City Council Agenda Packet 05-27-1980AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 27, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor: Arve Grimsmo
Council Members: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White
Meeting to be taped.
Citizens Comments -
Public Hearing - Consideration of a Resolution to Order Plans and
a Specifications on the Extension of Sanitary Sewer, Water and Street
Improvements - Prairie Road.
t
/2. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Variance for a Zero Lot Line
A Duplex and a Variance from the Minimum Lot Size in an R-2 Zone -
Quintin Lanners.
3. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Consignment Auction
Sales and/or Auction Sales within a R-3 Zone.
n 4. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a VnriAnca from !!crt:c llo
1 Gruinances keiative to Off -Street Parking and a Conditional Use Request
for an Auction Sales Facility - Robert Davis.
p5. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision - Kenneth Larson.
6. Consideration of Appointment of Council Members to an Ad Hoc Committee
to establish a New Joint Powers Agreement with Monticello School
�s District 4882 for a Joint Recreation Program.
A7. Consideration of Award of a Contract for Garbage Disposal and Removal.
8. Review of Engineer's Progress and the Allocation of Chemical Feed
Equipment and Cost.
A 9. Consideration of Approval of Intoxicating Liquor, Non -Intoxicating Malt
Liquor, Club Liquor and Set Up Licenses.
A 10. Approval of Bills - May 1980.
11. Approval of Minutes - Special Meetings of 4/24/80 and 5/13/80, and Regular
Meeting of 5/12/80. qS1$i7
Unfinished Business - M
V\Macarlund Plaza Improvements
New Business - j
I
City Council - 5/27/80
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Resolution to Order Plans and Specifi-
cations on the Extension of Sanitary Sewer, Water and Street improvements -
Prairie Road.
PURPOSE: Since this project, which was reviewed at the City Council's last
meeting, is proposed to be assessed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
a public hearing is necessary to allow input from all proposed property
owners to be assessed.
Although a copy of the feasibility report was handed out at the last
meeting, a copy is again enclosed for your reference. Primary concern will
most likely be the estimated assessments, which are as follows:
PARCELS TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED COST
Lots 16-19, Blk 4 Sewer 6 Water Services Only $1,950 per lot
Lot 3, Blk 5
Lots 1-6, Blk 6
MEADOWS PLAT
Lots 20-23, Blk 4 Sewer, Water 6 Street Improvement $5,053.55 per lot
MEADOWS PLAT and Service Connection
Loi 2», DIK 4 Sewer, water a Street and $5,386.15
MEADOWS PLAT Service Connection
Unplatted Parcel Sewer, Water, Street and $19,881.60 entire parcel
Owned by Mr. B Mrs. four (4) service connections
Don Christopher
These assessments total $61,081.95, which is the total cost of the improve-
ment project estimated by our engineering firm.
As you may recall, at our last meeting the developer, Mel Wolters, and his
real estate agent, Ralph Munsterteiger, indicated that they may contract
privately for the lots that only need service connections for the Meadows
Addition. if the City Council does adopt a resolution to have plans and
specifications prepared by our engineer for this project, it should be
determined beforehand whether these service connections will be part of
the project.
It should be mentioned that i have talked to Mr. 6 Mrs. Don Christopher, and
have indicated to them the estimated assessment on their parcel. Mr. 6 Mrs.
Christopher expressed concern with the cost of the improvement since
Mr. Christopher is quite ill at this time and they were unsure of their
financial capability of paying for such an improvement project.
M
COUNCIL AGEiIDA - 5/27/80
V �
\� Ralph Munsterteiger had indicated to me that he was aware of the
b Christopher's concern and that he was considering the possibility of making
\� a proposal to the Christophers of purchasing a portion of their land to
11 diminish the financial impact.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a resolution to have plans and specifi-
cations prepared for the improvement project and determination made whether
such plans, if approved, would include those lots in the Meadows Addition
which would only require sewer and water service connections.
REFERENCES: Copy of the feasibility report prepared by John Badalich.
Also, memorandum on additional information enclosed.
Public Hearinq on the Consideration of a Variance for a Zero -Lot Line and
a Variance from the Minimum Lot Size in an R-2 Zone - Quintin Lanners.
PURPOSE: Consideration of request made by Mr. Quintin Lanners for two
variances, one to have a zero lot line and the second to obtain a variance
from the minimum size lot in an R-2 zone. Mr. Lanners proposes to build a
duplex on the south ; of Lot 3, and the south I of Lots 4 8 5, Block 38,
Lower Monticello. In its entirety, the property contains 13,600 square feet.
It should be pointed out that the lot size is of sufficient size to meet
the standards of a normal type of duplex, however, Mr. Lanners proposes to
sell each portion of the duplex rather than merely rent it out. This type
^f zpprcrc` IS bai„g U&uj iii ,everai otner communities in the State of
Minnesota, and has become quite common. In some respects, it is similar to
acondominium for two family dwelling, however, there is a distinction in
that each owner has a specific parcel of land in addition to an equity
position.
A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, copy of which Is
enclosed, would be recorded along with the property. These covenants and
restrictions are for the purpose of protecting the value, desirability,
etc. of that real estate, and to cover the interests of the parties who have
an equity position in the described property. These covenants will continue
on the property regardless of transfer of ownership. For example, it states
who would share in the repair and maintenance expense, and deals with other spe-
cific topics which are pertinent to the maintenance of that property.
John Uban, with Howard Dahlgren Associates, has dealt with this similar issue
in some of the communities he has worked with in the Metro area, and feels
In fact that the City, in the future, could allow this on a permitted use
basis, as long as the covenants were part of the proposal. if this type of
development becomes commonplace in the City of Monticello, possibly an
ordinance amendment could be enacted rather than to deal with each issue
on a variance basis.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their last meeting, the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance for a zero lot line
and a variance from the City's minimum lot standard for the R-2 zone of
10,000 square feet. One adjacent property owner, who was present at the
meeting, indicated he had no particular objections after he heard the pro-
posal In its entirety.
- 2 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/27/80
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of variances requested
for a zero lot line and the creation of two lots, each of which would be less
than the City's 10,000 square foot minimum requirement in an R-2 zone.*
REFERENCES: Copy of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions 8 Restrictions,
etc., Plat Plan showing the proposed development, map depicting area in which
property is located and Planning Commission Minutes of 5/20/80.
3. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Consiqnment Auction Sales
and/or Auction Sales within a B-3 Zone.
PURPOSE: Asa result of a request by Bob Davis (see next agenda item) to
operate an auction sales facility, an ordinance amendment is necessary to
allow such a use within the zoning ordinances themselves. For your informa-
tion, unlessa specific use is spelled out within the ordinances, there is
a provision which prohibits any such type of use.
In order to better control such a use, a proposal was presented to the
Planning Commission at their last meeting which would make an auction sales
facility a "Conditional Use" within a B-3 zone. By amending the ordinance
in this fashion and allowing such a use as a conditional use, the City of
Monticello would still retain control through the establishment of various
conditions. The conditions that were proposed to the Planning Commission at
their last meptinn warp ac fnllnwc:
A. The architectural appearance and function -plan of the building and
site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as
to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting
influence within a reasonable distance of the lot.
B. At the boundaries of residential districts, a strip of not less than 5'
shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Ordinance Section
10.3-2-(G) of this Ordinance.
C. Any 1 ight standard islands and all islands in the parking lot shall be
landscaped or covered.
D. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(G) of this
Ordinance.
E. Parking areas and driveways shall comply with Monticello Ordinance
10.3- 5-(D) .
F. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of
conflict through traffic movements, shall comply with Ordinance Section
10-3-5 of this Ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
G. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is
not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence,
and shall be in compliance with Section 10-3-2-(H) of this Ordinance.
*Variances require 4/5's
vote for approval . - 3 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/27/80
N. The entire area shall have drainage system which is subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
I. All signing and information or visual communication devices shall be
in compliance with Ordinance Section 10-3-9.
J. The provisions of Ordinance Section 10-22-1-(E) of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
K. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when
the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds
that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or
better by modifying the conditions.
L. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring
residential uses or abutting residential districts in compliance with
Section 10-3-2-(G) of this Ordinance.
M. Outside sales connected with the principal use is limited to 30% of the
gross floor area of the principal building. This percentage may be
increased as a condition of the conditional use permit.
N. Outside Sales areas may not take up parking space as required for
conformity to the ordinance requirement.
0. No pets or livestock may be sold at this auction sales facility.
P. Provisions must be made to control and reduce noise when adjacent to
a residential zoning district.
Q. Ail outside storage shall be effectively screened from public view
in accordance with Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(G), and
limited to 10% of the gross floor area of the principal use building.
In addition to the establishment of conditions for such a use, one other
concern was relative to the parking. Although the current ordinance does
not allow auction sales as either a permitted or conditional use within any
zoning section, part of the zoning ordinance dealing with parking alludes to
requirements for skating rinks, dance halls or public auction houses and
the number of spaces that are required. Loren Klein, our zoning adminis-
trator, reviewed this section in light of the three uses mentioned, and also
in light of Bob Davis's proposal in the next agenda item, and felt the
ordinance should be amended since a building of 2,400 square feet would
only need 21 parking spaces, when the occupant load in that building could
be possibly as high as 162 spaces. As a result, Loren Klein proposed to
the Planning Commission a formula which would essentially require one parking
space for each 40 square feet of building area, and as a result, a 2,400
square foot building would require 60 parking spaces. Additionally, this
appears more in line with the parking that has been provided by the roller
rink, although at the time, less restrictive ordinance was still in effect,
but the roller rink chose to provide additional parking spaces because of need.
- 4 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/21/80
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission, hearing no objections on the proposed ordinance amendments,
voted unanimously to recommend an ordinance amendment be adopted to allow
such a use within a B-3 zone as a conditional use with the conditions men-
tioned above and the parking ordinance revised so that such a use would
require one parking space for each 40 square feet of building area.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of ordinance amend-
ment to allow a consignment auction sales and/or auction sales facility
within a B-3 zone, along with the conditions referenced above and a
revision to the Monticello City Ordinance relative to parking for such a
use along with skating rinks and dance halls, requiring one parking space
for each 40 square feet of building area.*
REFERENCES: Planning Commission Minutes of 5/20/80.
4. Public Hearinq on the Consideration of a Variance from Monticello Ordinances
Relative to Off -Street Parking and a Conditional Use Request for an
Auction Sales Facility - Robert Davis.
PURPOSE: As mentioned in the previous item, Robert Davis, who owns the
property across the street to the west of Heskins Electric on Oakwood Dr.
has made an application for a conditional use permit so that he may
abLaoi ibis an oucLiun saleb faCiiiLy of Lhe Type LIIdL ib V,Jyosc. In the
ordinance amendment in the previous item, along with variance request
not to require this proposed parking area to be hardsurfaced or curb and
guttered. Obviously, this request is predicated upon the approval by the
City Council of an ordinance amendment to allow such use in the first
place.
Bob Davis has a building that is approximately 2,400 to 2,500 square feet,
and as a result, if the above formula were revised for parking in the
previous agenda item, approximately 60 parking spaces would be required.
However, Mr. Davis has indicated that since he is just starting out in
this particular business venture, he would like to have a period of one-
year in which to determine whether the business were successful to warrant
the financial investment into a parking lot that could cost him somewhere in
the vicinity of $30,000. Mr. Davis indicated he would be willing to post
a bond in the interim for ley times the engineer's estimate of such an
improvement.
According to Monticello City Ordinance Section 10-23-4. variances are to
be based on factors other than an economic hardshi p situation. However,
our Planner, John Uban, indicated that the variance still may merit con-
sideration since Mr. Davis indicated that currently he is only open
Friday nights from 7 to 10 P.M. This is only three hours out of the week
out of a possible 168 hours, and when one considers the variances granted
for Trinity Lutheran Church to develop their park ing lot and not require
hardsurfacing, it would be consistent. As the auc tion house is open for
more hours and this could be reviewed at the end of the one-year requested
or further extension granted, City Council at that time could require the
area to be hardsurfaced and curb and guttered.
'Ordinance Amendments require
4/5's vote for approval - 5 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/27/80
One concern expressed at the Planning Commission meeting was with parking along
Oakwood Drive that may occur if sufficient space, although maybe not requiring
hardsurfacing right away, would not be available. Mr. Davis indicated that the
cars now attending his auction are parking on his property and he has had as
many as 63 cars. He has indicated that only on a few occasions have some of
the individuals parked on the County Road, but this was earlier in the year
when the frost had not gone out of the ground yet.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission, after reviewing the ordinance amendment in the previous item
and applying it against Mr. Davis's property and also reviewing the
variances requested, recommended to the Council that the conditional use
and the variances be granted.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a
consignment auction sales facility and a variance from the Monticello City
Ordinance requiring all parking areas to be hardsurfaced and curb and
guttered (this variance is being requested for one year, and as Mr. Davis
indicated, he would be willing to post such a bond).•
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area, Planning Commission Minutes 5/20/80.
5. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision - Kenneth Larson.
piippncr• A ran PO hac hppn maAp by Mr. Kenneth Larson for a simple subdivi-
sion of property. Mr. Larson owns the east 51' of Lot 6 and all of Lots 7 8 8,
Block 32 in Lower Monticello. This parcel contains 30,195 square feet, and
Mr. Larson proposes to divide these lots, which currently run in a north/
south direction, into two lots which run in an east/west direction.
Each of the two lots would be approximately 82'-5' x 183', or 15,0971p sq. ft.
This would far exceed the City's minimum 10,000 square foot requirement
for an R-2 zone, and each lot would exceed the City's requirement in terms
of width, or 80'.
One possible use of this lot would be for the relocation of the current home
owned by the Monticello Clinic to be possibly purchased and moved to this site
to accommodate a new medical clinic just east of the Hospital. However, at
the Planning Commission's last meeting, a request for moving this home was
postponed by the applicant. However, Mr. Larson would still like to proceed
with the subdivision of this particular parcel since he intends to create
the two lots as previously outlined.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At their last meeting, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of such a simple sub-
division. contingent upon Mr. Larson providing the City of Monticello
with a certificate of survey and proof of recording of the same.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of subdivision request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area of lots 8 Planning Comm. Min. 5/20/80.
\ •Variances b Conditional Uses require
4/5's vote of Council for approval.
- 6 -
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/27/80
6. Consideration of Appointment of Council Members to an Ad Hoc Ccmnittee
to Establish a New Joint Powers Agreement with Monticello School District #882
for a Joint Recreation Program.
As a result of a comment in the State Auditor's report, the City of Monticello
and the School District of Monticello should have a written agreement
relative to the summer recreation program being provided by both parties.
Additionally, in talking to Duane Gates, Community Development Director, and
Shelly Johnson and in light of past budget approvals by the Council relative
to this item, it has been suggested that a committee be established to pre-
pare a proposal on a joint recreation program between the two bodies, rather
than just merely writing a joint powers agreement to cover the existing
conditions, since each body would have an opportunity to get input into
revising an entirely new agreement.
In talking to Duane Gates, he has mentioned this to School District's Joint
Advisory Board on Community Education, of which one of their functions is
joint recreation, and also Shelly Johnson, School Superintendent, and every-
one felt that the idea was good at this time to sit down and take a
philosophical approach to this item. As a result, Duane has indicated that
the Joint Advisory Board on Community Education has appointed two members to
this ad hoc committee should it develop. it was anticipated that the School
District also will appoint two members and the City appoint two members so
that there would be a total composition of this committee of six members. This
committee would be ad hoc in that its function would be specific and not an
a on-going or standing committee. Their assigned task would be to develop
e;reement hotwpen the School District and the City of
Monticello for such a joint recreation program.
It is anticipated that this Committee could come back to the City Council
and School Board with the proposed agreement within 30 to 45 days.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of appointment of two Counc it members to
serve on the above -referenced ad hoc committee.
7. Consideration of Award of a Contract for Garbage Disposal and Removal.
PURPOSE: To award a contract for garbage disposal service to commence
August 1 , 1980.
As you recall at our last meeting, the City Council approved the proposed
contracts to be bid for garbage disposal service for Monticello.
Bids are to be accepted on Tuesday, May 27, 1980 at 2:00 P.t4., and the bids
ill be tabulated along with a recommendation to the City Council as to
Ir the award at Tuesday night's meeting.
\ POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of awarding a one or three-year contract for
garbage disposal service on a once or twice -weekly pick up service.
\ REFERENCES: A list of bids will be submitted at Tuesday ni ght's meeting.
Cis'
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/21/80
8. Review of Engineer's Progress and the Allocation of Chemical Feed Equipment
—i r-+
This item has been under unfinished business for several times in the past
and has been listed as the Wrightco Report. Purpose of this item is to
have our engineer prepare an allocation of costs on the chemical feed
equipment purchased and completed by September of 1979 at a cost of $16,646.28
for capitol outlay costs plus engineering fees. it was proposed by the
Council to allocate this cost along with continuous chemical cost between
the City of Monticello and Wrightco Products, the City's only classified
industrial user according to EPA standards. It was primarily because of
Wrightco that such chemical feed equipment was installed at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant to reduce the City's effluent level to acceptable standards
of the EPA.
John Badalich will be able to fill the Council in on the progress of this
report and the proposed allocation of costs. it is essential that this
be completed as soon as possible since the City is expending money on a
daily basis for such chemical costs and desires to bill Wrightco Products
its proportionate share, and this, of course will be building up all the
time as we go along.
My recommendation would be to have this report presented at the next Council
meeting on June 9, 1980 and that a report be prepared at least a week in
advance in order to allow Jim Ridgeway, with Wrightco Products, an oppor-
tunity to review the report with his engineer.
YU»1 LL N611VN: bU nSiuci dt,3ii o, nu.ify our ,n.31... -cc. prepare - rennrt
9. Consideration of Approval of Intoxicatinq Liquor, Non-Intoxicatinq Malt
Liquor, Club Liquor and Set Up Licenses.
Following is a list of licenses that expire on June 30, 1980:
A. Non-Intoxicatinq On -Sale Malt Liquor License (Fee $100j
Monticello Rod 8 Gun Club
B. Intoxicatinq On -Sale Liquor License (Fee $2,500)
Monticello Liquors, inc.
Silver Fox Motel
Wayside inn
Joyner's Lanes
8-
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/27/80
C. Non-Intoxicatinq Off -Sal a Malt Liquor License (k -e-111)
Monticello Liquors, Inc.
Ernie's Bait Shop 30
Wayne's Red Owl
Maus Foods
River Terrace Trailer Park Store
Tom Thumb Supere tte
Wayside Inn
John's Discount Foods
Holiday Station
0. Set -Up License (Fee $100) iko
Monticello Country Club
E. Club License (Fee $100) 40
American Legion Club
VFW Club
it should be noted that the Holiday Station Store is a new license request.
Additionally, the fees that are noted above in parenthesis are the fees
charged during the past year. It should be pointed out in 1979 the State
Legislature raised the maximum fee for Club Licenses, which was previously
$100, to no limit. However, this was amended during the 1980 Session
to allow for a fee of a maximum of $300 for membership up to 200 members;
$500 annually for membership from 201 to 500 members. The VFW Club has
170 mamhars And t.hp Amprir.an I.e01on Club 355 members according to their
latest applications. Representatives of the VFW and American Legion Club
have been notified indicating that there is a possibility that the City
Council may, in fact, consider adjusting the license fee at the May 27,
1980 meeting.
In regard to the establishment of the other fees, the City of Monticello
can establish any fee they see fit, except for a set up license for which
the maximum fee may only be $300. It should be pointed out that the fees
have not been increased for any of the above licenses since 1975, and it
would seem that an increase would be certainly justified. However, the
Council may want to consider an adjustment at next year's annual renewal
to give license holders adequate advance notice of a proposed increase
similar to the one given to the VFW and the American Legion Club on their
possible proposed increase.
In the past, when licenses for liquor have been renewed, 1 have contacted
the Wright County Sheriff's Department to see if there was any particular
problems with any of the license holders. The only concern expressed
by a representative of the Wright County Sheriff's Department was in the
case of license owned by Monticello liquors, Inc. Main concern here was
that the closing hours are 1 A.M. and there has been some indication on
occasions that the establishment has been open past this hour. However,
- 9 -
1
COUNCIL AGENDA - 5/27/80
at the same time, the Wright County Sheriff's representative indicated
that he really doesn't have adequate documentation to recommend that they
not be given a license. However, if their license is approved, I can
notify them of the City's concern and remind them of the hours. Also,
I have asked the Wright County Sheriff's Department in the future to
document any violations relative to the present liquor license holders.
In this manner, the City of Monticello will have better documentation if
it were to consider denial of renewal of a license.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of above licenses and setting
of the annual fee for the same.
- 10 -
r
PEAS IBILITY REPORT AND
ESTIMATE OF COST
FOR
PUBLIC INP POVEMENT PROJECT NO. 80-2
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
MAY 12, 1980
TYPE. OF 4?ORK:
The general nature of this improvement is the construction of
sanitary sewer, water main, bituminous street paving and
necessary app>>rtenances in the City of Monticello.
II. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT
The proposed improvement provides for sanitary sewer, water
main and street paving on Prairie Road to abutting property
between Redman Lane South and Hedman Lane North. These ex-
tensions are proposed thru the .intersection of Hedman Lane
Horth for future extensions to the west and north so that the
intersection will not have to be dug up again. Also sanitary
sewer and water main houses services will have to be constructed
to Lots 16, .17, 18 and 19, Block 4, Lot 3, Block 5 and Lots 1,
2 and 3, Block G. The Meadows in that these services were not
provided at the time BaE
lboul states was developed by Marvin
George.
III. LOCATION
The proposed improvement is located on Prairie Road between
Wright County Nn. 75 and Hedman Lane North in the Meadows.
(See attached Map)
IV. LENGTH OF' IMPROVEMEIIT
The proposed improvement consists of approximately 700 feet of
10" sanitary sewer, 550 feet of G" water main and 500 foot of
bituminous street paving.
V. FEASIBIL=TY:
Prom an engineering otandpoint, the project is feasible and can
best be accomplished a!:3 proposed.
V1. PRELIMINA11Y COST ESTIMATE:
•Bne estimated construction cont for each of these improvements,
plus indirect costs is as follows:
A7 /
M
A. Sanitary Sewer Construction $15,100.00
Plus Indirect Costs (208) 3,020.00
Assessable Cost $18,120.00
B. Water Main Construction $12,200.00
Plus Indirect Costs (201) 2.400.00
Assessable Cost $14,640.00
C. Bituminous Street Paving Construction $10,600.00
Plus Indirect Costs (208) 2,120.00
Assessable Cost $12,720.00
D. Sewer and Water House Service Costs Only
Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, Block 4
Lot 3, Block 5
Lots, 1, 2 & 3, Block 6,
"The meadows" $13,000.00
Plus Indirect Costs (208) 2,600.00
Assessable Costs $15,600.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST
VII. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
$61,080.00
A. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN HOUSE SERVICES ONLY
Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19,
Block 4 - Lot 3,
Block 5 - Lots 1. 2 and
3, Block 6, "The Meadows."
B. SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAIN & STREET
Lots 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 4, The Meadows. Also all that
part of the NW 114 of the Sr 1/4 of Section 4, T.121N, R.25W
lying northeasterly of Interstate 94. (Parcel 155-500-044 200)
Vill. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
The sanitary sewer and water main laterals will be 1009 assessed
against benefited property using a unit or parcel method. A
unit or parcel is equal to ono (1) developed single family
residential lot or a vacant platted lot which meets the City's
minimum lot requirements for a single family dwelling, with a
width of at least 80'; or, in the case of an unplatted area, the
number of units shall be determined by the number of minimum
sized lots, each having 801 frontage on the particular utility
Line being constructed that could be obtained by subdividing the
property.
The street imprOverlunt will be assessed 1008 against the abutting
property on a front foutago- basis.
t
In those lots where we are constructing sanitary
sewer and
water main house services only, the cost will be
assessed 100%
aqainst all the lots involved.
Total Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
Assessable Cost
$32,760.00
$32,760.00 - 9 units = $3640.00/Unit
Total Street, Assessable Cost
$12,720.00
$12,720 - 765' = $16.63/Front Foot
Total Sanitary Sewer and Water Main House
Services, Only - Assessable Cost
$15,600.00
$15,600 - 8 lots = $1950/Lot
ESTIMATED ASSESSME14TS PER PARCEL
"The Meadows" Addition
Lot 16, Block 4 - Services Only
5 1,950.00
Lot 17, Bluvk 4 - Services Only
$ 1,950.00
Lot 18, Block 4 - Services Only
$ 1,950.00
Lot 19, Block 4 - Services Only
$ 1,950.00
C ,
Lot 20, Block 4 - Sewer, water and Street
Lot 21, Block 4 - Sewer, Water and Street
$ 5,053.55
$ 5,053.55
Lot 22. Block 4 - Sewer. Watt-r and SYrnnt
c s n53 sg
Lot 23, Block 4 - Sewer, Water and Street
$ 5,053.55
Lot 24, Block 4 - Sewer, Water and Street
$ 5,386.15
Lot 3, Block 5 - Services Only
$ 1,950.00
Lot 1, Block 6 - Services Only
$ 11950.00
lot 2, Block 6 - Services Only
$ 11950.00
Lot 3, Block. 6 - Services Only
S 1,950.00
Parcel 155-500-044-200 (4 units + 320' Frontage)
$19,881.60
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
crofassioiial Llsgiiii]ei: under Lhe laws of Lime State
of Minnesota. �j
nice/1,/I //111-1 I
VJohn 11. Bodalich, P.G.
Date: May 12, 1980 Reg. No. 4985
"THE MEADOWS"
b e ° \Q•� yQ
' ere,• 13-, .r rw
Ilk
j r a'• _
M4 •fb• •bb�•b ,,r�J „ ' o
4
i 6
/.
'M1y 0 i• 4 6 a�� • � •' `. 1 . .f1� •f� '
ro
� ;;�;�•.•:. i• . a /.^ 1 ifs i�f . '1, t '�
® .•• ��4• ,mss ifs �,° ,�>
•�.Fr ..
ff a�n � ,e to 'a's's fl)�)° f•n t f i �i 6 s _
ei! ft i� � • 9 �. i ���' .P( + i� r � ' r
r a7 r 1 64
J �
�..f.
•r • as a a Raaf �,��•na�aA��/a�� a sae a�a ~~ t;
..max-. asw•
3�, , I I � I t.l I •,arp•p ��1 N~ �u�ri.a
i11 MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA `
IMPROVEMENT NOJO-2
LEGEND
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATER MAIN
II , PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
10� ••••••H• PROPOSED WATER MAW
f IMdmwtb�l PROP05EO BITUMINOUS STREET DAVM
„n„•,y„�u„W„ SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES
ONLY
Telephone 2952711
(fifty of //Monticello
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor 8 CityC�%/�fc)il Members
FROM: Gary Wieber.
DATE: May 22, 1980
Mets 0 One 333 5739
SUBJECT: Additional Information on Agenda Item tl - May 27, 1980 Agenda
After the Agenda Supplement was typed up, I had the occasion to talk to
Ralph Munsterteiger relative to the concerns expressed by Mr. b Mrs.
Don Christopher on the proposed cost of improvements to their property.
Mr. Munsterteiger, along with Mr. Quintin Lanners. indicated there may
be the possibility of purchasing the Christopher Property and developing
this area into duplexes similar to the proposal in Agenda Item 02, and
also having a portion of the property for multiple family dwellings.
This would entail ultimate rezoning of a portion of the parcel from
3 R-1 to R-2 and another portion from R-1 to R-3.
Both Mr. Munsterteiger and Mr. Lanners indicated that if the parcel
were to be purchased, it would be contingent upon the City of Monticello
ultimately rezoning the property to R-2 and R-3 as stated above.
Mr. Munsterteiger showed me a proposed layout for the R-2 and R-3
area and 1 believe it has some merit.
Mr. Munsterteiger and Mr. Lanners have been in contact with Mr. Christopher
and I requested that they have a proposal ready to be presented to the
Council at Tuesday night's meeting. Based upon the proposal that is
presented at Tuesday night's meeting, the Council may want to defer action
on the ordering of plans and specifications until such time as the formal
application for rezoning has been submitted to the Council for approval.
GW/ns
1J t
Waa U�/ ``pp
olcomo to 71flonlico!(o(i//� o mouelain
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Quintin Lanners
,O,J, z1f)"11-1 — —
0
DLCLARA T.1 ON OF
COVEMAUTS, CONDITIONS Atli)
• RESTRICTIONS
7'1115 11CCLARATION,
made as of this day of
19-1 by, Corporation of Minnesota, Xtic. hereinafter rcf,rrt-(j
to as De c Ia r. t n t.
.111TUESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the ot-mer of
according t,,
011: rec0l.'dcd plat thereof situated in Countv, Mimes
0
The blocks zmd Lots contained therein are as follows:
Block I Lotr, 1 through 9
Block 2 Lots I through 6
Block 3 Lots.1 through 4
Block 4 Y,ots I through 14
Bloc% 5 Lots 1 through C-, ::r.Z
;1 -HERE -AS, Dacl:.rant intends to construct two family
).C..;lOcnitial units on the aforesaid - prope r tios;
NOW, THEA -.-F ::E, Declarant here!)y declares that 11:t of tr,(t
pxapert:3.cs described* move shall be ho.1a, solcl and convened svb`.c.cL
to Uw io.110%...ing case --.ants, rc,..'LricLirj.iz., covoriantn, illid cr'ndi"..i;o-1:;'
which ..,rc for the pv.r:)=se of protcctirg the valuc. and
of, z:r.d %:hich shall ri:nwith, the real property ard be r'r.
ar,ivs h irg any right, title or interest in the dc-scriL'ad
In.0;)Urtic-, or any part thereof, t!scir I.cirs, s'ucccssurs avid z,s-..cnL;
inure to '_'-c bcnef.it of each o%;ncr thereof.
ARTICLE I
DIXIVITIONS
this 1) he I!
_xor ..;rlarztt on, 0 0
hw_-� the M-3:0 h c 1'1'*.
St.r.t.ion 1. "LivSmj Ll:.-iL" -1-i-.111 it:vl c
ldi !-.-; ; I - r.) vi)-jr) t it:. I
.),�,)-tion of a v-,sieence b -t-
1..7
Section 2. "Lot" sti;ill mean and refer to any Portion of
land in the Properties upon which a Living Unit is situated, whcthe
or not the same is a platted lot.
Section 3. "Owner." shall m^_an and refer to the• record
owner, uliether one•or pore persons or entities, of a fee simple
title to any Lot which is a part of the Properties, including
contract sellers and vendees, but excludirg those- having Luch
interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation,
and excluding those having a lien upon the proPcrty by provision
or operation of law.
Section 4, "Prcoerties" shall neap and refer to the
real property hereinbefore described.
ARTICLE II
BUILDING AND USE REST;tICTIM'S
Section 1. Residential Use. No Lot or Living Unit shall•
b- used except .o.Yresidential p --noses.
Sect•_on 2• No Noxious Activity. No noxious or o_=cj:sisC
acLivi ties shalt be conducte:2 on any Lot or Living Unit, nor shall-
:inyt-hing he done thereon which nay be or become an annoy,cnce or
nui::ance to other O::r.e•rs.
See' 3. Garbzoe_and rcfuse FZcmoval.. Nn Lot s!iall
be used or nnaintair.a.: is a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash,
garbage or other vast_ shall not be l:cp t c7.ccpt in ,.ani.t,Lry
containers.
Section 4. No Animals Exce`t Pets. N0,foil l, eninals or ../
i:i:c•cts shat! .,_ !.c_t on any Li%•!ng.Ur.i: or LuL c-xa•?t dogs, c•_ts
:incl o',her co- •hous chold pets, • provided that t !icv ,_i•c nuc; }cc
i
or ma'-r.t::invc! `o= r.ny c:crii2rcia1
-2-
Section 5. Prohibited Structu:c ..' 110 structure o: a
temporary character, trailer, basement, lent, shat),, garage, or ol:
building eIcept* a permanent. residence, shall be used on any.Lot
at any time as a residence, either temporarily or pernanently_
Section G. . Model and Sales Use.' All use herein not.wit`.
standing, any Living* unit ray be used for a model multip'-e fa
residence' building, or for a real estate office with custc•:ary
development signs during the development period of the Develop -a_,
its successors or assigns.
Section 7.. Hazardous Activities Prohibited, 1:o Owne= s
engage in or.permit any activities in his Living Unit,- or, :air.`
or permit any conditions in his Living Unit, which :ould �c
considered extra -hazardous by fire •insurance comnanies' o= ::•o�lc
adversely affect the insurability of the Living Unit c,hic:_ sea.e.
a party gall with iris Living Unit.
ARTICLE III
VA RT Y l•:ALLS
Section 1 General Pules of S.av to AYrl,. Eac'c will
is.built as part of tha -original construction of 'any Living Un it
upon the Proncrties �-3 placed on the dividing line bctt:cen t::o
(2) Living U^its Sia -1 constitute a party wall -and to the cNtu::_
not inconsi e.tent cr:t`: the provisions o: lhi•. 7.r: icln, thn ,c^c=,
rules of 1.1w _e3_=c_ng pally walls an:! of 3i3Oii?.i.Ly for prn ar,%
dmaayc due• to ncnl:crQnt or will Ful ants or omi:. • ions Awi!
lhercto.
Secl'io^ 2. Shaic :. of Rcruair onci
of 'rer.sone!ile rerrir and maintcnc:ice of each party well sht:l'
use.
07 '
Section 3. Destruction by fire or Otacr. CaSCalt%-. If a
party "all is destroyed or damaged by fire or ottrcr casualty or b;z
physical deterioration, any Owner who has used the wall may res' _
it, and ::hall have an casement over the vdjoining Living Unit for
purposes of mating such restoration, and if other Owners thereafter
;sake use of the a;all they shall contribute to the cost -of restorat`_-
thereof in proportion to such use without prejudice, however, --to t!! -
right of any such Owner to call for a larger contribution from ot:e:
Owners under any rule of lat.; regarding liability for negligent or
willful acts of omissions.
Section 4. WeatherProo'fina. Not�iithstanding any other
provision of this Article, any Owner who by his negligent or o:ill:;
act, causes any party e:all to be "exposed to the elcm.ents or excess:
heat or cold shall bear the %-.-hole cost of furnishing the r.eccs-,--;
protection against such 'elements or heat or cold, and of repeirin=
the party tall from damage caused by'such exposure.'
Section S. Richt to Contribution Runs with Land. ?i;c
right of any u>:ner'.to contrabution troy any other Owner unr.er ti:is
Article shall be -_.urtenant to the Lot and shall pass to such
Owner's :.successors in title.
S(-ction .6. Arbitration. In •the event of any dispute
arising co.icerning a p,:s:.y t',111, or under the provisions of this
ArtiCle, each party shall choose one arbitrator and such ar::trator:
::},all choose one ::ddit_onal arbitrator, and the decision of a
majority of all the arbitrators shall be final and conclusic of
the.. question invnlvc4. It cithur partyreCl;scs or fails to . .
pro:apily zppoiab an arbi.tratur, the :mc may be appoi ;ted by any
jucigc of -h^ St::`_c c'__strict court for t:,::,hintton ,Cour;.i, ?Ii a;:esot.
1,rbirration shall bo in accorclance with the rules of the tocric.n:
;cc! ion 7. of at L:.ir.g
_^_
r T' .
C or any Lot shall ;ictuslly cncronch upon illy other Lot, or.
;jny such encroach:tcnt: shall hereafter arise because of settling or
;;Lifting of the building or other cause, there shall be c?ecncd 'to b
an. cascmcnt in favor of the o%+ncr of the encroaching Living Unit
to the e>:tent of such encroach.cnt so long as the same shall exist.
Section 8. Mechanic's Liens. Each Owacr of a Livirc un.
("Defaulting Owner") agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
of an 'adjoining Living unit fo= any mechanics' liens arising from
r -:or% done or material supplied to mate repairs or replacece,ts for
orhich the Defaulting Omer is responsible.
ARTICLE IV
OTHER PROVISIO\S GOVER`iING
RELr,TIONSHZP .L.O_:G C:::_aS
OF ADJOINING LIVI::G UNITS ,
Section* 1. In_urance - Rcpincc:.:!nt. Each owner s'rali ,
maintain fire and c.:tended covcrPc,; insurance on his Liv -4:,.g Unit _-
the full renl.jccncnt cost thereon, and shall, in the event of
•'_o cr _..-tructi.... of his restore it to the conditior,
_ 1
n which it 'was p::-,... to .the damage or des trill: tion.
rection 2. :.aintcnance. Each owner of a ].wing u..it ,!:e
mains:in his Lot ane the exterior of his Living Unit in coed
condition and repair z-:! in a clean and nc;:t condition.
Sccticn 3. ;
of t:hc Owner u the-.Ajoinin)
(b) In the event of any dispute arising concern.in(
achange ,in siding or roofing m;rterial or color schen..^_,
cast, party shall choose one arbitrator and such arbi.trato
shall choose one additional arbitrator, and the decision J
of a majority o: ' all the i:rbitrators shall be final and
e:onclusive of the qucntion involved. The Arbitrators'
decision shall be based on their decision of Whether' the
proposccl.sidinr, or roofing material or color schenc is.in
harmony v.ith the design of the adjoining Living Unit— if.-
either
f-either party refuses or fails to promptly appoint an
arbitrator, -the same may be appointed by any ju'4ge o° the
state district court for County, tlinnescta_
Arbitration shall be in accordance with the rules c)--
Hie
°the American hrbitration ,lssociation.
ARTICLE V
GENERnL PROVISIO`1S
Section 1•. ";En`^rcemen- t. Any Owner shall Lavc t`u _i;ht
to enforce, by any"pro:cccina at lair or in equity, or both, al: of �
tlic terms and provisicns of Article II of this Declaration, a::-4
the Ownes of the Living Unit' involved shall have the right to enforce,
by any procccdi.ng at tat' or equity, or both, all of -the terms; and
Provision:: of Article IT__ and IV of chis Declaration.. F.nicrcen.ant
shall be by t roceediaes at law or in equity nc�ai.nst any oer.a:o or
PC-reons violating or attempting to violate any covcuant c,' to
restrain violaticn or to recover damages.
Section 2. Severabilit•:. Invalidat_on of• any of _^as
c.ovariants by o= court order ttir.l.l in no wise affect 0113• o;
the oth=r pr!.visions, which shall remai.r. in f_11 force anC cefrect.
S�eti in 3.Ar..n.n0r..re ts. Thcsc cevc:!:rnty are to r --in
ti:c ]t•nd and ::hall bu 1:1rc1'_r.y on all pL'r.tje:: an;. -.11 ec:rncr._
HIGHWAY
- - le 11 -%:,
(1z
N
El
IN
f I I
NO, 94
6-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 24, 1980 - 8:45 P.M.
(Note: This meeting immediately followed the adjournment of the Joint
City Council/Planning Commission Meeting regarding review of
Monticello's Sign Ordinance)
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Members Absent: None.
Purpose of this meeting was to review with the Council the progress of
union negotiations with International Operating Engineer's Union #49.
Ken Maus and Phil White, Council Members serving on the union negotiating
committee, explained the details of a proposed settlement with the union.
This settlement called for an increase in wages from $6.30 per hour to
$6.80 per hour, effective April 1, 1980, and another increase of 50C, to
$7.30 per hour, effective October 1 , 1980, and another increase of 40:, to
$7.70 per hour effective April 1, 1981. Formal review dnd rdLification
of this contract will be on the agenda for the regular council meeting
on April 28, 1980.
LMeeting adjourned.
C
ity
Ad nistrator
NOTE: At 5:30 P.M. on April 24, 1980, the City received word that
the union had voted in favor of the contract.
K)%
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NUCP MAY 2 2 »9M
The Honorable Arve G rimsmo
Mayor, City of Monticello
250 East Broadway, City Hall
Post Office Box 777
Monticello. Minnesota 55362
Re: Construction Grant Freeze
Dear 'payor Grimsmo:
President Carter has requested the O.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) to achieve a $192,000,000 out lay reduction
In Fiscal Year (FY) 1981 by making program cuts in FY 1980.
The EPA has several options by which it could comply with
the PrPRident's reou est. They have apparently chosen as the
least damaging option the delay of any oblil•ations of ri
1980 funds until at least the beginning of FY 1951 (October 1,
1980).
This deferral of using any FY 1980 funds until at least
October 1, 1980 will impact numerous projects in lfinnesota.
To date, this Agency has not received specific guidance from
the EPA on just exactly what the deferral of funds means.
We have developed a strategy to mitigate the deferral of
funds to the greatest extent possible while still taking
Into account the mandatory provision for set aside funAs for
innovative, alternative and the small community alternative
systems.
For your proposed project (C270855-03), it means that there
are funds available.
Phono�612)296-7205
1935 Wost County Road 82. Rosoville. Minnesota 55113
Ropional Offices • Duluthl Bratnsrd/Dotrott Lakes/Melsttao/Rochostat
EOual Opponuruty Cmyoytn
®9
- The Honorable Arve :rimsmo
Page two
MAY 22 10
We regret any inconvenience this situation may have caused
your community. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. Duane L. Anderson of my staff at
{612}296-7205.
3;:iCeie;y;
Terry Roffman
Lxecutive Dire or
Tit: pah
cc: Gary Wleber, City Administrator, City of Ionticello
Orr-Schelen-'iayeron F: Associates
ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER NEW BUSINESS:
Shade Tree Proqram
The State of Minnesota has made Grant -in -Aid funding available in the
amount of 50% of equipment purchased for utilization of Dutch Elm and
Oak wilt wood as an alternative to open burning and burial.
The PCA has denied the City a burning permit for its current' disposal
site due to its close proximity to a public road and single family
dwellings, and the direction of prevailing winds.
Rather than direct burial or hand -debarking of all of our shade tree
wood, it seems practical to consider taking advantage of the Grant -in -
Aid program and purchase a debarking machine and heavy duty splitter and
fully utilize all of the wood. The cost of these units is estimated
at 117,000, of which the City's share would be 88,500. There are suf-
ficient reserve funds in the Tree Fund to cover this expense. In addi-
tion to the Grant, operation costs are fundable from 18.50-50.00 per hour
for debarkers and 113.00 per hour for splitters through the regular
Shade Tree Program.
Any revenue received for debarking for other nearby communities or
through the sale of excess wood products could be put back into the
Tree Fund to lessen our overall costs. Should the Council decide to make
dyyliedLiun, a cuitract nest be originated an 4. igncd by June 1 loan
for immediate funding this year. The State will pay 40% upon receiving
invoice and proof of purchase and the remaining 10% upon physical
inspection of the equipment.
I1/
Submitted by .
John E. Simola,
Public Works Director
May 27, 1980
C
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Wieber
DATE: May 27, 1980
SUBJECT: Bids on Garbaqe Disposal Contract
Enclosed, you will find two bid proposals, one from Corrow Trucking 8
Sanitation, Inc. of Anoka, Minnesota and another from Yonak Sanitation
of Maple Lake, Minnesota, relative to the garbage disposal and removal
contract.
in reviewing the bid alternatives, you can see that Corrow, Trucking 8
Sanitation is low on a one-year contract for either twice a week pickup
or once a week pickup, and is also low on a three-year contract for
either once a week pickup or twice a week pickup.
I would recommend that the City Council of Monticello award garbage
/ removal and disposal contract to Corrow Trucking 8 Sanitation, Inc.
L of Anoka, Minnesota for a three year contract and twice a week pickup
based on the following:
A. Currently, City of Monticello residents are used to twice a week
service.
B. The additional pickup would only cost $700 more per month.
C. Three year contract is recommended since it is expected that if the
City went to a one-year contract, there would be an increase of
at least 10% per year, and as a result, the total cost of a three
year contract should approximate three one-year contracts. However,
in light of the bids received from the other hauler, Yonak Sanitation,
it appears quite likely that the cost could rise even more than 10%
if the City went with only a one-year contract.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that Corrow Trucking 8 Sanitation
would like to pick the garbage up in Monticello on Tuesdays and Fridays,
if at all possible. Current garbage pickup is on Mondays and Thursdays.
GW/ns
14
c.
1
BID PROPOSAL
TO BE OPENED MAY 27, 1980, 2:00 P.M.
MONTICELLO CITY HALL
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
PROPOSAL OF: �Fr� lZ'JZcLiliL�n`'lt�
ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER: �!!� 3 — A 0 -3
AUTHORiZED REPRESENTATIVE: 1/�d/Lr r�%a •.�.cer. �P ��
0 d
For furnishing pickup and disposal of residential refuse and garbage within the
City of Monticello, Minnesota, in accordance with the specifications, fact sheet
and Agreement which are attached:
BID
ALTERNATIVES
LUMP
SUM PRICE
(1)
Year Contract:
A. Once -a -Neck
Pickup
$ 3,
756-00
per
month
n. Twice -a -week
Pickup
S J_
/6 8.o 0
per
month
(3)
Year Contract:
A. Once -a -Week
Pickup
00
per
month
B. Twice -a -Week
Pickup
$ 5,
f( V0.va
per
month
PROPOSAL MUST BE SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE ON THIS FORM ONLY1
Include Certified Check or Bid Bond, payable to: City of Monticello, in
the amount of 5% of the Bid.
Signoturq�61` A o ed Representative
BID PROPOSAL
TO BE OPENED MAY 27, 1980, 2:00 P.M.
MONTICELLO CiTY HALL
250 EAST BROADWAY
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
PROPOSAL OF: CORROW TRLCKTNC & SANTTATTON' TNC,
ADDRESS: 15520 Tawndale Dane_ Anoka. Minnesota 55101
PHONE NUMBER: 612_42 i -46 i8
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATiVE:grAgoryL Paiii Carrow - Treasurer
For furnishing pickup and disposal of residential refuse and garbage within the
City of Monticello, Minnesota. in accordance with the specifications, fact sheet
and Agreement which are attached:
BID ALTERNATIVES
(1) Year Contract:
A. Vice -C -Week Pickup
B. Twice -a -Week Pickup
(3) Year Contract:
A. Once -a -Week Pickup
B. Twice -a -Week Pickup
LUMP SUN PRICE
8 2_goo_00 per month
$ 1-1;)5.00 per month
EZ750_00 per month
$ 3.450.00 _per month
PROPOSAL MUST BE SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE ON THIS FORM ONLYI
include Certified Check or Bid Bond, payable to: City of Monticello, in
the amount of 5% of the Bid.
( Signatur 0:5C nhor"1z' Representee ve
COUNCIL UPDATE
May 27, 1980 Meeting
1. Monticello Sign Ordinance
At their May 20, 1980 meeting, the Planning Commission is scheduled to
review with the City Planner possible revisions to the Monticello Sign
Ordinance. As you can see by the enclosed memorandum from the Planner,
John Uban with Howard Dahlgren Associates, his recommendation is to keep
the present ordinance exactly as is.
2. Library
On June 3, 1980, a hearing will be held before Judge Caroll Larson in
Wright County District Court, relative to the Worth Brasie Memorial Trust.
At this time, the Attorney General has indicated that their office has no
objections to the dissolution of the trust and this opens the way for
transfer of the library obligation and the Oakwood School Building to the
City of Monticello.
3 E^incntu „vain ProceeJings - Ruff Auto Parts. inc.
On June 2, 1980, a jury trial is scheduled between the City of Monticello
and Ruff Auto Parts, relative to award of damages for the taking of property
and removal of debris within the right-of-way. As you may recall, Ruff Auto
Parts is requesting between $50,000 and $250,000 for the parcel taken for
the easement for road improvements, sewer and water, along with another
$30,000 for the removal of the debris in the same area.
4. Access Opening for Property Rezoned for Harold Ruff.
In talking with the Wright County Engineer, he saw no particular problem
in granting a separate access opening from West County Road 39 onto the
parcel recently rezoned by the City Council of Monticello just west of the
NSP utility building, contingent upon such access being granted. Wright
County Engineer indicated that he would respond in writing in the very near
future as to a final determination in this matter.
Council Update
Page N2
5. Improvement of Road West of Bowling Alley and Roller Rink.
Quotations have been received for this project budgeted in 1980, and
the lowest bid has been received from Buffalo Bituminous for $6,806.30.
This project will be commenced within approximately 30 days. It is the
intention of the City's Public Works Department to grade the road;
however, the City's motor patrol is currently being repaired, and as
soon as this is completed, the project will be graded and the road paved.
C
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
May 12, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Members Absent: None
1. Consideration of Final Resolution Approvinq the issuance of 5975,000
in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - Clow Stampinq Co., Inc.
Clow Stamping Co., Inc, requested final approval for the issuance of
$975,000 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. The City Council, at
their January 14, 1980 meeting, gave preliminary approval, and also the
Commissioner of Securities for the State of Minnesota has given prelimin-
ary approval.
The funds will be used by Clow Stamping Co. to build a new manufacturing
facility in the Oakwood industrial Park, and it was noted that the bonds
are not a general obligation of the City of Monticello and will not be charged
against the general credit or taxing power of Monticello. Mr. Gary Pringle,
City Attorney, has reviewed all documents relative to the issuance of
the bonds, and it was his recommendation that the City could adopt a final
resolution approving the issuance.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by ries Mdus and unanimously cdrrieu
to adopt the final resolution for the approval of $975,000 in industrial
development revenue bonds for Clow Leasing Co. (See Resolution 1980 #10)
Consideration of an Ordinance for Electric Distribution and Transmission
Franchise Riqhts - Northern States Power Company.
Mr. Ward King, representing Northern States Power Company, informed the
City Council that their present franchise to operate electric distribution
system and transmission lines within the City of Monticello will expire
September 5, 1980. Mr. King asked the City Council to adopt an ordinance
granting NSP a new 20 -year franchise right which gives NSP the right to
construct and maintain its poles and transmission lines and other fixtures
as necessary on City property, streets and public ways.
Althoigh it was noted by the Council that some communities charge a fran-
chise fee to the power companies for this right, such a franchise fee is
still charged back to the property owners on their monthly billings.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried
to adopt an ordinance granting franchise rights to Northern States Power
for the period of 20 years beginning May 12, 1980, without any franchise fee.
(See Ordinance Amendment 5/12/80 A73).
COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/12/80
3. Consideration of Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3 - Harold Ruff.
Mr. Harold Ruff, owner of a parcel of land that lies east of Yampa Estates
and west of the NSP maintenance building, between the railroad tracks and
County Road 39, requested that this parcel be rezoned from single family
residential to R-3, multiple family.
Jack Maxwell, of Maxwell Realty, representing both Mr. Ruff and his son
Tom Maxwell, indicated that a purchase agreement for the parcel is contin-
gent upon the rezoning and he also indicated that his son would be planning
on building an apartment complex in this 3.94 acre parcel.
John Badalich, City Engineer, informed Mr. Maxwell and the City Council
that, although this property has been served with sewer and water and has
been assessed for such, no service stub was assessed to the property since
Mr. Ruff did not want any service stubs at the time the project was put in.
Mr. Badalich indicated that the City did install a service stub for sewer
and water at the east end of Mr. Ruff's property on City property. It was
noted that should development occur on this parcel of land, an additional
amount of approximately $1,200 would be charged to the property owner as an
additional cost for sewer and water hookup.
Mr. Ralph Munsterteiger indicated that, if the development on this parcel of
land which abuts Yampa Circle plans on using Kampa Circle for access to
their development, then the Council should consider some type of reimburse-
ment to the property owners in Kampa Estates since this 4 acre parcel
was never aSSessed fur any part or the stieEt aTGuy i:awya
Circle. Mr. Maxwell indicated that he plans on having only one access
off of County Road 39, and should not have any need for access from
Kampa Circle.
At their last meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning request, and felt that the subject property was well -located and
suited for multiple family construction due to the commercial property to
the east and the railroad tracks to the north to act as buffer zones.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to approve the rezoning of this 3.94 acres from R-1 to R-3 contingent upon
the property getting access from County Road 39.
4. Continuation of Public Hearinq on 1980-1 improvement Project to Serve
Macarlund Plaza and Land Owned by Maurice Hoolund.
This public hearing was continued from the April 14, 1980 Council meeting
at which time the City Council decided to defer action to give the developers
and the City Engineer time to work out new proposed alignments for the
improvements t0 the development. One of the concerns expressed at the
April 14th meeting was that Maurice Hoglund wished to develop his property
just north of his present residence, but was not in favor of sewer and water
extensions along East County Road 39 to his other property.
mm
COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/12/80
City Engineer, John Badalich, presented a feasibility report and cost
y estimate for improving Macarlund Plaza development with sewer and water
and storm sewer drainage from Mississippi Drive, rather than along East
County Road 39. The new layout for serving the Macarlund Plaza would
route sewer and water between Lots 14 8 15, Block 3, Hoglund Addition,
from Mississippi Drive through an easement to serve the property. The
total cost for getting the improvements from Mississippi Drive into the
Macarlund Plaza development was estimated at $106,100. Mr. Badalich
indicated that this entire $106,100 could be assessed to the Macarlund
Plaza apartment complex consisting of 30 individual townhouse lots at
an approximate cost of $3,540 per townhouse unit. Another alternative
discussed by Mr. Badalich was the extension of sewer and water to serve
Lots 1 thru 6, Block 1 of Macarlund Plaza, south of the townhouse
development, thereby eliminating any sewer and water construction on
East County Road 39. The additional cost of serving these six lots
in the development would amount to an additional $31,000, making the total
cost of $137,100. A possible way of assessing this total cost could be
based on the amount of potential benefit by each property, resulting
in 30 townhouse lots being assessed $92,915 with each of the commercial
lots 1 thru 6 being assessed different amounts based on front footage.
After the feasibility report was presented by Mr. Badalich, Jack Maxwell,
representing Macarlund Plaza, indicated that he would like more time to
discuss with other partners in the development, which would be the more
desirable method of serving the property. it was noted that, although it
P could be up Lu Lhu CiLy Lo decide, numerous ways of assessing the Macarlund
Plaza development and other lots owned by Curtis and Maurice Hoglund
could be decided in the future.
It was the Council consensus to table any action on preparing plans and
specifications for this project until all property owners have had a chance
to review the report and be in attendance at the next Council meeting
scheduled for May 27, 1980.
5. Consideration of Holdinq Public Hearinq on Extension of Sewer, Water and
Street improvements alonq Prairie Road.
A petition was received from Mel Wolters requesting that sewer, water and
street improvements be extended approximately 330 to 360' west of its
existing termination point on Prairie Road to serve lots in The Meadows
Subdivision Plat.
John Badalich, City Engineer, prepared a feasibility report on the exten-
sions, and estimated that the total project would cost $45,480 to serve
nine assessable lots. Each lot being served by sewer, water and street
improvements would have an assessment of $5,053.55, and also, four unit
charges would be assessed to property south of Prairie Road owned by
Don Christopher, in the amount of $19,881.60.
-3-
COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/12/80
Although a public hearing on the proposed improvements would be held in
the future, Ralph Munsterteiger, representing The Meadows Subdivision, J
indicated that the Christophers, at present time, are not in favor of
the improvements, but Mr. Munsterteiger is working with the property owner
to work out a solution to the problem. Mr. Munsterteiger felt that some
type of solution would be worked out and requested that the public hearing
be held on the improvement. It was also noted by Mr. Munsterteiger and
the City Engineer, that if the sewer and water were extended an additional
few feet to the west, one more lot could be served with sewer and water,
thus reducing the total assessments per parcel, because there would be ten
parcels rather than nine to be assessed.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimsouly
carried to adopt a resolution receiving the feasibility report on the pro-
posed improvements and calling for a public hearing on the extension of
sewer, water and street improvements along Prairie Road. (See Resolution
1980 All).
6. Consideration of Utilization of Historical Museum.
A meeting was recently held by the Monticello Historical Society, and one
of the topics was the utilization of the Monticello Historical Museum at
the corner of Highway 25 and Broadway Street in Monticello.
.Mrs. Ma ion Jaj.,ejun, Wright County Historian, informed the Council that
only one additional member besides herself attended the meeting to discuss
the future of the Historical Society of Monticello. Mrs. Jameson indicated J
that although attendance at the meeting was poor, she would like to see
something get going on the Historical Museum in Monticello. Suggestions
presented included the possibility of additional display cases at the present
building for such items as photographs and other items in an effort to get
something going in Monticello.
Mrs. Jameson indicated a willingness to spearhead an effort to organize and
contact people to see if something could be started. She indicated that
she would talk to some of the members of the Senior Citizens Center to
see if some of the people would be willing to help and provide manhours
at the Museum.
It was noted by Mr. Blonigen that he felt the location of the present
museum is too small to get something going, and felt that larger space
would be necessary before a lot of enthusiasm for such a project could
get started. Although Mrs. Jameson thought that a larger area would be
nice in the future once the museum got started. she felt that the present
site would be adequate for a start.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to appoint Mrs. Jameson as Chairwoman of the Historical Society
to see if she can get something organized and some interest going in
a museum. Mrs. Jameson indicated that the possibility does exist for
the City to hire CETA workers to spearhead a historical museum if the
City would be interested. Mrs. Jameson will be reporting back to the
Council on her efforts to organize.the historical committee.
- 4 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/12/80
7. Consideration of a Variance for the Temporary Display of a Banner by
the A.F.S. on Broadway Street.
Darlene Anderson, with the American Field Service, requested a variance to
allow the display of a temporary banner across Broadway Street by the
Lutheran Church for a spagetti dinner to be held at the Church on May 22,
1980. She requested that this banner be displayed for approximately one
week in advance of the festivity, and would be taken down immediately
afterwards.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve the variance allowing for the display of a banner by
the A.F.S. across Broadway Street for a period of one week beginning
May 16 thru May 22, 1980. It was noted that the banner should be located
in the downtown area as the area near the Lutheran Church appears not to
be suitable for hanging a banner.
8. Consideration of Proposed Garbaqe Disposal Contract and Authorization to
Advertise for Bids.
New contract proposals were prepared for the Council's review prior to the
actual bid -letting scheduled for May 27, 1980. The present garbage haulers
have served their written notice that they intend to terminate their
contract as of August 1, 1980. The new proposals call for bids for
either a one-year contract or a three-year contract, and both contain
options of either once or twice weekly pickups.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously carried
to approved the proposed garbage disposal contract specifications and
authorize the advertisement for bids returnable May 27, 1980.
9. Review of First -Quarter 1980 Financial Statements for Municipal Liquor
Store.
Mark Irmiter, Manager of the Liquor Store, reviewed with the Council the
1st quarter financial statements for the off -sale liquor store operation.
It was noted that sales have increased approximately 17% over the 1st quarter
of 1979, with gross profit up approximately 28%. No action was taken by
the Council other than review of the financial statements with
Mr. Irmiter.
In regards to the liquor store site, the Council authorized the Public
Works Director to look into the possibility of putting in a sand -point for
watering the front lawn at the liquor store site.
-5-
li
COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/12/80
10. Consideration of Havinq our Enqineer Prepare Plans and Specifications to
Bid Right -Turn Lane - Sandberq South.
As a result of an April 30, 1980 letter from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MN/DOT) it appears that the City of Monticello will now
have to install a right -turn lane into the Sr.ndberg South development at
its own expense.
The City Council originally reviewed this item in September and October of
1979, and it was decided at that time to appeal the requirement of a
right -turn lane into Sandberg South addition. According to the requla-
tions of the MN/DOT, an entrance permit application was necessary for access
to the plat because the property changed use by subdividing and that all
the cost for a right -turn lane is the responsibility of the City.
In the fall of 1979, the City Engineer estimated that this project would
cost approximately $5,000 for a right -turn lane of over 300' in duration.
Although it appears that the City will be required to install a right -
turn lane at its own expense, the preparations of plans and specifications
for this improvement was delayed until the next scheduled meeting in order
to give the Public Works Director a chance to check out the plans and
specifications used on similar right turn lanes along Highway 25, such
as the one recently installed in Buffalo, Minnesota. It appears that
othei Similar light -twin lariei aPc iiuL nearly ao luny as Lhe uue Nruyuszd
in Monticello.
11. Consideration of Having Plans and Specifications Prepared for Commuter
Parking Lot Southwest of I-94/lliqhway 25 Interchanqe.
A parcel of land located at the southwest intersection of 1-94 and
Highway 25 is scheduled to be deeded from the State of Minnesota to
Wright County, and in turn, from Wright County to Monticello for
the use and development of a commuter parking lot. A preliminary site
layout of the land for use as a commuter parking lot has been prepared
that would accommodate approximately 220 cars. The estimated cost for
the development of this entire site including landscaping, grading and
paving, could amount to 450 - $60,000.
Although the Council felt that the need for such a commuter lot is
imminent, the consensus was that if the lot is developed, it should
probably be only Class 5 to begin with and could be developed in
stages rather than the entire lot at one time. The possibility also
exists that funds might be available from the State of Minnesota to help
develop commuter parking lots in the future, and as a result, if such a
parking lot is developed, a public hearing would probably be held to
consider a Class 5 parking lot only for one or two years.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to authorize the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications
improving the proposed parking lot with blacktop, lighting, landscaping,
etc., with the possibility of developing the project into three stages. J
Once the feasibility study is prepared and the costs are known, a public
hearing could then be held on the project.
- 6 -
COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/12/80
12. Approval of Minutes - Special Joint Meeting of April 24, 1980 and Reaular
Meeting of April 28, 1980.
Motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the Minutes of the City Council's Special Meeting held April 24th
and Regular Meeting held April 28, 1980.
13. Consideration of Setting Salary Scale and Reallocation of Wanes for
Information Center during 1980.
Karen Hanson, Senior Citizens Center Director, requested that the City
adjust the allocation of those personnel working at the Information Center.
Mrs. Hanson asked that the City consider the possibility of paying those
employees who work at the Information Center 2/3's of the hourly wages
with the remaining 1/3 being set aside for the Senior Citizens Center
rather than the 50/50 split in previous years. Reasons for this request
was that the people who do work at the Information Center do provide
their own transportation to and from the Center and do contribute quite
a bit already to the Center in terms of any portion of the wages they
earn. In addition, Mrs. Hanson asked that the hourly wage be set at
$2.90 per hour in 1980 as a result of the Minimum Wage Law in the
State of Minnesota,
notion was made by Pnii White, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to authorize the payment of $2.90 per hour for staffing the
information Center, with 2/3's of the salary being paid to the individual
and 1/3 being set aside in a fund for the Senior Citizens Center.
Meeting adjourned.
Rick Wolfsteller
Assitant Administrator
RW/ns
- 7 -
r
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
May 13, 1980 - 7:00 P. M.
Members Present: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Phil White.
Members Absent: Arve Grimsmo.
Purpose of this special meeting was to conduct the annual Board of
Review. Mr. Orland Kreitlow, with the Wright County Assessor's Office,
reviewed the concerns expressed by the following individuals:
Steve Johnson, Lester Anderson, Cindy Rasmussen, Lee Trunnell,
Bill Thompson, Bob Mueller, John Mitchell, Doug Pitt,
Bob Mosford, Dr. John Kasper.
After review of the concerns expressed by the above individuals, adjust-
ments were made on the following parcels:
#155-010-071090 - Robert Mosford
Cufn:ero waS CAv1'essed with Llie valuaL uo, ui Mir. I'lu�,urU b uffice
building using a square footage figure of $37.75. The classifica-
tion system, as explained by Mr. Kreitlow, for office buildings
(v put them in the same classification as banks. Mr. Mosford
questionned the rationale of including offices in the same Cate-
gory as banks, but felt that, if an adjustment were made to
include his office building in the same construction quality
per square footage valuation as the existing drive-in facility,
he would be satisfied. it appeared that Mr. Mosford's building
was one of the highest assessed commercial buildings in the
City of Monticello on a per square footage basis.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Ken Maus and unanimously
carried to adjust the valuation of Mr. Mosford's building from
$37.75 per square foot to $29.00 per square foot.
0155-015-002020 - Dr. John Kasper
Concern was expressed with the valuation of the land compared to the
parcel immediately to the west which was of an equivalent size. The
parcel to the west is owned by Munticello Clinic, Ltd.
A motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to reduce Dr. John Kasper's assessment on the above parcel
for the land segment to equate it with the parcel immediately to
the west (Parcel #155-015-022010).
It
COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/13/80
0155-015-002120 - Dr. John Kasper
Concern was expressed with the valuation on this parcel being
increased from $100 to $5,000 since the City of Monticello had
an easement for sanitary sewer which Dr. Kasper felt made the
parcel unbuildable.
A motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Fran Fair and unani-
mously carried to reduce the valuation on this parcel to $2,500.
A motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously
carried to adopt the valuation on City of Monticello property as presented
by the Wright County Assessor's Office and as amended above.
Meeting adjourned.
r�Wfeber
City Administrator
GW/ nc
J