City Council Agenda Packet 02-25-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 25, 1985 -7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regu 1ar Meeting Held February 11,
1985.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Reques is and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of Softball Field Development.
5. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat - Applicant, Construction 5.
6. Clarification of Previous Motion Relating to Requirements to
Reserve On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Applicant,
Stuart Hoglund.
New Business
7. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow an Apartment
Building to be Constructed in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant.
Metcalf 6 Larson.
8. Consideration of Variance Request Appeal to Allow No Garages
to be Constructed on a 33 -Unit Apartment Building Site -
Applicant, Metcalf 6 Larson.
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow an Additional
Number of Vehicles to be Placed on an Outdoor Sales Lot -
Applicant, Monticello Auto Sales.
10. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Sales.
Service. and Outdoor Storage in a B-3 Zone - Applicant. Samuel
Properties.
11. Consideration of Senior Citizen Director Attending National
Conference on Aging.
12. Consideration of Sale of City Truck.
13. Consideration of a Resolution Allowing Municipal Employees to
Enroll in a Deferred Compensation Program.
14. Fire Hall Committee Progress Report.
15. Consideration of Bills for the Mon Ch of February.
16. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
L, February 11, 1985 - 7;30 P.M.
Members Present: Mayor Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair,
Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to, approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 28,
1985.
4. Consideration of a Request to Waive the Third Quarter'n Liquor
Liconso Foe - Applicant, Stuart Hoglund.
On October 9, 1084, Mr. Stuart Hoglund was granted an on -sale
liquor license for his proposed motel on Oakwood Drive contingent
upon submission of the proper insurance and bond forma and payment
of the liquor license foes.
Mr. Hoglund requested an extension to the and of January to
pay the face and provide the insurance forma, and when thin deadline
u was missed requested that the City waive all fees until the
next license period, July 1, 1985, as he did not foal he would
be able to use the license until that time.
Currant City Ordinances indicate that once an application is
made for a liquor license and approval is granted, the applicant
shall pay all foes for that license regardless of whether the
applicant ties the facilities currently available to serve liquor.
The reason is the City has essentially taken that license out
of circulation and is no longer available to other applicants.
Mr. Hoglund indicated that he would like to see the 3rd quarter
foo from January 1 to April 1, 1985, waived; but he would agree
to pay for the final quarter of April, May, and Juno, 1985.
After further discussion, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded
by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to accept payment in the
amount of $825.00 for the final quarter liquor license foo to
July 1, 1985, provided the foe is paid immediately by the applicant
or the license would become available to other applicants.
5. Consideration of Softball Field Development.
(� Public Works Director, John eimolo, reviewed with the Council
t e 5 -year plan for developing and improving the present softball
Li ficida located at the NSP park. The initial plana called for
-i-
Council Minutes - 2/11/85
upgrading the existing well capacity during 1985 and installing
• the main underground sprinkler lines that would be adequate
i' to serve up to four ballfioldB and to start the construction
of a third softball field during 1985. Minimal improvements
• would be done to the existing two fields yet this year. In
1986, one of the existing softball fields would be rebuilt and
a sprinkler system installed; and in 1987, the second existing
field would be rebuilt with sprinklers installed. In the beginning
of 1988, all three fields should be in top operating condition;
and at that time, the city could consider the construction of
restrooms, concession stands, and storage rooms, along with
a permanent sower system facility. The estimated cost of the
5 -year capital improvement program could total approximately
$100,000.00, depending on the amount of improvements considered.
In reviewing the proposed improvements for 1985, some Council
concerns were noted over whether the City should try and do
more the first year (1985) in an effort to get all three fields
ready for play in the spring of 1986. It was suggested that
along with the construction of the third field this year, both
of the existing fields should be considered for upgrading and
sprinkler system installation immediately so that they would
all be available an early as 1986 rather than spreading it out
over the next three years.
It was noted by the staff that although limited funds ware budgeted
for specific improvements during 1985, there would be funds
available from the Capital Outlay Improvement Fund should the
Council decide to do the bulk of the improvements this year.
The estimated cost of getting all three fields improved this
summer could amount to 930,000.00 or more according to the Public
works Director.
Motion was made by 8111 Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to direct the Public Works Director to continuo working
on the plan for the ball park improvements and to got firm coat
on upgrading all three fields during 1985. rublic Works Director
will return to the Council with the revised cost figures estimated
to complete those improvements this year.
6. Consideration of Lifting the Condemnation Order on the Old Monticello
Ford Building.
On February 15, 1979, a condemnation order was issued by the
City to Mr. Larry Flake, owner of the former Monticello Ford
Garage, listing five general areas that wore deemed to be unsafe
In the building requiring immediate repairs to allow further
occupancy of the building. Mr. Pat Townsend and Mr. Floyd Shako,
oporators of Monti Motors, have boon ranting the back portion
of the building, which was not affected by the condemnation
I a
-2-
Council Minutes - 2/11/85
order,and have made an agreement with the building's owner to
1 renovate the existing building including addressing the items
listed in the condemnation order.
A building permit was issued to these two men in December of
1984 to correct the problems indicated in the condemnation letter,
and the parties have now requested that the City lift the condemnation
order and order to allow them to continue remodeling the building
for retail activities.
The City of Monticello had an inspection done on the building
by its Consulting Engineering Firm of OSM to review the progress
being made on improving the areas that were noted deficient.
It was noted by the Consulting Engineer that if the improvements
aro completed along with additional recommendations made by
their firm, they would see no problem with the condemnation
order being lifted and allowing the building to proceed with
additional remodeling.
The developers wore advinod that even if the condemnation order
is lifted, they must present a complete, detailed plan showing
how the building will be remodeled and what typos of businesses
will be located in the now building so that the City can determine
what parking requirements and other conditions must be mat before
r occupancy. The developers will be meeting with the City staff
{ to present their entire plan so that the Planning Commission
u and City Council can review.
Based on the recommendations of the City Engineer, motion was
made by Fair, seconded by Dlonigon, and unanimously carried
to lift the condemnation order dated February 15, 1979, provided
the developers meet all conditions specified by the City Engineer
in renovating the deficiencies noted in the original condemnation
order.
7. Review of 1984 Year End Liquor Store Financial Report.
Mr. Mark Irmitor, Manager of the Off -Salo Liquor Store, was
present to review with the Council the 1904 Liquor Store Financial
Report.
It was noted that total Salon have increased approximately $65,000.00
over 1987, with a resulting operating Income of approximately
$20,000.00 more than last year.
0
It was the consensus of the Council to accept tho Liquor Store
R a presented.
Rick wolfote119Y
Anal a tent Administrator
0
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
l 4. Consideration of Softball Field Development. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting on February 11, the staff presented a 5 -year
plan for the development of a three or four field softball complex
on the NSP property near the Wright County Park. This plan
outlined improvements as well as expected expenditures.
After a presentation of the plan and discussion between the staff,
representatives of the Monticello Softball Association, and
the City Council, the Council requested additional information
about an alternative which had not been proposed. That alternative
was to develop all three fields in 1985 to be ready for play
for the 1986 season. The Council also requested that we incorporate
some of the recommendations from Mr. John R. Hopko, a turf grass
specialist working with Northrop King Company.
We have prepared detailed costs for the renovation of the two
fields and the construction of the third field. The entire
reseeding of the two existing fields and the third field would
be performed by Mr. John Hopko through a subcontract. The sprinkling
system would be installed also by a contractor. The well would
be installed by a contractor and be eat to utilize the pressure
tanks or bypass the pressure tanks for irrigation as required
l by the installor of the sprinkling system. The costs either
way are very similar.
The following is an itemization for the 1985 and 1986 construction
and maintonanco costa.
1985 SOFTBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
Material
Labor
I. Nov wall and pump
$5,000.00
2. Temp sprinkler piping
75.00
3. Black dirt for fields
500.00
4. Clean 6 level third field
$3,000.00
5. Limo for third field
775.00
80.00
6. Starter fertilizer 6 week killer
(Roundup), 3 fields
330.00
200.00
7. Cross Gooding 3 fields
1,050.00
900.00
(by John 11opko)
8. Fence for 3rd field
1,000.00
450.00
9. Sprinkler system 3 fields
11.760.00
SUBTOTAL
$20,490.00
$4,630.00
TOTAL
525,120.00
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
(.
1985 MAINTENANCE COSTS
1986 SOFTBALL FIELD
IMPROVEMENTS
�.
Material
Labor
1.
Garbage Pickup
$ 220.00
2.
Sprinkler maintenance
100.00
S 50.00
3.
watering
$ 730.00
500.00
4.
Moving
Aggregate Parking Lot
1,200.00
5.
Road Maintenance
SUBTOTAL
6.
Miscellaneous repairs
50.00
100.00
7.
Toilet rental
600.00
8.
Electricity
200.00
9.
Fertilizer, Natures, 2 fields
Material
Labor
(1) application weed killer
260.00
200.00
SUBTOTAL
$1,430.00
$2,050.00
625.00
TOTAL
$3,480.00
1985 TOTAL 528,600.00
-2-
1986 SOFTBALL FIELD
IMPROVEMENTS
�.
Material
Labor
1.
Bleachers for Field 43
$ 730.00
$ 200.00
2.
Aggregate Parking Lot
1,000.00
1,400.00
SUBTOTAL
$1,730.00
$1,600.00
TOTAL
$3,330.00
1986 MAINTENANCE COSTS
Material
Labor
1.
Garbage
S 220.00
2.
Fertilizer, wood killer, sood
625.00
$ 275.00
for 3 fields
3.
Sprinkler system maintenance
100.00
100.00
4.
Limo
100.00
by Assoc.
5.
Mowing
1,800.00
6.
Road 6 parking maintenance
50.00
240.00
7.
Miscellaneous repairs
100.00
100.00
B.
Toilet rental
600.00
9.
Electricity
200.00
SUBTOTAL
$1,995.00
$2,515.00
CTOTAL
S4,510.00
1986 TOTAL
$7,840.00
-2-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
The above costs do not include any restroom, concession stand
costs, which are expected to run between $25,000.00 and $30,000.00,
nor do they include the installation of lighting. If you may
remember, the lighting would cost approximately $25,000.00 per
field.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Alternative 01 would be to construct all three fields ready
for play in 1986 and build the restroom/concession stand
and field lighting in the future as the need arises.
2. The second alternative would be to build the softball field
complex over a period of five years as previously outlined
at an earlier Council meeting. The construction of the
fields would be geared to the growth of the Softball Association
and follow a financial plan.
3. The third alternative would be to do nothing and continue
offering only the support which we have boon in the poet,
and that is to pick up the restroom rental, the electricity,
and periodic mowing.
C. STAFF RECOMAENDATION:
As presented at the last meeting, it is the staff recommendation
that the fields be developed over a period of three years and
follow along with the development of the Monticello Softball
Association. This would follow the 5 -year plan as previously
outlined in Alternative ®2.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
DIM
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
5. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat - Applicant, Construction 5. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the January 14, 1985, regular Council meeting, a public hearing
was held on a petition to vacate 6th Street near the Rand Mansion.
Testimony given at that time by City staff indicated that the
staffs preference was to request Construction 5 to do a replat
subdivision of their entire property rather than simply vacate
stroetB. The suggested replat came about in order to facilitate
the extension of Lauring Lane. At that hearing, a sketch plan
was prepared and presented to the Council. Upon completion
of the presentation, a motion was passed unanimously giving
preliminary approval to the concept plan presented and directing
that the preliminary plat be prepared and submitted through
the proper channels.
On February 12, 1985, at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission
meeting, the preliminary plat for Construction 5 subdivision
was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission. I was
present to speak on behalf of City staff and the planning firm
of Howard Dahlgron. During the course of the discussion, we
reviewed the comments by OSM and by Howard Dahlgron 6 Associates.
The concerns noted by the consulting firma were relatively minor
and were to be addressed by the surveyor representing Construction 5.
At the conclusion of the discussion, there being no other public
comment on the subdivision, the Planning Commission granted
approval to the preliminary plat and ordered it sent to the
City Council. The preliminary plat you will see Monday night
has either boon adjusted to address those minor concerns or
aro in the stage of being revised. Generally spanking, those
aorta of minor flaws arc approved at the preliminary plat level
providing they have boon adequately addressed at the final plat
level. In connection with this entire area, staff has mot with
representatives of Holmes 6 Graven and OSM to discuss the making
of public improvements throughout the entire area. Because
of the topography of the land, the construction of public improvements
(to wit, cower, water, streoto, and curb and gutter) can be
extremely costly. Based on the proposed construction of Construction 5,
we believe that it is feasible and, in fact, beneficial to create
a Tax Increment District designated a Redevelopment District
for the purpose of making the public improvements. Baoically,
a reasonable amount of the public improvement would be asscssod
as under any public improvement project, but the excoosivo costs
duo to the unusual configuration and the severe topography would
bo paid through by tax increment generated by the construction
of the now facilities in the area. Ono of the indirect benefits
of utilizing this method would be to supply some public service
to the Rand Mansion Oita that could make now davalopmont possible
on that site.
The only decision that is officially before you for this meeting
is whathar or not to grant approval to the preliminary plat
-4-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
and order the preparation of the final plat. The Tax Increment
Finance proposal, if it develops, will be presented first to
the HRA and then will return to the City Council for their consideration.
As a final note, Construction 5 has been very cooperative in
this process, and we see the replatting process as being beneficial
to both private sector and the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant approval to the preliminary plat.
2. Based upon identified severe deficiencies in the preliminary
plat, delay approval and order that the deficiencies be
corrected prior to the next regular Council meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be granted approval
so that the process can continue to progress. As I noted above,
there were some minor deficiencies identified, all of which
were to be corrected by Construction 5. If the plat map as
presented to you on Monday night has not corrected those deficiencies,
we will highlight them for you and indicate the degree of correction
staff has proposed. Similarly, if the plat map as presented has
been corrected, we request that you express concorno on matters
yet unaddressed. There being no major difficulties that staff
has noted, we recommend approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of comments from [toward Dahlgren 6 Associates; Copy of
comments from OSM; Copy of proposed preliminary plat; Copy of
minutes of the Planning Commission.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/12/85
6. Public Hearing - Request for a Preliminary Stage Approval of a Proposed
New Subdivision Plat - Applicant, Construction 5, Inc.
Tom Eidem, representing the City of Monticello, indicated that the
City is the one that has initiated this subdivision request on behalf
of the developer along with the developer. Construction 5, Inc. The
City saw the need at this time to make the extension of Lauring Lane
to accommodate future growth along the freeway. Mr. Gary LaFromboise,
partner in Construction 5, along with their engineer, Dennis Taylor,
Taylor Land Surveyors, was present to explain to Planning Commission
members their proposed now subdivision. Planning Commission members
questioned if all the requirements of the preliminary stage approval
of the proposed now plat had been reviewed and a recommendation from
staff on the review. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that
the plan had been reviewed by City staff; Consulting Engineering Firm,
OSM; Consulting Planning Firm, Dahlgren 6 Associatoe, and their topica
aro enclosed. The basic concept of the plan has boon approved
and with some very minor changes that would be incorporated
before the final plat would come before their approval or denial.
Mr. William Malone questioned as to any impact on hie property
or onto his mother's property with the now proposed oubdivioion.
City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, answered that with the proposed
now alignment of Louring Lane and also the termination of the
Fallon Drive or the old Copeland Road post hie property and
his mother'e property, it would be more or loan a buffer area
created between Louring Lane and Fallon Drive with the now park
that In to be dedicated within the subdivision plat.
Motion by Richard Carlson, seconded by F.A Schaffer, to approve the
preliminary stage of a proposed now subdivision plat. Motion
carried unanimously.
-2-
0
W
T,y Consulting Planners One Groveland Terrace (6121377.3536
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55403
Howard Dahlgren Associates /incorporated
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE, 8 February, 1985 -
T09 City of,Honticello'
Attention:.,; Gary.Anderson
,1
FROMs C. John Uban, Principal Planner
(t'+1 n�: .l'p F, uL :r71
RE: Prolimin' Plat of Construction Five;
I
As indicated on the attached maps the total site is to be'a City park accord-
ing to the comprehensive plan. Should the City decide not to purchase the
property then the comprehensive plan should be changed and the plat approved
11 with the following comments:
1. The vacation of the existing lots and streets within the preliminary
plat provides for a more reasonable development of the property. The
proposed aligrunont for Loring lane is consistent with general alignment
proposed in the comprehensive plan.
2. The proposed uses should be more carefully defined on the plat. A half -
acre park is clearly defined along with in 18 -unit apartment house on the
northern portion of the plat. However, the uses that outlot a and lots
1 through 5, Block 2, aro to ba used for is not clearly defined. This
leads to some questions and concerns about the size and shapes of these
parcels. Some of the parcels aro much too small for industrial uses
and should therefore be limited to an offico use of some sort. This Is
of greatest concern where the Lot is directly across from residential
property. It is difficult to properly develop an industrial Site under
2 acres without the added expenditure of fencing and screening elements
to properly adjust to a mixed-use area.
3. we recommend that a design framework regarding use of materials, quality
of construction, landscaping, lighting, signage and so-forth,'bo compiled
to address the future uses of the proposed plat. This is vary important
because of the groat variety of uses within the plat and its sonsitivo
location, both to existing residential and Interstate Highway 9e.
Page 1 of 2
Q
MEMORANDUM 8 February 1985
RE: Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 2
Construction Five, Inc.
4. The proposed park is quite small in size and oddly shaped. The City
should determine, prior to approving the final plat, a possible use
regarding this small parcel of property. Perhaps this area would best
develop as a passive or historical area relating to the Rand property.
5. More detail site information regarding the proposed apartment building
should be submitted prior to approving any development on that parcel.
This parcel is fronted on all sides by streets and is very oddly shaped.
The property is also directly adjacent to the Rand home and could have
a negative impact on its historical setting should the site be improperly
developed. Screening and landscaping will be an important element of
this proposed apartment use.
6. The proposed treeline buffer along Interstate Highway 94 should be more
carefully laid out and presented in a plan which identifies the species
and site of each tree. most of the businesses that will be located in
this area along Loring Lane will actually have their back door to the
Interstatel the image of the Star City of Monticello could be severly
impacted should this area not receive appropriate screening and landscape
enhancement. Additionally, a control of signage along the Interstate
should be given careful consideration prior to approving the plan. Curtain
guidelines could be prdpared ahead of time to be included in some design
framework for the property addressing the consolidation, size, and aesthetic
treatment of all signs.
7. Outlet A should have a minimum of 100 feet as frontage along the Interutate.
The other lots that front the Interstate have lot widths in the range of
170 feet to 233 feet. Perhaps all of these can be evened out and adjusted
to produce more regular lot patterno.
0. It would be our recommendation to prohibit outside storage in this area.
We believe the successful screening of ouch storagu areas would be unsuccess-
ful duo to the extreme visual expooure from both the Interstate and the
rosidential properties that surround the proposed plat.
Maps
Enclosures
Oi-
IORR•SCNELEN MAYERON &ASSOCIATES- INC.
consulting Engir?eers
Land Surveyors
February ll, 1985
Mr. Gary Anderson
Building Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Preliminary Plat of
Construction 5 Addition
Dear Gary :
The preliminary plat of the Construction 5 Addition received by our office on
i February 7, 1985 has been reviewed by our staff- and we offer the following
comments.
The layout of the lots in Block 1, Block 2 and Outlet A appear to be proper and
In conformance with the required ordinance. Our comment regarding this is that
the preliminary plat is slightly different from the Concept Plan in that two
additional lots have been created in Block 1.
We have layed out the lots for the proposed Lauring lane from its intersection
with Washington Street southeasterly to the east edge of the proposed plat.
Consideration was given to the proposed grade of Lauring Lane extended easterly
from the Construction 5 plat at Fallon Avenue. A high point was established
approximately 900' east of Fallon Avenue which should fit in with the adjacent
property and provide drainage from this property to the proposed street.
The elevation of 950.8 indicated on Lauring Lane at the easterly edge of this
plat could be raised one to two feet if necessary to balance the earthwork in
this plat.
Along the easterly edge of Outlot A. we are proposing a 47.5' easement within
vacated Washington Street to accommodate a drainage ditch to carry. runoff from
the interstate and adjacent property to the storm sewer under the Washington
Street and Lauring Lane intersection. The ditch slope of 0.65 will be less than
desired due to the 938 elevation at the interstate and Washington Street. This
could be increased if a small area within the interstate right-of-way could be
filled.
2027 Cnsr Ifcnnc;rin Avenue - Su;lo 238 - Minneapolis. 4linnesora 551413 - 6121331-866s)
Page Two
Mr. Gary Anderson
February 11, 1965
On the copy we are returning there is a notation that the building setback line
cannot encroach on a utility easement. Therefore, the setback line shown on the
easterly and southerly sides of Outlot A should be moved to the edge of the
eastment line. Similarly, the setback line should not encroach in the easement
at the southerly line of Lot 3. Block 1.
This concludes out comments regarding the referenced project, and we recommend
approval.
Yours very truly.
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
ASSOCIATES.% INC.
John P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB:nlb
Enclosures
cc: Thomas Eidem, Administrator
Dennis Taylor
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
6. Clarification of Previous Motion Relating to Requirements to
Reserve On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Applicant, Stuart
Hoglund. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last regular Council meeting, a motion was made and pass ed
to allow Stuart Hoglund to pay only the 4th Quarter pro rate
fee of the annual liquor license. On October 9, a motion was
passed unanimously to grant the liquor license contingent upon
the submission of proper insurance and bond forms. I was given
direction at the last Council meeting to notify Mr. Hoglund
that the fee should be submitted immediately, even though it
was for the last quarter. Based on the actions of the two motions
combined. I informed Stuart that he should submit the final
quarter's fee, plus the insurance, plus the surety bond as required.
On Wednesday, February 20, 1985, Councilmember Maxwell called
me to state that he had not intended for his motion to require
that the insurance certificate be submitted until Mr. Hoglund
commences operation. I said that was fine and that we could
take it back to the Council. I indicated that it was my understanding
that the process needed to be completed so that the license
became active rather than simply reserved. In accordance with
my most recent letter and with Jaek'o request, the Stuart Hoglund
liquor application comes to the Council for consideration of
postponing the insurance requirements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant the postponement of insurance roquiroments - this,
in affect, moans that the license has not boon granted since
the entire package cannot bo submitted to the State for
final approval until all documents aro intact. Consequentl y,
the City is r000rving a license based on the payment of
a pro rata share of the annual fee.
2. Do not grant the postponement of insuranrn regii1romente -
this, in eosonce, requires Mr. Hoglund to pay a substantial
insurance premium for dra mahop coverage when, in fact, he
is not yet in the business of dispensing intoxicating liquor.
There is no staff recommendation on this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the October 9 minutes; Copy of the February 11, 1985,
Council meeting minutes (in the front of your agenda).
-6-
Council Minutes - 10/9/84
7. Consideration of an Application for a License to Sell Intoxicating
Liquor, On -Sale - Applicant, Stuart Hoglund DBA Oakwood Inn.
Mr. Stuart Hoglund requested an on -sale liquor license for his
proposed Oakwood Inn he is planning.
It was recommended by the City Administrator that if a license
is granted for the proposed Oakwood Inn, the annual license
fee should be paid to the City immediately.
Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the issuance of an on-salo intoxicating liquor
license to Stuart Hoglund DBA Oakwood Inn contingent upon the
submission of the proper insurance and bond forme.
0
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
7. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow an Apartment
Building to be Constructed in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant,
Metcalf 6 Larson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jim Metcalf and Brad Larson, partners in Metcalf b Larson Attorneys
at Law, are proposing to construct a 33 -unit subsidized low to
moderate income apartment building. The apartment building is
to consist of L9 one -bedroom units, 12 two-bedroom units, and
2 two-bedroom handicapped units for a total of 33 units. The
apartment building consists of 21 stories with the rear one-half
of the lower portion to have rental units. The proposed site plan
as submitted does allow enough square footage for site area, parking,
and open space green area. The proposed 33 -unit apartment building
as submitted per site pian does meet the minimum requirements of the
Monticello City Zoning Ordinance. The site plan does also consist
of 17 garage units or no garage units at all with a variance coming
before you in the next agenda item.
R. ALTERNATIV F_ ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow an apartment building
to be built to excess of 12 units.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow an apartment building to
be built in excess of 12 units.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow an
apartment building to be built In excess of 12 units. Staff also
feels that this type of project would be quite conducive to the area
that it to proposed to be built in.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the site plan for the proposed 33 -unit apartment building;
Copy of the location of the proposed 33 -unit apartment building.
515
Conditional Use Request to allow
�.• ;' an apartment building to be
constructed in excess of 12 unite.
�� - ;�• ` R / �' Metcalf 6 Larson.
p.�j'! °off. �! ` •` �1\
.�. .�
® C� :.
�•C�1� � fir. !%•_`� .r //•!.
71, w' . r e° tl• ., r. � is ,' (_,y Lr. .� `'! ./�,`lt
�C� ; / .i�. ,� .yen t � � / .�• •` �/ .(''e s/,
NO.
1.M TV ► 84
1-2
i
ItA4LROAD'R;O;W:,:
.yt•. s'1: 3
t I � fir. ...t••i �'•'. 0a :7.
3 : i �� it • � * lel I� l!
pppg t , x{4:,.5.•-."i� �F:,tt t •�'. .i .
r Y , } ei .t? tom: :4':;.?`• t fr ,,rV
t. -n , � .a.•"i�t }(moi• 1. •.P" li) +R�: •'�'+', i� t y
Y f1.f it ��^' U��•y T •-�y.'r�77
81re PLAN
J
PROPOSAL NO. i.
'(WITHOUT GARAGES)
StTI~ 1� L':la bq&v-Tmw lT Ou l -C3
$2�2'� • wT. be D tZG'O M
D12007M �4 OG'P)
�yU11,A11JC� AQP... �3 ToT,taL. �
i o,b�f?.
1.E�99Z 'gQ,�T.
GP>�r.► �Qac�
,1
X� Ilii' ^71'""' 81 ' 11 11 ' ■ti'�;; 11
r � � r■.. nr w.. 'E
LLlw�
AB R ELVATl6m ! +
�� • - � •� t -.i It•f 1.Sf:y y.
C.^
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
8. Consideration of Variance Reguest Appeal to Allow No Garages to
be Constructed on a 33 -Unit Apartment Building Site - Applicant,
Metcalf 6 Larson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jim Metcalf and Brad Larson, partners in Metcalf 6 Larson Attorneys
at Law, are proposing to build a 33 -unit subsidized low to moderate
income apartment building. They are requesting a variance to allow
no garages to be constructed on the apartment building site. The
Ordinance requires at least one-half of the apartment units to have
enclosed parking spaces or garages. Also, the Ordinance requires
any fraction be rounded up to the next highest number; therefore,
we would need 17 enclosed parking spaces. Garages have their
advantages and their disadvantages. The advantage of the garage
is it provides for tenants' vehicles and other storage which isn't
provided within the apartment building. The disadvantage of
requiring a garage is that It does up the rent for the low to
moderate income person renting here. The cost may increase from
$25.00 to $40.00 per month to rent a garage.
Eventually, we may wish to look at changes to this section of the
parking ordinance; we offer the following suggestions.
1. Reduce the number of off-street enclosed parking spaces
required to 1/4 of the total amount of units in the apartment
building; in this case, there would be 9.
2. For units in excess of the number of garages, there be required
at least one space per unit of enclosed outside storage space.
We are thinking on the some principal of a small utility type
building or buildings. In this case, there would be a continuous
building of similar type construction to the apartment building.
Possible sizes would be 4' x 8', 5' x 10', etc.
3. There be a bicycle rack. It also should be screened with a
similar type of material that is used ornnnd the exterior
garbage dumpster.
We would like to suggest the principal behind the exterior storages
that in apartment buildings there is certain space allowed for
storage of different items, but there are certain items such as
lawn chairs, barbecue grills, tricycles, bicycles, motorcycles,
snowmobiles that cannot be stored in an inside storage space.
Because we are not prepared to amend the ordinance, we suggest these
ideas be considered as conditions to any variance approval.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow no garages to be constructed
on an apartment building site.
-8-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
2. To allow the number of required garage spaces to be reduced to
1/4 of the total number of apartment units; in this case, 9
garage spaces will be required.
Same as above, but attach as conditions:
3. Require 23 additional outside enclosed smaller storage spaces.
4. Require an exterior bicycle rack to be constructed with a 3 -aided
screening fence.
5. if there are renters which have boats and boat or snowmobile
trailers, they be required to be put in an enclosed, screened
area from view of the public roadway.
6. Deny the variance request to allow no garages.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff takes the position of opposing the variance to allow no
garages without some conditions attached. City staff does suggest
a combination of all or portions of 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the alternative
actions to be attached as conditions to this variance request. Staff
fully realizes that any type of exterior construction is not funded
by the Federal Government; however, it would be a definite Improvement
to the site.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the apartment building site;
Copy of the site plan for the proposed no garages on this apartment
site; Copy of the letter submitted to City Administrator, Thomas
Eidem, from the applicant, Metcalf d Larson.
-9-
.V '-•Y! �. /t �1llx►El(Jl�jfJl7-t�r„'.�i�.L7r' . � r`
09
t! ®l t l r t7
_1, r co
y!N! o A
quo �oiYuct la
HIGHWAY lone Co t pui
.� Vas 000 �,o ePoYtmoo N0. 94
u )J[
N t alt 6 tM +4
,t. ` i , '� S ' tea°° a�� •a° .sr
� 71,
PROPOSAL NO. 1.
(WITHOUT GARAGES).
iSrrE',bAT X
boP&s�Tmmvj-T Uf.tt7g
8�•�2�1 5R• �T. R� - 2 e,ct� u�or.�
2 " x eamc 'OOH'. (,4 G7GP)
qui ►.n � nuc, aQ>� 3 3 To-r,t, L
pb4 -_?•.FT. PF -M PL -00%X-
vA¢.►L1r..�4 Aiz..�ta
y$�99L '`3q.FT.
SIP�*.WdL.IC„ nc?�ta
•�,3F7 �-�Q. FY.
Av
z 7fr-
a]
4k.
REAFiELEVATION
..an
Metcalf A .Carson
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.O. 80. u9
]13 west B,eeO«ey
MpViceno, M.."Ote 55752
JAMES G. METCALF
BRADLEY V. LARSON
February 13, 1885
Mr. 'Itm Eidan
City Administrator
City of Monticello
uonti.cello, 0 55362
RE: Application of Metcalf & Larson for a Variance
to Allow No Garages to be Constructed on a
`Ilrirty-throe (33) Unit. Aparunent Wilding Site
Ltiar Air. Eiden:
TELEPHONE
(512) 295-3232
METRO
(512)421.3393
As you know, Lite hiOnLicello PI -mining UnTnission denied the
al -)VC request an February 12, 1085. Kindly regard this letter
as an appeal from that action, scheduling Lhe s.'une before the
neXL City 00uncil Meeting, which I Wlieve Is on February 25, 1985.
It' further docrmlentntion is required for such an appeal, please
advise us.
R'e believe Lhe planning ttmnlssion is in error since the
requirement for gnt-ages is apparently contained in Section 10-3-5,
(11), 3, which Buttes that ut least two (2) off-street pxu'king spaces
shall be provided per unit, with one (1) enclosed space for two (2)
units. We told the planning Omnission that no garages were required
or built on Ilidganont, and the planning Qmnission argued that this
was an elderly project. We fail to understand any reasonable distinction
between an elderly pnojmt and a low-incano project. 1•lrrther, we argue
that Re111111 dt; wns pennl.tted to build a thirty-six (36) unit building with
nine (9) garages, and subsequently built a twelve (12) unit building with
no garages. It nppea.rs to us that the pinnninil O:mnission hag no logical
or legitimate basis to deviate fr(m Lhe Ordinance, as apparently hnhpened
.in the Case of Ile.luhn dL's project, and now W apply the Ordinance on an
infl,axiblo basis ag11111sL us is unfa.i.r.
Wo I)OIALVo Llt'tt. Lhe easiest sol.uLion to the probicm would be to provide
that When a UJILiple (IMI -Hing unit is funded by sLnto or federal funds, or
subshdizrd by slate Or fericrn] fund. -3, if the project me Ls the raluir(mits
Of Lhe stnto and/or fc.(leral agency, IL shall. he dtN.m(d to ukk:c t the raluire-
ments of Lite CILy. 91tcse state and foderal requir(ments continue to change,
and 11' Lho City desires to tiuplr)rL and encournge these types of prOjcetR,
wileLher IL Ito low incur or elderly, I fall to understand why it establishes
ruluirotrcnts that, are nnrc st.ringcnt than either the federal or state government.
co
Mr. Ttwn Eiden
February 13, 1985
Page Two
In any event, we ought not to be held to rcquironents more stringent
than Reinhardt, and applying the same percentages• our project would be
required to have 6.1875 garages.
Sincerely,
• /,s/D�'vaso�
JG1l:cLns ame G. Metcalf
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow an Additional
Number of Vehicles to be Placed on an Outdoor Sales Lot - Applicant,
Monticello Auto Sales. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Dr. McCarty is requesting a conditional use to allow him to increase
the number of vehicles currently parked on his outdoor sales lot
on the former Dino's Other World property. Dr. McCarty is requesting
to be allowed 10 additional vehicles from the present number of 10,
total amount of 20 allowed to be parked on his sales lot. In the
total number of 20 vehicles proposed if his request is approved,
it should be noted that the number of vehicles also has trailers
included with that number. In reviewing the conditions attached to
Dr. McCarty's original conditional use permit, Dr. McCarty has
adhered to all the conditions set forth by the Monticello Planning
Commission and the Monticello City Council.
The City staff does have some concerns that we would like addressed
at this City Council meeting to Dr. McCarty. They are as follows: 1)
Having the number increased to 20 vehicles is the maximum that is
allowed there for all 7 days of the week, not just the five working
days of the week. 2) Having received several complaints of auto
sales activity being conducted at tits home, have Dr. McCarty aware
that his conditional use request can be revoked and also his used
auto sales license can be revoked by conducting auto sales out of
his home.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Approve the condition as a conditional use request to allow 10
as the number of additional vehicles to be placed on the outdoor
sales lot.
2. Deny the condition as a conditional use request to allow 10
additional vehicles to be placed on the outdoor sales lot.
3. Approve Alternative Action UI with two additional conditions to
be attached to his original conditional use request. They are
as follows:
a) The total number of vehicles, twenty (20), that are to be
parked on the used auto sales lot be the total number for
all seven days of the week.
b) That his conditional use permit and his used auto sales
license can be revoked at any time should we have a complaint
or should we, the City, find him selling or displaying autos
out of fits residential property.
-10-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Dr. McCarty's conditional use permit
to allow him 10 additional vehicles to be placed on his outdoor
sales lot. Dr. McCarty has met the conditions placed on the
original conditional use permit, and we would like to recommend
Alternative Action D3 that two additional conditions be attached
to his original conditional use permit. Dr. McCarty does keep the
auto sales lot in good condition and neat appearance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the conditions of Dr. McCarty's original conditional use
permit.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/84
Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor
Sales in a B-3 Zone - Applicant, Monticello Auto Sales, Inc.
Mr. Clarence McCarty, owner of Monticello Auto Sales, Inc.,
was present to explain hie proposal to have a sales lot to display
his automobiles which he currently has for solo. The proposed
lot in question is the W &, of the former Dino -s Other World
property. The lot consists of a very badly deteriorated parking
lot, which could be upgraded for the display of the vehicles
which Mr. McCarty would like to sell. Conditional uses for
the auto sales lot itcclf, Lhore 'all be no office building
or repair garage whatsoever. There will be no buildings at
all. It will be just a lot for display of his automobiles.
Commission members asked Mr. McCarty the number of cars he would
like to have out there. He indicated the total number he would
like to have at this time would be 30 cars. Staff is suggesting
a maximum of 10-15 cars; preferably 10 cars now, and if the
need should arise and he needs additional ones, he can come-
back and ask for space for additional care on the lot. With
no input from the public, motion by William Pair, seconded by
Ed Schaffer, to approve the conditional use request to allow
outdoor sales in a B-3 Zone with the following conditions:
1I The conditional use be for a period not to exceed past December 31.
1985; 7) The vehicles to be sold there, whether they be automobiles
or pickups, will not exceed a gross vehicle weight of 9,000 lba.
3) The site be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and meet
his approval bsforo it can be open for business. 4) The area
be lighted and the light directed to the care on the sales lot
only. 5) The total number of caro at this point not to exceed
10. 6) The entire area which Mr. McCarty is leasing be kept
neat and wall maintained through the duration of his conditional
ties permit. 7) The vehicles to be displayed belong only to
Monticello Auto Salon and they not be consignment cars from other
Individuate or corporations. 0) A fence be put around the old basement
in the front and on the two aides. Motion carried unanimously.
101
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
10. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Sales,
Service, and Outdoor Storage in a B-3 Zone - Applicant, Samuel
Properties. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Sam Peraro, owner of Samuel Properties, is proposing to build
a 40' x 60', 2400 sq. ft. retail business building. The retail
business building will accommodate a rental equipment business.
Within the rental equipment business building, the front portion
which will abut State Highway 25 will be used for a sales area,
and the rear portion of the building abutting Sandberg Road will
be a service area for this building. Also to the rear of the
property will be a 30' x 40' screened in storage area. The
parking lot will be hard surfaced with curb and gutter to accommodate
12 parking spaces, with one apace for the handicapped parking.
The developer, himself, is requesting no variances other than the
conditional use permit to have this type of activity allowed as
a conditional use in a B-3 Zone.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Approve the conditional use request to allow outdoor sales,
service, and outdoor storage in a B-3 Zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow outdoor sales,
service, and outdoor storage in a B-3 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow
outdoor sales, service, and outdoor storage in a B-3 Zone. Mr.
Peraro, owner of Samuel Properties, has constructed a previous
building to the ordinance without asking for any variances as
indicated, which is also what he would like to do with this
particular proposed building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed new building; Copy of the
proposed site plan for the new building.
/*
al
F
'444
P7
W4
' • � 'tel . � • / '® _
40'V
Conditional a q
to allow o 1,14 .4 —
'r outdoor :.I
r o
and outdootor g in
asuel Propertie2
NO
941
ft&ZA
so
rvrv-
..
I
� M.w.w.rc•. G•a+.cw ee �•� a n.e..•c..�� G••wa•
•• ✓ i
l0 Jt\r.•TY Ab
00. A..o.Abt CAyc M�.tiT
I
f
N
PA A
A
�!
�1►i
2x,1aS.oa sa rr.
�
C
1
!
N,
'
N
t
1 !'
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
11. Consideration of Senior Citizen Director Attending National
Conference on Aging. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Karen Hanson has recently requested permission to attend the
National Conference on Aging in San Francisco, California this
coming April 21 through the 24th. Karen had indicated to me
that several years ago the Council had discussed the possibility
of Karen attending conferences such as these on an irregular
basis based on cumulative budgeting. In the 1985 Budget, I
placed and the Council approved a sum of $1,200.00 for travel,
conferences, and schools. That large of sum was put into the
budget because the two previous budgets excluded money for that
classification.
Karen brought to my attention that National Conferences had
been discussed by the City Council back in 1980 when she last
attunded a National Conference. After some research, we did
find the minutes where this matter was discussed and the motion
that authorized her attendance. Karen and 1 agreed that the
minutes did not clearly indicate what the Council's intent was
when they referred to the possible attendance on an every other
year basis. I discussed the question with my predecessor, Gary
Wieber, and he indicated that it was his understanding that such
conferences could be allowed on an Irregular basis but that his
understanding was that the Council would prefer to make the final
decision. Hence, the question of Karen's attendance becomes a
Council agenda Item rather than an administrative decision.
The cost projected for this annual conference is as follows:
Air Transportation,
Hound Trip
$ 250.00
Conference Registration
90.00
Conference Meals
95.00
Meals (on tier own)
40.00
Incidental Transportation
(cab, airport mileage, etc)
100.00
Hotel Accommodations
300.00
Total
$ 875.00
Rased on the fact that this would be Karen's first conference in
five years, that makes the expenditure average out to $175.00 per
year. 1 find this to be a rather negligible expense for the
opportunity and learning experience that goes along with attending
a national conference.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Approve and authorize Karen Hanson's attendance at the 35th
Annual Conference on Aging in Son Francisco, California.
-13-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
2. Deny her request to attend said conference.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no formal recommendation on this request, but 1, as an
Administrator, certainly endorse the request and the expenditure.
I think that the money would be well spent and that the learning
experience justifies the expense. I further think that in the
spirit of the motion that was made in 1980, the Council would be
wise to follow up on their consideration of these national conferences.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the minutes from March of 1980.
U VE
4. Consideration of Approval of Senior Citizen Center Director to Attend
the National Conference Sponsortd by the National Council on the Aqinq, Inc.
Karen Hanson, Senior Citizens Center Director,, requested approval to
attend the above conference, which would be held on April 20 thru 23,
1984 in Washington, D.C. Karen indic6ted that�,ihe maximum cost for this
conference would be approximately $670, and felt there were many items
on the agenda that would be helpful for the Senior Citizens Center in
Monticello.
It was noted that $500 was authorized in the 1980 budget for such an
expenditure, with the understanding that Conferences of this nature
would not be on an annual basis, but could allow for attendance on an
every -other -year basis. h
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously
carried to approve expenditures of up to $670 for Karen Hanson to
attend the National Conference on Aging in Washington, D.C. in
April of 1980.
0
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
12. Consideration of Sale of City Truck. W.S.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
During the preparation of the specifications for the new dump
truck, the staff allowed for the City to sell the 1972 Chevrolet
Dump Truck outright or to trade it in toward the now dump truck.
The Hoglund Bus Company was awarded the contract for delivery
of the new City truck. Their guaranteed trade-in value for
our 1972 Chevrolet was $3,000.00.
For the past two weeks, we have advertised in the local papers
for bids for the axle of the 1972 Chevrolet truck. The specifications
and bidding instructions show that the City will consider only
bids of $3,100.00 or more. The bids are due no later than 2:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, February 20. The high bidder is asked to put
10% of the bid price down on the vehicle. The rest of the balance
is due upon delivery. Delivery of the used vehicle will be
upon receipt of the new vehicle by the City.
The following is a tabulation of all bide recoived for the vehicle.
Hoglund Bus Company $3,000.00
original bid
` Fred Bonk $4,850.00
Prod Bonk Gravel
P.O. Box 346
Buffalo, MN 55313
As can be soon by the above, the high bidder is Prod Bonk
of Fred Bonk Gravel for an amount of $4,850.00 .
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Altornativo #I would be to lot the 1972 Chevrolet go to
Hoglund Bus for a trade of $3,000.00.
2. Altornativo #2 would bo to sell tho 1972 Chovrolat to tho
highest bidder for $4,050.00
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is tho staff recommendation that wo sell the 1972,Chovrolot
truck to Prod Bonk from Prod Bonk Gravel for 54,050.00
as outlined in Alternative M2.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Nona.
.Ig.
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
13. Consideration of a Resolution Allowing Municieal Employees to
Enroll in a Deferred Compensation Program. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In addition to PERA, public employees are allowed to enroll in various
and sundry programs that allow one to defer part of their annual
compensation. In the past couple of weeks. City employees have heard
presentations from a representative of the International City
Management Association -Retirement Corporation and from a represent-
ative of a local insurance agency. Each presenter discussed the
various pluses of the types of deferred compensation programs they
have to offer. Most of the employees who attended these presentations
have expressed an interest in taking advantage of a deferred
compensation program.
In order to initiate a deferred compensation program, a City Council
must adopt a resolution allowing for a payroll deduction and ordering
that it be paid into an approved deferred compensation plan. Deferred
compensation funds of these types are comprised of 100% employee monies.
The City, the employer, does not contribute to this fund in any way.
The only contribution by the City is in the time it takes our payroll
clerk to make the deduction.
The resolution or motion that needs to be adopted authorizes the
Administrator to establish a relationship with two deferred compensation
plans. We feel it is beneficial to allow the Administrator's office
to authorize which companies will carry the funds so that if a new
and better plan comes along, an adjustment does not have to be brought
to the City Council. These deferred compensation plans are virtually
identical to the plan that you allowed Gary Wieber before me and now
me to enroll in. The difference is that employees who choose to go
into these programs cannot opt out of PERA. Rather, participation
in a deferred compensation plan by our employees utilizes their own
funds and is in addition to PERA. The programs do require, as noted
above, approval by the City Council in order to achieve the tax
exempt status.
I think it would be extremely beneficinl to each employee who wished
to enroll in such a program to have that opportunity. I request the
Council adopt such n resolution. Again, I emphasize that the City
has no financial obligation to contribute to these funds. The money
is comprised entirely of o portion of the employee's annual compensation
that he/she wishes to defer for tax reasons.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the resolution.
2. Do not adopt the resolution.
-16-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Monticello School District provides six separate funds for
their employees to enroll in. It is my belief that providing
two separate funds for the employees to choose from is sufficient
at this time. If we find that administratively we can handle
a greater number of deferred compensation funds, we can incorporate
that right into our payroll procedures. I recommend that the
Council adopt the resolution allowing our employees to enter
deferred compensation plans.
There is no supporting documentation for this item. Since the
employees who wish to enroll in these plans have to determine
which are most beneficial for them, it seems that the details
involving the various plans should be reviewed by them rather
than by the Council.
-17-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
p 14. Fire Hall Committee Progress Report. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Since the let of the year, the Fire Hall Building Committee has
met three times, January 15, February 5, and February 19. The
members of that Committee are Council members Blonigen and Fair,
Fire Department representatives Pitt and Farnick, City staff
members Anderson, Simola, Eidem, and TKDA representatives Hendrickson
and Lonsky. Through the course of those meetings, a number of
major decisions have been made and various design features debated
and altered. The Committee, charged with making working decisions
for the project, has been making substantial gains in the process.
However, at our February 19 meeting, a representative of the Fire
Department raised a concern that members of the public were
becoming openly critical as to .some of the decisions made by the
Planning Committee. Rather than go through the entire design
process and be prepared to put out plans and specifications for
bids only to have the City Council reject all of our efforts,
we felt it was essential to bring a progress report to the Council
on where we have been and where we are currently.
Essentially, we have arrived at the following:
The floor plan and elevations of the building as
proposed in the bond issue remain relatively unchanged.
Some minor adjustments have been made to design
features. The main apparatus room will be designed
to be made from concrete block. The remainder of the
building will be of wood frame construction. The siding
of the entire building is proposed to be smooth, natural
colored cedar, which will be treated for resiliency and
life. The hose tower feature will have an external face
put on it that will allow fire fighter training. Some
parking has been adjusted and moved around on the site.
The building is proposed to be a super insulated structure
generating high R values in both ceiling and walls.
The balance of the Committee's discussion has been involved
with detail type work such as placement of slop sinks and
those sorts of decisions. Dan has been very involved in
reviewing the proposed construction plans and construction
techniques. A great deal of discussion vent into the
decision to go with a natural wood aiding. Historically.
municipal buildings have always been masonry. The Committee
debated long and furiously over the merits and demerits of
masonry, wood, and stucco. The architects who favored
masonry in the early stages did extensive research into the
energy efficiency and maintenance expense involved with
wood and have come to the position where they recommend wood
instead of masonry. Based on their research and the
-18-
Council Agenda - 2/25/85
examination of and testimony on other wood
structures,the Committee elected to go with a wood
siding facility. That very issue, we are told, is
the source of contention from many members of the
public. It is for this very reason that we bring
the Fire Hall issue to the City Council for review.
If It is the consensus of the Council that wood
siding will be rejected, then we on the Committee wish
to go no further with the plans and specifications
until the decision is made. We do not wish to get to
a situation that would be extremely costly wherein the
Council rejects the final plans and orders them to be
re -prepared before the bidding procedure can begin.
Those of us who sit on the Building Committee request the
Council to make their decision at this time so that the
project may progress.
Editorial Comment: Speaking only for myself, should the Council at
this time elect to override the decision of the Building Committee and
architects, then I would like to have another person appointed to
take my place on the Building Committee. As Administratnr, I will
still be ultimately responsible for the progress of the project and
certainly the execution of contracts and the proper execution of
the bond procedure. Each of us appointed to the Committee were
charged with the responsibility of making specific decisions that
will provide for an economical yet top quality facility. That
decision has been made by the Committee after many, many hours
of discussion and research. While 1, myself, am not qualified to
comment on any aspect of building and construction, our panel is
comprised of one professional contractor, two professional
architects, and the City Building Official. Our decisions are
neither arbitrary nor capricious. It 1s my contention that if the
decisions made by the Committee are to be overruled or undermined,
then the Committee need not exist,for the decisions we make have
no foundation. 1 believe that each decision made by the Committee
to data can be substantiated through research and comparable dnta.
In my estimation, no one on the Committee has taken their tasks
lightly. Everyone Involved hao attempted to ensure that the City
get the greatest value for Its dollar. If the City Council grants
their general approval to the development of the project to date.
then we fully anticipate having full Co -=it review of plans and
spec's by the 25th of March. Advertising for bids will occur shortly
after that date. Construction is scheduled to begin the lot week
of June.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
GENERAL FUND - FEBRUARY DISBURSEMENTS AMOUNT CHECK N
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
20.00
20109
Viking Safety Products - 3 Safety signs
18.00
20110
Central McGowan - Lease agreement for cylinders
86.00
20111
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Misc. labor and repairs
586.12
20112
Equitable Life Assurance - .Ins. premiums
40.00
20113
MN. Department of Economic Security - Keith Trippe unemploy.
285.00
20114
U. S. Postmaster - Postage stamps
200.00
20115
Jerry Hermes = Janitorial at L1Erary
172.92
20116
Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense
212.50
20117
Joseph Johnson - Animal control expense
125.00
20118
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment - January
4,758.00
20119
Thomas Eidem - Refmb. for Leg. conference
10.90
20120
Citizen State'Bank of Big Lake - Int. on tax increment note
1,440.00
20121
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
458.37
20122
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall
308.15
20123
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
20124
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
20125
William Fair - Council salary
125.00
20126
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
20127
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
20128
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
212.50
20129
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
27.00
20130
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
108.00
20131
State Capitol Credit Union- Payroll Jed.
185.04
10132
Wright County State Bank - FWT for Jan.
4,723.00
20133
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - 1/15/85 thru 1/31/85
2,705.00
20134
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/11
1,469.44
20135
State Treasurer - PICA withholdings
2,739.54
20136
Wright County Sheriff Dept.. - Police cuntrnct payment
9,494.38
20137
Fulfillment Syvtems, Inc. - UDAG payment
3,393.00
20138
Annkn County Social Services - K. Trippe -- Reimb.
176.00
20139
Mn. Section CSWPCA - Seminar for Albert Meyer
40.00
20140
North Central Public Service - Gas - January
4,680.13
20141
Northern States Power - Utilities
10,929.78
20142
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
238.50
20143
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
40.00
20144
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg, fees
72.00
20145
Wright County State Bank - C. 1). purchase
200,000.00
20146
lot National Bank of Monticallo - C. D. purchase
95,000.00
20147
MN. Pollution Control Agency - Seminar Reg. fee - J. Simola
35.00
20148
Govt. Finance Officers Assoc. - Membership duns - T. F.ldem
70.00
20149
Smith, Pringle, Hayes - Legal - Nov. thru Jan.
2,502.00
20150
Vance's Service Center - Gas for Fire Dept.
59.18
20151
Paul Weingarten - OAA attorney fees
516.00
20152
State Treasurer - Backhoo attachment, bookcaso, etc. - Mites.
1,826.00
20153
Servi Star Hardware - Supplies
227.14
20154
Road Machinery - Rental of truck for Christ. decorations
410.08
20155
Ranger Products - Supplies for WWTP
89.32
20156
Snyder Drug - Photos for Fire Dept.
2.31
20157
RGK Enterprise - Meter and office supplies for WWTP
725.15
20158
Seidenkranz Welding; Service - Welding repair for WWTP
45.00
20159
Safety Klaus - Repairs for St. Dept.
33.00
20160
Office of Special Programs - Reg, fee for R. Cline 6 R. Mack
40.00
20161
National Chemsearch - Sprayer for WWTP
28.53
20162
Feedrite Controls - Poly 05 and Samples
1,691.35
20163
OSM - ling. fees - Nov. 6 Dec.
8,649.05
20164
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CIIECK NO.
Dick's 66 Service - Exhaust labor on Fire trucks
326.90
20165
Harry's Auto Suppy - Parts and supplies
478.08
201
Brock White Co. - Freight charges
25.00
2016/
Orkin Exterminating Co. - Contract payment - WWTP
106.00
20168
Howard Dahlgren Assoc. - January planning expense
301.24
20169
Wright County Auditor - Police contract for Feb.
9,783.33
20170
Marco Business' Products - Mtce. agreement fee 6 supplies
549.88
20171
Foster Franzen Agency - Ins. prem. for Prof. liability
1,249.39
20172
MN. Dept. of Energy b Econ. Dev. - Inst. charge for Star City
568.00
20173
Springsted, Inc. - Issuance of G. O.Bonds - $860,000
9,381.77
20174
Moon Motors - Chain saw repair
29.76
20175
Jim Hatch Sales - Ind. 6 volt spring top battery - St. Dept.
53.50
20176
Maus Foods - Supplies for all depts.
138.32
20177
Midwest Computer Service - WWTP services
45.00
20178
Griefnow Sheet Metal - Furnace repair - Mtce. 6 Warming House
105.50
20179
Maus Tire Service - Tire repair
61.73
20180
National Bushing - Parts and supplies
80.30
20181
Monticello Printing - S/W postale & binders
210.65
20182
Monticello Times - Adv., etc.
262.20
2.0183
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
31.00
20184
Ind. Lumber Co. - Material for Inf. Center
15.46
20185
Int. Union - Local 049 - Dues
126.00
20186
Laliass Mfg. - Hoist repair parts
140.74
20187
Klplinger Washington Editors - Sub.
48.00
20188
Garelick Steel - Assorted steel for shop
174.60
20189
Hoglund Bus Co. - Parts and supplies
123.16
20190
Davis Electronic Service - Fire Dept. pager repairs
222.52
201 -
Central McGowan - Cylinder rental
2.48
2015- /
Coast to Coast - Supplies for all Depts.
129.50
20193
A to Z Upholstery - Twine and needle - WWTP
11.50
20194
Ben Franklin Store - Frame.
2.99
20195
Audio Communications - Fire Dept. tone board
70.00
20196
R 6 C Associates - Cleaners for St. Dept.
13.25
20197
A.ME Ready Mix - Used belting - WWTP
10.00
20198
Albinnon, Inc. - Leval - rod sections - St. Dept.
85.32
20199
Ace Lock A Safe Co. - Repair locks at shop A garage
73.00
20200
Bowman Distribution - WWTP supplies
331.54
20201
MN. NAHRO Membership - HRA membership for A. Pulvtt
25.00
20202
MIDA - Membership dues for A. Pelvit
65.00
20203
Phillips Petro. - Gas for Water Dept.
73.30
20204
AT&T Information - Fire phone chargee
3.59
20205
Capital Markets - 1st Bank Mpls. - Public fund charges
20.U0
20206
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
4,334.66
20207
State of MN. - MN. State Register - Annual sub. fees
136.89
20208
Dianne Jacobson - Seminar expense
5.25
20209
National Life Ins. - Ina, premium for T. Eidem
100.00
20210
Milbank Ins. Co. - ins. on one family dwelling
319.90
20211
Moody'a Investors Service - Bond rnting expense
1.000.00
20212
Burlington Northern R. R. - Yard map of city of Monticello
25.00
20213
Gwen Bateman - Animal t_ontrol expense - 10/1 thru 10/19
415.40
20214
Chemsearch - Liquid Deicer - WWTP
185.48
20215
Wright County Mayor's Assoc. - Annual dues for A. Grlmsmo
80.00
2021"
Rick Wolfatallor - Mileage, etc. thru 2/13
108.52
702 J
Reg.. Dept. of Conf. - Reg. fee for H. Wolfateller
90.00
20218
N. W. Null Telephone - Fire phone charges
36.68
20219
Int. City Managemt. Assoc. - 1985 Munlcipnl year boo4
59.00
20220
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK Ni
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
185.04
20221
Jerry -Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
172.92
20222
Mary Ramthun - Dog contract payment
212.50
20223
Tom Eidem —Car allowance
300.00
20224
MN. City Management Assoc. - Membership renewal for T. Eidem
25.00
20225
Monticello Fira Dept. - Wages thru 2/15/85
1,032.00
20226
MN. State Treasurer - FICA withholdings 2/1/85 thru 2/15/85
2,592.14
20227
Mobil Oil Corporation - Gas - Water Dept.
97.17
20228
Karen Doty - Mileage to seminar.
64.00
20229
Gary Anderson - Misc. mileage
27.71
20230
Internal Revenue.Service - Levy proceeds
354.15
20231
Bergstrom Bros.'= Elbow fittings for streets and alleys
7.99
20232
John Simola - Mileage to seminar
57.66
20233
Zap Mfg. Co. - Mops, handles, brush for WWTP
131.18
20234
Curtin Matheson Scientific - Misc. supplies for WWTP
382.62
20235
Waldor Pump Co. - Repair parts for pum? at WWTP
599.53
20236
Berry's Tree Service - Cutting down 4 elm trees
475.00
20237
Olson b Sons Electric - Repairs to all Depts.
559.21
20238
Grizzly Corporation - C.O.D. - parts for St. Dept.
72.91
20239
MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings
1,383.18
20240
National Chemsearch - I doz. aerosol
76.21
20241
Pyle Backhoe - Steaming and pumping at WWTP
135.00
20242
Flicker T.V. - Fuses for Library
2.29
20243
Thomas Eidem - Misc. meetings expense
29.22
20244
Monticello Chamber of Commerce - 1985 dues
150.00
20245
Audio Communications - 2 Motorola convertors
980.00
20246
Wright County State Bank - FWT - February
2,772.00
20247
Payroll for January
28.126.84
TOTAL GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS - FEB.
436,033.13
LIQt= FUND
DISBURSEMENTS FOR FEBRUARY - 1985 AMClUlIT CHECK
tIO.
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
3,681.47
11610
Gripgs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
3,618.90
11611
State Capitol Credit Union- Payroll ded.
20.00
11612
Wright County State Bank - FWT - Jan.
432.00
11613
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - Jan.
244.00
11614
MN. State Treasurer - PERA withholdings - 1/15/85 - 1/31/85
162.63
11615
"LN. State Treasurer - FICA withholdings - 1/15/85 - 1131185
277.94
11616
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
2,838.79
11617
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,567.78
11618
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
923.70
11619
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,279.25
11620
North Central Public Service - Cas for Jan.
320.00
11621
Northern States Power Co. - Electricity
581.91
11622
Ed Phillips 4 Sons - Liquor
5.488.70
11623
Quality Wine 4 Spirits - Liquor
602.38
11624
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
2.357.94
11625
Service Sales Corporation - Supplies for Store
60.00
11626
Olson 4 Sons Electric - Repair lighting at Store
61.41
11627
Maus Foods - Misc. supplies
27.77
11628
Const to Coast - Pail, sponge, bulbs, tape, etc.
16.85
11629
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
364.91
11630
Frito-Lay, Inc. - Misc. mdse.
106.60
11631
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse.
100.56
11632
NCR Corporation - Supplies for Store
108.80
11633
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer purchases
2,467.52
11634
Grosslein Beverage - Beer purchases
8.217.40
11635
Dray Dist. Co. - Beer 6 mise. purchases
742.65
11636
Seven Up Bottling Co. - Misc. purchases
222.20
11637
Bernick's ilepsi Coln Bottling Co. - Misc. purchases
353.00
11638
City of Monticello - Sewer/water for 4th quarter
72.86
11639
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract
82.50
11640
1.1cfert Trucking - Freight
491.20
11641
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
241.90
11642
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. purchases
717.42
11643
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
4.738.45
11644
Dahlheimer iliac. Co. - Beer
8,991.09
11645
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
51.24
11646
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
20.00
11647
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine purchases
291.06
11648
Griggs, Cooper 4 Co. - Liquor
1,502.26
11649
State Treasurer - Social Sec. W/M
270.50
11650
Radisson Botcl St. Paul - Liquor conference expanse
118.00
11651
MN. Municipal Liquor Stores. Inc. - Rag. fee for M. Irmtter
35.00
11652
MN. State Tronaurer - PERA withholdings
158.27
11653
Wright County State Bank - FWT - February
247.00
11654
Payroll for January 3,884.70
TOTAL I.IQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - FEBRUARY 60,160.51
INDIVIDUAL PEP.MIT ACTIVITY REPORT
MONTH OF January 1 1985
1
DESCRIPTION P
NAME/LOCATION•
�VALUATION
OMER
—
—
PERMIT
SIACHAR,E'P1UNR]iuG'
SURCMAR6a
85-719
Finish Off easement ADI
Merriell Magnuson/513 Bast 3rd St.
S 1,430.00
S 14.30
S .70
-
85-720
Nov Interior PartitionWallsAO Thorp Loan Thrift/214 Meet 7th St.
1,430.00
14.30
.70
85-721
House L Garage Renovation AD Janette Lesresen/705 Y. River St.
55,000.00
298.00
27.50
TOTALS
$57,860.00
5326.60
528.90
A
_
i
I
i
!
i
I
1 TOTAL REVENUE
$ 355.50
i
t
CITY OF MO NfICELLO
Mmthly Building Department Report
PERMITS and USE
Month of .Panuary 19 e5
This
'Same Month
'Last Year
This Year l
PERMITS ISSUED
Month December
Month
Month 3anuary Last Year
To Date
To Date 4
RESIDENTIAL
Number •
1
2
2
2
2
valuation
i 1,430.00
856,430.00
8 4,200.00
i 4,200.00
$ 56,430.00
Fees
14.30
312.30
51.50
51.50
312.30
Surcharges
.70
28.20
2.10
2.10
28.20
OOMM=AL
Number
1
1
2
2
1
Valuation
70,000.00
1,430.00
51,500.00
51,500.00
1,430.00 i
Fees
565.95
14.30
484.45
484.45
14.30 I
Surcharges
35.00
.70
25.75
25.75
.70
INDUSTRIAL
Number
Valuation
Fees
Surcharges
PWMMBING
Ilumber
1
1
Fees
14.00
14.00
Surcharges
.50
.50
OTHERS
Number
Valuation
Fees
Surcharges
TOTAL NO. PERMITS
2
3
5
5
3
TOTAL VALUATION
71,430.00
57,860.00
55,700.00
55,700.00
57,860.00
TOTAL FEES
580.25
326.60
549.95
Scws
326.60
TOTAL SURCHARGFS
WRRET MMM
M
35.70
28.90
28.35
28.35
28.90
Number to Dnte
PERMIT NATURE
Number
PgUQT
' Valuation This
Year Leat veer
Single Family
1
t
0 0
Duplex
0 0
Multi -faraday
0 0
Commercial
0 1
Industrial
0 0
Ree. Garages
0 0
Signe
o 0
Public Buildings
T
0 0
LTERATION OR REPAIR
Dwellings
2
312.30
28.20
56,430.001
2 2
! Commercial
1
14.30
.70
1,430.00
1 1
Industrial
0 0
i
! PLUMBING
All types
i
0 1
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Swie®ing Pools
0 0
Docks
0 0
I TEMPORARY PLRIUT
0 • 0
DrAOLITION
0 0
TMALS
3
3 326.60
1526.90 8
57,860.00
3 5