cut openings, one of 181 and one of approximately 341. As you may recall, Ms. Abrahamson was granted approval of a subdivision whereby a parcel was added on to her existing lot, thereby creating one lot. It was the understanding of our Ehgin- eer, Keith Nelson, that the curb -cut opening request was to be put in on the parcel that was added to her existing lot. However, Ms. Abrahamson understood that the City would grant her one curb -cut opening for the new parcel added on to her existing lot and one curb -cut opening for her former lot. As a result then, Ms. Abrahamson is requesting that in addition to the curb -cut opening which was 181 pit into the parcel hat was added, she also would be granted another opening of approxi- ately 35' for her former existing parcel. It was indicated to her that she probably could get an 18' curb -cut opening for her former existing parcel, but that if a 351 curb -cut opening were granted, she in effect would have a total of 53' curb -cut opening for her entire parcel. Mike Erkle - Mr. Erkle, who lives on the corner of Wright and River Streets in the City of Monticello, wag given two curb -cut openings, one of approxi- mately 18' for hie garage and another 12t opening which was part of a U-shaped driveway. This curb -cut opening arrangement was approved by the former owner, which at the time was in an estate, and Mr. Erkle now would like to request that he be given a wider curb -cut opening in order that the U-shaped driveway would both have a separate exit and entrance. As the curb -cut openings aro currently situated, the exit for the U-shaped driveway comes out onto the driveway for the garage, and therefore, if there aro care sitting in front of the (��, garage, this would not permit a car to exit out onto Wright Street, \4 for example. As a result, if Mr. Erkle'a request were approved, he would have a total of 45' in curb -cut openings. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variances for the above two curb -cut opening requests. `- .0 �r � Agenda - 10/1078 NEW BUSINESS: Consideration of Extending Time Period for Mandatory Sewer Hook-up for those Parcels Served on the 1975-1 Improvement Project. Monticello City Ordinances require that parcels served with sanitary sewer be required to hook-up within three (3) years after such service is available. The 1975-1 Sewer & Water Improvement Project went out to such areas including Ritze Manor and Hillcrest Addition, and it was indicated at the time of the hearing that this would be a requirement of the Project that hook-up would be required to sewer within three years. Another notice and reminder was sent June ?b, 1978, that sewer hook-up would be required by October 15, 1978, which is three years past the date the project was completed and sewer was available. Another reminder was again sent an September 10, 1978. Many of the parcels served with sewer capabilities at that time have indicated that they are having a rough time trying to line up a contractor to hook them into the sanitary sewer. Of the fourteen parcels served, five have already indicated that they are having trouble in getting their contractor in to put in the sewer service prior to October 15, 1978. Attached, please find a list of the 14 parcels, and also indicating those people who have already requested extensions. In light of the 1977-3 Improvement Project, there are many people who are replacing old existing galvanized lines with copper lines, etc. and many of the contractors are in fact busy. As a result, I would recommend that the City Council extend the extension for those people who were served on the 1975-1 Sewer and Water Improvement Project to July 15, 1979. The other alternative would be to have the people who are in violation cited and go to court, which would be quite a lengthy procedure since there are such a large number of people involved at this point. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of extending variance for extension of sewer for those parcels served on the 1975-1 Sewer & Water Improvement Project to July 15, 1979. -2- City 4 %flonfice[lo 250 East Broadway `1 MONTICELLO. MN 55362 TELEPHONE 2952711 MONTICELLO METRO LINE 3335739 a century-old city with a nuclear ugo view REMNDFR Council Meeting — Monday — October 2, 1976 — 7:30 P. M. City Hell C% / RESOLUTION ACCEPTING STATE OF MINNESOTA'S GRANT OFFER ON WASTEWATER TREATMIiNT PLANT STEP I1. FUNDS Be it resolved by the City Count. it of Mont i4 el to, Minnesota, that it hereby accepts the, grant oi'fer from the State of Minnesota in the amount of $24.01i.liU for Step II - the design and preparation of plans and specifications for a wastewater treal.ment fatiIity. De It further resolved that the City of Monticello authorizes Its Mayor) the designated representati.te, to sign all documents necessary to the mteptauue of this grant offer. Resolution introduced by: Resolution srtnnded by: Vote on Resolution: Whereupon the above resolution was adopted at: the regular meeting of the Monticello City Council on October 10, 1978. ATTESTt Conrad 0. Johnsun Mayor Gary Wieber Clty Administrator P MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING October 2, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: C. 0. Johnson, Daniel Blonigen, Arve Grimsmo, Gene Walters, Phil White Public Hearing - Proposed Assessment Rolls for 1977-1 and 1977-2 Improvement Projects The hearing was opened to citizen's comments and the following people were heard: Kacey Kjellberg, representing Charles Ritze, requested that the assessments Por curb, gutter and street improvements along Mathew Circle be spread over, q lots rather than 3 as proposed. Ms. Kjellberg felt that the assessments against the 3 lots served by the cul de sac were high and felt that by including an assessment for street improvements against the lot abutting River Street, the remaining 3 lots would have a lower assessment. Keith Nelson, Consulting Engineer, recommended against assessing the River Street lot as this lot should be assessed in file future if curb, gutter, etc. was installed along River Street. Mr. Nelson indicated that the cul de sac was necessary to serve the 3 lots only, and therefore the entire costs should be picked up by those lots. Ralph MunsLerteigev inquired as to the final. date these a ,sr.ssmonts .ould be paid before they were placed on the taxes Co- 1079. 'rite City Administrator stated that assessments could bc� taken until. November Ist before they are certified to the County Audi tor. Ilearing no nlhnrrommentm, the hearing was closed. Motion %an made by Gene Walters, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to adopt a Resolution adopting the :ossment Rolls Cor the 1977-1 and 1977-2 projects as vied with if G 3/q'," annual interest rate spread over 20 years. (See Resolution 197h- ) Meeting adjourned �(rry fi eber C i t l' Admin i fit rator GW/ja