City Council Agenda Packet 04-22-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 22, 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 Regular Meeting Held April 8,
1985.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Public Hearing
4. Public Hearing - Plaza Partners Subdivision.
Old Business
5. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to Plaza Partners Sub-
division.
6. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution of Approving Plans and
Specifications for Fire Hall Construction and Authorizing
�- Advertisement for Bids.
7. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of Ancillary
Equipment for the Fire Department Van.
8. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use Request to Allow a
Self Service Gas Station and a Convenience. Store in a B-3
(Highway Business Zone) Applicant - Curt Hoglund.
9. Consideration of Cranting Final Approval of a Replat of
Existing Lots in an R-3 (Residential/Multi-Family Zone.
Applicant - Daryl and Donald Heikes.
10. Consideration of an Appeal to Overturn n Planning Commission
Decision Denying a Request for a Variance to Allow a Garage
to be Built Within the Front Setback Requirements. Applicant -
Doug Stokes.
11. Presentation by OSM of Water Study and Upgrading Well 01.
11
Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council
April 22 , 1985
Page 2
12. Confirmation of Closing Details for the Acquisition of the
North Half of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 50.
13. Consideration of Award of Bid on Project 85-1 Interceptor
Sewer.
New Business
14. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of
a Preliminary Application for Legislative Commission on
Minnesota's Resources Grant Funds.
15. Consideration of Granting a Seasonal 3.2 Beer License to the
Monticello Softball Association.
16. Consideration of Ratifying Election Returns of Monticello
Volunteer Fire Department Re-electing Willard Farnick as
Fire Chief.
17. Consideration of Approving the Bills for the Month of April.
18. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
April 8, 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.
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 25, 1985.
Voting in favor were Fair, Blonigen, Maxwell and Fran Fair
with Grimsmo abstaining due to his absence at the last
meeting.
4. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to Section 9-1-5: Protection
and Preservation of City Streets.
Public Works Director, John Si.mola, reviewed with the Council
the City's current ordinances regarding load limits on City
streets and noted that the current regulations limit axle
weight load to a maximum of 4 tons on any City street.
Numerous violations occur every day as many vehicles delivering
freight or such trucks as cement trucks and gravel trucks would
be in excess of 4 tons.
In an attempt to lessen the violations occurring on City
streets, the City Engineer has drafted a map indicating the
weight limits for all of the City streets. Based on the map,
the Public Works Director recommended that the City ordinances
be amended incrensing from 4 ton to 5 ton the maximum load
limit permissible and also that the Council adopt the current
street design capacity map regulating loads in excess of 5 ton.
In addition, the ordinance amendment would reduce load limits
upon City streets during Spring road restrictions.
A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell and unanimous-
ly carried to adopt Ordinance Amendment 0146 pertaining to
load limits on City streets. Sea Ordinance Amendment 0146.
5. Consideratfnn of Vacntinit Portions of Sixth Street, Seventh
Street, Hennepin Street, Washington Street, and Fallon Avenue,
Also Known as the Old Copland Road, All Luing Within the Proposed
Construction 5 Addition.
Construction 5, Inc. Is in the process of subdividing their
property, formally known as Blocks 47, 48, 49, 41 and 51 into
a now division for commercinl and multiple dwellings. As part
r,n
Council Minutes - 4/8/85
of the subdivision request, the City would be required to vacate
portions of Sixth Street, Seventh Street, Hennepin Street,
Washington Street and Fallon Avenue, which are currently
undeveloped and the replatting, would rededicate the streets
for extending Lauring Lane to Fallon Avenue.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair and
unanimously carried to vacate portions of Sixth Street,
Seventh Street, Hennepin Street. Washington Street and Fallon
Avenue located within the proposed division known as
Construction 5 Addition. All necessary utility casements
within these platted streets will be retained by the City.
6. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Final Plat for
Construction 5 Addition.
The final plat for the Construction 5 Addition has been reviewed
by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval con-
tingent upon an agreement being attached to the subdivision
that would allow no outdoor storage within the platted area
and that screening/planting plan be established for the lots
fronting on 1-94. In addition, the City Planner and the
Planning Commission recommended that some type of architect-
ural controls be established within this plat for all future
buildings that would be exposed to 1-94. 1
The proposed plat extends to Lauring Lane and Fallon Avenue
and provides for 7 lots.
A motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell and unani-
mously carried to approve the final plat os presented with
restrictive covenants attached to the plat providing for
plantings/screenings along 1-94 and an Architectural Control
Review Board being established to review future buildings.
7. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Conditional Usa Permit
to Allow a Mnitipla Dwelling in Excess of 12 Units - Applicnnt,
Construction 5.
Construction 5. inc. requested a conditional use request to
construct an 18 unit multiple dwelling on Lot I, Block 2 of
the newly created Constrction 5 subdivision. The con-
ditlonal use request was approved by the Planning Commission
contingent upon additional plantings being established
behind the proposed 18 unit garngo structure to screen the
facility from Louring Ione.
A motion was made by Maxwell. seconded by Fran Fair and unnni-
mously carried to approve the condittonnl use permit for an
18 unit apartment building contingent upon an additional
landscaping plan being presented providing additional plantings
to screen the garages from Louring, Lane.
z•
O
Council Minutes - 4/8185
S. Consideration of Authorizing Dahlgren. Shardlow and Ubon. Inc.,
Consulting Planners, to Commence a Downtown Rehabilitation Study.
A presentation on a proposed Downtown Rehabilitation Study has been
presented to the downtown retailers along with the Chamber of
Commerce. There appears to be an interest from the downtown
retailers in pursuing a study but committments from the
retailers would depend upon the cost and individual obligations
expected.
The initial proposal presented by the Consulting Planners for
Phase I of the Downtown Study involved a great deal of in-
ventory analysis and base map preparation. Information such
as this does little to excite the public and downtown
retailers on the potential of rehabilitation and as a result,
It was recommended that the Consulting Planner, during Phase 1,
prepare some perspective sketches along with site plan
developments on how the downtown could look after rehabilitation.
It was hoped that having some sketches available would generate
more interest from the downtown retailers and committment to
a rehabilition project. The estimated cost for this phase was
$4,500.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair and
unanimously carried to authorize Consulting Planners, Dahigren.
Shardlow and Ubnn, Inc. to commence a sketch alternative
program for the Downtown Rehabilitation Program, including
an area from Maple Street on the west to Palm Street on the
cast and Broadway Street on the north to the railroad tracks
on the south for the sum of $4.500.00.
9. Consideration of Council Formai Request to OSM to Complete As -
Built DrawinAs and Turn Over Reference Files for the WWTP Project.
Consideration of Council formal. request to OSM to complete as -
built drawings and turn over reference files for the WWTP
Project otherwiee known as WWTP. Public Works Director.
John Simola, informed the Council that it has been nenrly
two years after substantial completion of the WWTP Project and
the City has yet to receive a sot of acceptable nsbuilt
drawings or the necessary files pertaining to the construction
and equipment at the Treatment Plant from the City Engineer.
Mr. Simola noted that he has made numerous requests to the
engineer for the completed ashuilt drawings and now requested
that the Council formally request the engineer to complete the
asbuilt drawings.
City Engineer. John Bndalich, Indicated lie will have: the asbuilt
drawings completed and acceptable to the public Works Director
by April 30, 1985.
- 3 -
Council Minutes - 418/85
10. Consideration of City Hell Roof Specifications and Authorization
of Advertisement for Bids.
Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, informed the Council that
final plans and specifications for reroofing City Hall had
been reviewed by Council Member. Dan Blonigen, and himself
and had prepared for advertisement of bids.
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unani-
mously carried to approve the City Hall specifications as
presented and authorize the advertisement of bids for
construction.
11. Consideration of widening 7th Street and Relocating the Lighting
System in Connection with the Highway 25 Prolect.
As part of the MN. DOT proposed Hwy 25 improvement in 1986,
the Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated that
a problem exists with the width and alignment of 7th St.
intersection on Hwy 2 5. Due to the planned installation of
stop lights at this intersection, MN. DOT requests that the
City widen the 44 foot 7th St. west of Hwy 25 to a 52 foot
width which would result in the south side of 7th St, curb
and gutter being relocated an additional 8 feet to provide
a 52 foot width. At the present time, MN. DOT would allow
44 foot width on the east side of Hwy 25 to exist as it
presently is.
The estimated coat of removing the existing curbing on the
west 7th St. along with additional grading and paving was
estimated at $10,000.00 to $15.000.00. The widening of
7th 5t. would result in approximately $700 worth of land-
scaping being removed that was installed by Kentucky Fried
Chicken. It was agreed by the Council that the City Staff
should work with the owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken on
possible or partial reimbursement for landscaping coats that
will be lost due to the widening of this street.
MN. DOT requested Council authorization to include the widening
of 7th St. to 52 feet wide to be part of the Hwy 25 Improvement
Project expected to be let in 1986. All costs associated with
widening this street would he the responsibility of the City.
As part of the Hwy 25 Improvement Project, the City street
lights located along Hwy 25 would have to be moved beyond 1
the face of the new curb being proposed nlong Hwy 25. MN. DOT
requests that the City of Monticello obtain the services of
n consulting engineer to lay out and design the lighting re-
location and that the plans be completed in August 1985 for
incorporncion Into the Hwy 25 reconstruction project.
_a_o
Council Minutes - 4/8/85
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Rill Fair, and
unanimously carried to authorize MN. DOT to incorporate the
widening of 7th St. into their Hwy 25 Improvement Project and
to also authorize the consulting city engineer, OSM, to pre-
pare plans and specifications for the relocation of the
existing lighting along Hwy 25 to coincide with the Hwy 25
Construction Project.
12. Consideration of Purchase of Park Equiment.
Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council
the proposed purchase of park equipment for the Country Club
Manor Park which would include play ground equipment and for
picnic tables. The Public Works Director also requested
approval to buy 12 additional picnic table frames to replace
some of the old tables in other city parks. The total cost
for all improvements would be $4,533.00.
A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Rlanigen and unani-
mously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to
purchase 16 picnic table frames and various park play ground
equipment totalling $4,533.00 as requested.
13. Consideration of Authorizing investigation of Senior Center
Relocation.
A few years ago there were some preliminary discussions with
respect to the current Senior Citizen's Center building being
sold to private enterprise and being developed in the downtown
and with the Senior Center being relocated to the Assembly of
Cod Church property. That proposal fell through rather
quickly beenuse of the asking price of the Assembly of Cod
Church and the required expenses to convert the building
to suitable activities for the seniors. In recent weeks
there has Neon renewed interest expressed by a private
enterprise to acquire the Clty'n Senior Center downtown
and at the name time the Assembly of God Church has indicated
n willingness to reduce their asking price.
Karen Hanson, Senior Citizen Director, has informed the Council
thnt the seniors would be willing to inveseigate the possibilities
of relocating to tho Assembly of Cod Church. She noted that the
building provides for future expansion of activities but would
need some alterntions as an elevator to be suitable.
Tho main purposo of discussion was to determine whether there
was any interest on the City Council and the seniors to pursue
additional Investigation into possibly purchasing this property
for tho Senior Cantor. The discussion by the Council noted that
much more information would have to be obtained before any typo
,D
Council Minutes - 4/8/85
of decision could be made including costs involved in acquiring
the new property along with the possible sale of the existing
nate and how improvements and cost acquisition would be
financed.
After further discussion, it was the concensus of the Council
to authorize the staff to negotiate and investigate the
possible acquisition of a new site and the possible sale of
the existing site and present further information to the
Council.
U
Rick Wolfeteller
Assistant Administrator
- 6 -
9
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
4. Public Hearing - Plaza Partner Subdivision. (T F 1
5. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to Plaza Partners Sub-
division. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
I am combining item 94 and A5 simply because they both relate to
the some issue. Item 04 is the public hearing and item 05 which
must occur after the formal closing of the hearing is council
action. In the past couple of months, the plans that had been
developed for the Plaza Partner's PUD collapsed. The restaurant
and the motel which were to be part and parcel of the health
club development withdrew. Jim Powers, the developer of the
health club, made a decision to relocate the health club to the
southern most part of the parcel, formerly designated as
Outlet D. On December 10, 1984, the City Council unanimously
approved the final PUD for what was then known as 1-94 Plaza
contingent upon all fees and park dedication requirements
being paid. Because those fees were not forth coming, the
recording was not permitted. As I noted, since that time the
planned unit concept has collapsed and Mr. Powers approached
me with the notion of simply abandoning the original concept
and proceeding with the health club construction. I indicated
that we did have some concern over that since the health club
was integral to the planned ,unit proposed in the northerly
part of the development and that was now moving to the south.
Consequently, with the motel withdrawing, the restuarant with-
drawing and the health club moving south, no planned unit
existed. Through various conversations I suggested that he
consider amending the final plot, prior to recording, to
create a standard subdivision rather than a PUD since clearly
there was no planned unit in the development stages. I, dis-
cussed the conversion from a PUD to standard subdivision with
John Uban and he felt that such a conversion was quite simple.
The lot designations that had been previously established would
remain, but Outlet D should be further defined to become
standard lots. Likewise, the covenants and the common open
space/common parking would remain. Mr. Powers took the proposal
to Denny Taylor, the land surveyor, and the lot lines were
restructured to form a standard subdivision.
The reason that the public hearing is being held before the City
Council rather than the Planning Commission is to expedite
construction of the health club and of the Sandberg Road
extension. The final document for the revised subdivision
was not completed in time to make the public hearing notice
deadline. We indicated that Mr. Powers would very likely have
to wait until May so that the public hearing could be held on
the amended plat. Mr. Powers spoke with Mr. Ridgeway, ehnirman
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
of the Planning Commission, who indicated that since the intense
review had already been completed and we were merely looking at
replacement of lot lines, the Planning Commission would review
the revised plat and if it met their standards, would pass the
public hearing through to the City Council with their request
for the Council to hold such hearing.
With respect to the alterations of the subdivision, Outlot D has
been reduced in size to smaller lots. On former Outlot C lines
have been adjusted to comply with our hundred foot minimum
frontages. Public improvements and utilities do not change and
are still considered acceptable. Drainage will be adjusted to
accommodate the building location of the health club. All of
Sandberg Road will be improved in the summer of 1985. All out
of pocket expenses of the City will be reimbursed prior to
recording. The park dedication fee, we are requesting, be
deferred for a period of one year or until the next building
permit is requested, whichever comes first. It was also noted
and read into the record at the Planning Commission that the new
lots created by this realignment that now front only on Marvin
Road will be liable for assessments for improvements to Marvin
Road when that should possibly occur. This liability will be
there even if a developer chooses to locate a building facing
Sandberg Road.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. After closing the public hearing, deny the subdivision. Such
a denial must have rationale or be able to cite specific
deficiencies.
2. After the closing of the public hearing, grant final approval
to Plaza Partner Subdivision.
C. STAFF RECO:DIENDATION:
The staff recommends the granting of final approval of Plaza
Partners Subdivision contingent upon proper payment of fees.
We recommend that the motion contain a statement with respect
to the deferral of the $17,500 park dedication fee for one
year or until request for the next building permit, whichever
is first.
D. SUPPORTING DATE:
The original PUD layout, copy of the final plot of Plaza Partners
Subdivision layout
- 2 -
ola
U0.
2ANDG[fI3
SAMOBERO PCIAO
AND
is
;�
ourwr
CWN
nk
ourILOT
IL 1 1. 7.
ix
ROAD
m ARVIN
UJI-Ord6*1
-_If
ROAD
.0 -Awl.
R043
"11
41'
I 1j"110
Lj j
Fv
OUTWT
1� ! a r t „� a �i g * f �� IE a E; 1 1 Cp
--ww
S
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
6. Consideration of a Adopting a Resolution of Approving Plans and
Specifications for Fire Hall Construction and Authorizing
Advertisement for Bids. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Rather than attempt to report the entire process of the building
committee and how we arrived at this point, I think it would be
most efficient to allow the architects to report on their status,
and let Councilmember Blonigen respond on the status of the
committee at large and the technical subcommittee. There has
been intensive review over the plans and specs, and the members
of the technical subcommittee have been extremely diligent
and the architect's have been responsive to the needs and wants
of that committee. The plans and specs should be in their
final form if all has gone acccording to schedule. The revised
schedule will be reported to you on Monday night. By any un-
expected occurrences or newly discovered errors and omissions,
the planning process should be at its termination and we should
be prepared to commence construction.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Adopt the resolution.
2. Do not adopt the resolution
There is no staff recommendation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution adopting the approved plans and specifications for new
fire hall construction and authorizing the advertisement for bids.
- 3 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
6. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications for the New
Fire Hall and Authorization to Advertise for Bids (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may remember, we delayed action on the Fire Hall plans and
specifications for a two week period due to review of the plans
and specifications by the building committee. The committee found
at least 30 items needing changes and/or clarification prior to
approval of the plans and specifications.
The final plans less the structural drawings were delivered to us
on Wednesday, April 17th. The structural drawings and specifications
are due in today, April 19th. The building committee will be re-
viewing the plans and specifications over the weekend and will
have recommendations available for Monday evening's meeting.
-311-
RESOLUTION 1985 08
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FON THE CONSTRUCTION
OF MUNICIPAL. FIRE HALT. AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR RIDS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on
December 10, 1984, TKDA, consulting architects, retained for
fire hall design has prepared plans and specifications for the con-
struction ofa fire hall, and has presented such plans and
specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part here of, are hereby approved.
2. The City Administrator shall prepare and cause to be inserted
in the official newspaper and the Construction Bulletin an
advertisement for bide upon the construction of said fire
hall under such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published for +w-�-.i days, shall
specify the work to be done, shall state that lids will be
received by the Administrator until 3', t; c P.M. on
n-\t=6n Its 1985, at which time they will be publicly
opened in the Council Chambers in the City Hall by the
City Administrator and consulting architect and will then
be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at
7:30 P.M, on M Fk'Z -I 19R5, In the Council Chambers
and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed
with the Administrator and accompanied by a cash deposlt,
cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the
City of Monticello for 52 of the amount of such bid.
Adopted this 22nd day of April, 1985.
Arve A. Crimsmo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
c
c
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
7. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of Ancillary
Equipment for the Fire Department Van. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A short time ago we purchased a used step van from the City of
North Branch for the sum of $6,000.00. The Fire Department
has gone out and shopped for the equipment necessary to make
the van ready and operable for use. Doug Pitt, representing
the department, has indicated that the prices shown on their
equipment list are straight retail pricing and are considered
to be the absolute selling prices. Since drafting the list,
he has indicated that they have already found outlets that are offer-
ing the same or similar equipment at lesser prices. They
have asked the Council to authorize the acquisition of the
equipment on the list and they will attempt to get the best
bargain available.
The items on the list may be broken down into three categories.
First. a sum of $2,506.00 needs to be spent to make the City of
North Branch a City of Monticello truck. Phis expense covers
the body work, repainting, and relettering. Second, a sum of
$3,285.00 is required to make the truck a public safety vehicle.
This expenditure includes things such as radio comunieation,
sirens, lights, etc. These two items combined total $5.791.00.
Also shown on the list are two pieces of extra equipment that
are not related to the van but are related to fire fighter
safety. These are the portable generators and tho back-up
air tanks for breathing apparatus. When I asked Doug Pitt
why they were being included since they were not essential
to the van, he indicated that this is equipment that they
have sorely needed for quite sometime, but have not purchased
since they would have no way to transport the equipment without
the van. They feel that now the van is in our possession, they
would like to go ahead and buy the extra fire fighting equipment.
These items total $2,630.00. All three categories of equipment
when totalled up equals $8.421.00. It is my understanding that
Doug Pitt will be present at the meeting and will provide
rationale for the various pieces of equipment requested.
B. A1.TF.RNATIVF. ACTIONS:
1. Approve the acquisition for the fire equipment as requested.
2. Deny the request as Bubmi.tted.
3. Approve a revised equipment list for acquisition.
-4 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In a rather lengthy conversation with Doug Pitt about this equip-
ment, 1 feel satisfied that the equipment is essential to equipping
the van adequately. Doug did indicate to me that some prices will
be reduced substantially from what is shown on the attached list.
I would suggest that the motion be made to approve the acquisition
of the specified equipment for a sum not to exceed, say, $8,000.00.
I would also encourage the City Council to encourage the Fire
Department to negotiate and shop for the best prices available.
D. SUPPORTING DATE:
Copy of the equipment list submitted by the Fire Department.
- 5 -
TM
44
Wks—
Ax-
rAT *wz
01
if
YLk
x
ON.
*1V
ej
go"
Al vt
_441A
A
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
8, Conditional Use Request to Allow a Self Service Gas Station and a
Convenience Store in a B-3 (Highway Business Zone) Applicant -
Curt Hoglund. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed you will find the copy of the site plan layout for the
gas station/convenience store. Mr. Hoglund is proposing to build
this at the corner of County Road 39 and east County Road 75.
In reviewing the plat we note that there are 18 conditions which
apply to this. The conditions have been met satisfactorily by the
owner, Mr. Curt Hoglund, and the contractor/developer, Winkleman
Corporation with the following enclosed landscaping plan to be
worked out between City Staff and the owner and developer. The
areas around the entire parking lot and driveway are curbed with
D618 curbing. The area on southwest corner of the plat which would
be driveway entrance off the County Road 75 are showing the curbing
stopping at the property line and not going into the radius for the
proposed driveway entrance. They are proposing not to put this in
at this time to allow for future development of the lot immediately
to the west of the proposed property. The building does meet the
minimum setback requirements as required by ordinance and does
meet all the conditions which are applied to in the conditions
of the conditional use. lie are currently working with the developer
and the owner to come up with an approved landscaping plan for
this area.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. To approve the conditional use request to allow a self service
gas station and a convenience store in a B-3 zone.
2. To deny the conditional use request to allow a self service gas
station and convenience store in a 8-3 zone.
3. To approve the conditional use request to allow a self service
gas station along with a convenience store in n B-3 zone with
any other conditions other than the 18 conditions as required
in the gas station convenience store conditional use in a B-3
zone. The Council may attach none or any conditions and they
may allow none or any additional conditions to this condition-
nl use request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to
allow a self service gas station and a convenience store in a
R-3 Highway Business zone. We nre currently working with the
property owner and the developer has come up with an approved
landscaping plan.
- 6 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A copy of the proposed gas station and convenience store, a site
plan and a copy of the proposed landscaping plan.
mm
N,
A conditional U84) requet to sil,9w a.
502f AlOrVUi gas station and a conveMerica
store in a B-3 (Mighwa Business) Zono.
Curt Hig-lund. jlk.-
i
5. Public Heaviest - A Conditional Use Repuest to--Allow a Self Service
Gas Station and a Convenience Store in a B-3 (HiAhwav-Business)
Zone - ADalicant. Curt Hoglund.
Mr. Keith Schupp. representing llinkleman Corporation. developer
and builder for Curt and Anna Hoglund was present to explain
to Planning Commission members the proposed gasoline/convenience
store. The owners along with the developers have met nil the
conditions required of the conditional use to allow a gasoline/
convenience store in a 5-3 (Highway-Business) Zone.
members
Anderson informed Planning;
Commlqrdonon the map presented the three areas of concern in which he
would like to address to the commission members. The size
of the culvert indicated was a 12 inch culvert and the minimum
t+i
vs allow is a 16 inch culvert which the developer says he will
do and has no problem putting that in. The other areas of
concern Is the curbing along the east side of the property
adjacent to East County Road 39 which shoved the curbing
being placed right on the property line and the maximum we allow
curbing to be placed on the property line is 5 feet.
The developer indicated that he would move the curb in 5
feet from the property line. The other concern to the access
off of County Road 75 into the proposed Iota in which the
proposed gasoline /convenience store is to be built would show
no curbing in the radius portion of the driveway entrance into
the gasoline station convenience store. The developers would
like to have the curbing stop at the property line to facilitate
future development of the lot adjacent to it. Commission members
see no problem with ending the curb portion at the property line
at the driveway radius lino.
( f on a motion by Dick Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling to approve
l the conditional use request to allow a gasoline station and
convenience store to be built in a 5-3 Zone with the following
conditions:
The culvert site increased to 16 Inch culvert.
The curb line be pushed back a minimum of 5 feet off the
east property line adjacent to East County Road 39.
The curbing end at the parking lot at the driveway
entrance radius.
t The developer along with the owner work with City Staff to
come up with a proposed landscaping plan to be in agree-
mant with all parties involved.
The motion was carried unanimously with Ed Schaffer absent.
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
9. Final Review of a Replat of Existing Lots in an R-3 Residential/
Multi -Family Zone. Applicant - Daryl and Donald Heikes. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Daryl and Donald Heikes recently purchased all of the remaining
undeveloped lots and blocks in the MacArlund Plaza Addition
which were owned previously by MacArlund, Inc. partnership.
They would like to replat all of Blocks 3, 4, 5, and 6, or to
tronte three new blocks. With the creation of the three blocks
and additional lots, they are lining up the detached garages with
the existing townhouses and the townhouses to be built. Currently,
there are five blocks with six lots in each and now there will be
three blocks; 3. 4, and 5, with Blocks 3 and 4 having 8 lots in it
and Block 5 having 13 lots in it. Originally, there would have
been 30 detached garage units they are requesting five additional
detached townhouse garages. With the replat of the garages you
will see additional space created between original Block 2 and
with the newly created Block 3, Block 4, and Block 5. With the
additional space in between them, they will accommodate additional
town house off site parking and additional space for snow removal.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve the final replat of the existing lots in R-3
residential/multi-family zone.
2. To deny the replat of the existing lots in an R-3 residential
multi -family zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of the replat of Block 3, through
all of Blocks 3 through 6, with a total of 29 new lots within
the three new blocks. With Blocks 3 and 4 consisting of 8
lots and Block 5 consisting of 13 lots. With the proposed
realignment of the blocks with the lots on them will create
a much better alignment of the detached garages on these lots
with the new townhouses to be built.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tho location of the proposed replat and a copy of tho
Planning Commission Meeting minutes.
- 8-
'lam,
.j
0tA�
_ v�q • ... ,'.._ ''.. � � �;4t"' •.ice !:'i.:c. ��,�tf
00
�.•"-� .j ,f! ( ��• 1+ •L. ( e��j !`10 td (r,`� 'Y � 0 � ' 6 .
1 t ..I....nr..�.............,. Y•... I....}..�...,.�. t. w,..... pt�....•�ny;., j+ w.,:M•t.t,.,.. ... ..n `•. .• ..; +ti9
a"+:d=, I zisfol{a,�a.I I�tsa.'i•e;i.ot(al,`\f•xss',..a;.a�
.l t . •j' �,ti Id.''','t• i�''id i { ' Ip'f.:
t 1-�' t.. • rsr' ::' �.!{ I:1 f :.;n_..t'!':'i�;.C:�n7' '?.i y i..:,..1,;':! .s.•i L': ,�'`"•-
p"` r At.tPYya;j. I s' • 'rr ., +°. `I,. . ., :�+ fr' i,�', rtt.•�+ _", '^"",�• I,, v *;,•'.
eI I f 1.7
`BLOCK 1 j- t I1OLM.Q BLOCK. J •,
It
r '�
4. Public Hearing - A Final Review of a Replat of Existing lots in a
R-3 (Residential -Multifamily) Zone - Applicant, Daryl and Donald
Heikea.
Mr. Donald Heikes was present to propose a replot of Blocks 2, 3.
4, S, and 6. MacArlund Plata Addition to the City of Monticello.
n
+� we allow is a 16 inch culvert which the developer says he will
do and has no problem putting that in. The other areas of
concern is the curbing along the east side of the property
adjacent to East County Road 34 which shoved the curbing
being placed right on the property line and the maximum we allow
curbing to be placed on the property line is i feet.
The developer indicated that he would move the curb in 5
feet from the property line. The other concern is the access
off of County Road 75 into the proposed lots in which the
proposed gasoline/convenience store is to be built would show
no curbing in the radius portion of the driveway entrance into
the gasoline station convenience store. The developers would
like to have the curbing stop at the property line to facilitate
future development of the lot adjacent to it. Commission members
see no problem with ending the curb portion at the property line
at the driveway radius line.
On a motion by Dick Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling to approve
the conditional use request to allow n Cngollne station and
convenience store to be built in a B-3 Zone with the following
conditions:
The culvert site increased to 16 inch culvert.
The curb line be pushed back a minimum of 5 feet off the
east property line adjacent to East Cnunty Road 34.
.r The curbing end at the parking lot at the driveway
entrance radius.
The developer along with the owner work with City Staff to
come up with a proposed landscaping pian to be in agree-
ment with all parties involved.
The motion was carried unanimously with Ed Schaffer absent.
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
10. Consideration of an Appeal to Overturn a Planning Commission
Decision Denying, a Request for a Variance to Allow a Garage
to be Built in the Frontyard Setback Requirements - Applicant -
Doug Stokes. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Doug Stokes originally applied for and received approval for
a variance request on August 31, 1982, to allow him to build a
garage within 10 feet of the frontyard property line rather
than 30 feet as required by City ordinance. However, Mr. Stokes
did not build his garage as originally intended, and the one
year time limit expired. He recently made reapplication for
the identical variance and garage building permit. The public
hearing was held before the Planning Commission, and the request
was denied. Mr. Stokes filed an appeal that the Council overturn
that decision. In reviewing the request among staff, we discover
that there is more than one variance required. Besides his
request to build within the setback, he also needs a variance
to build an accessory building in excess of a 1,000 square
feet and he needs a variance to build an accessory building
within the frontyard at all. City zoning ordinance stipulates
that no accessory building shall be built in any yard other
than a rearyard when it is not attached. Consequently, though
the request was denied solely because of setback provisions,
there are two other variances that would be required that have
not even been considered by the Planning Commission. These
latter two variances were discovered in discussion and were
not considered at the original 1982 granting either. I can
only state that these provisions were missed in both applications,
but now revenled,should be considered.
The only matter at hand before the City Council is whether or not
to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Stokes
has come in and discussed with Cary Anderson his dissatisfaction
with the decision and his feelings that he is being treated
unfairly. We anticipate rather lengthy explanations from Mr.
Stokes if given the floor. He has continued to cite other
variances granted throughout the City, but apparently does
not understand the fact that variances work solely on a case
by case basis and do not set precedents as he seems to think
they do. Mr. Stokes has also indicated that he would be willing
to move his garage alittle this way, reduce it in size somewhat,
and in essence is willing to negotiate his variance. This
negotiation would be out of place at the Council meeting since
any negotiated settlement would have had no review from the
Planning Commission. The sole item of business is to support
or overturn the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Stokes, if
he should olect to alter the request, should simply make new
- 8 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
(' application for a separate variance proposal. This then would
require a new public hearing on a revised request.
Lastly, I wish to note as a reminder, that the condition of a
variance is based on environmental or topographical hardship.
Variances are meant to address and give flexibility to the
zoning ordinance to allow exceptions to the ordinances where-
environmental,
hereenvironmental, topographical, geographical, etc conditions
make it impossible for a party to conform with the ordinance
as written. A request such as "because I want it" does not
constitute hardship. Financial considerations do not
constitute hardship.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Uphold the ruling of the Planning Commission.
2. Over rule the decision of the Planning Commission and grant
the variance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends that the Council support the Planning Commission's
decision, which is based on testimony from Wright County Highway
Department and the City. We think that it is unfortunate that
f Mr. Stokes was at one time granted a variance to build this
building, but the fact that he did not build it at the time does
not guarantee him the privilege of building when in fact that
first granting was In violation of our own ordinance. We think
the Council should direct Mr. Stokes to reapply with a proposal
that can come in closer conformance with the City ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site location, site plan, copy of Planning Commission minute s of
August 31, 1982, copy of Planning Commission minutes of April 9,
1985. tho section of Monticello ordinances pertaining to
variances and accessory buildings.
— 9 —
'A"
jr - - - - - - IS;
V. -O-4-
A Variance * request to allow a v
garage to be built vLthin the
front setback requirement.
Douglas Stokes.
m
! . %YIDP. 4,'ce
a
n
i
r
17 )
s 6. Pro�S'e r
� 10'
se i6alic
i
i� '
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/31/82
4. Public Heerinq - Variance Request - Douq Stokes.
Doug Stokes, owner of Lot 1 - Block 1 of Manhattan Lets an Fast County
Road 39, made a request to enable him to build a garage on the front
aide of his house that would come within 10 feet of the front yard
property line. A 30 foot set back is normally required in that R-1
zoning district.
Mr. Stokes felt that he would like to be able to build his garage
approximately 20 feet away from the house and in order to do so a
variance of 20 feat from the front yard property line would be
necessary and that it would be necessary that his garage be within
10 feet of the front yard property line. A motion was made by Dowling
and seconded by Schaffer to approve this variance request with all
voting in favor.
6. Public Hearing — A Variance Request to Allow a Garage to be Built
Within the Front Setback Requirement — Applicant, Douglas Stokes.
Mr. Douglas Stokes was present to explain his request to al low a
detached garage to be built within the front setback requirement.
The Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated on the map on a site
plan as, proposed by Mr. Stokes where the garage would be wi thin
ID feet of the front setback requirement and the garage proposed
to be built would be in excess of the maximum allowed, 1,040
square feet. Much discussion centered on the Bite lines being
obstructed by a proposed garage to be built. Zoning Administrator
Anderson also submitted to Planning Commission members o letter
received from the Wright County Department of Highway Engineers.
Wayne Fingalson, indicating that the letter be read and entered
as public testimony. Mr. Stokes indicated to commipsion members
that he had previous approval on the same requests that he
JB now presenting at the meeting in 1982 and could see no
problem now why the Planning Commission cumbers could not
grant it again. However. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
that the ant year time frame prior approval had expired and that
is why he is present with another variance request.
A motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Richard Carlson
to deny the variance request to allow it garage to be built within
the front setback requirement. The motion carried unanimously
with Ed Schaffer absent.
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. 1- Box 97-9
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Jct T.H. 25 and C. R. 138
Telephone (612) 682.3900
April 5, 1985
Planning Commission
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Subject: Building setback variance request along
County State Aid Highway No. 39
Members of the Commission:
WAYNE A. FINOALSON. P.E.
COUNTY MIOMWAY ENOINEER
Mr.. John Simulu, Monticello Public Works Director, has informed me by phone
today that Mr. Douglas Stokes has requested a building setback for a garage
on hieproperty (Lot 1, Block 1, Manhatten Lots Addition) along CSAII 39,
east of Mississippi Drive.
It is important for the Planning Commission to realize that this highway
segment„ although lying within the city limits, is under County jurisdiction.
The required building setback distance from the centerline of a County Road
or a County State Aid Highway is 130 feet according to Wright County Zoning
Ordinnnce. Although zoning here is the responsibility of the City, a CSAR
is involved here which, of course, requires my department's involvement.
As you may know, this portion of CSAH 39 is included in our Five—Year Highway
Improvement Program. 1 certainly ace a problem for safety reasons, etc. in
allowing a building to be placed ae close to the road as line been proposed.
Please feel free to contact me regarding this subject. 1 would appreciate
Cot -Mal notification of future requests involving the County's highway system.
_�'l• , �Y gaa�y
Way A. Fingalso;
Wri tt Cowlty Ilighwa ngineor
PC: . John Simola, Public Works DiretLor
WAF:md
C
10-2-2
VARIANCE: The waving by Ucard action of the Literal provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance in instances where their :;trict enforcement would
cause undue hardship because of phy,ical circumstances unique to the
individual property under conuideration.
,(fj 10-3-2
GM
10-3-2
(D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENTS
1. An accessory building shall be considered an in-
tegral part or the principal building if it is
connected to the principal building by a covered
passageway.
2. us accessory buildings shall be erected or lo-
cated within any required yard other than the
rear yard.
10-3-2 10-3-2
3. Accessory buildings and
garages shall not exceed fifteen (I5)
feet in height and shall t;c
five (5) feet or more from all lot
lines of adjoining lots, shall be ten (10)
feet or more from any
other building or structure
on the come lot
and shall not be lo-
cated within a utility easement,.
4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more than twenty-
five (25) percent of a rear
yard, noir exceed one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area.
10-3-3
10-3-4
(C) All setback distances, as listed in the
table bolow, shall be
measured from the appropriate lot line.
PRONT YARD
SIDE YARD
REAR YARD
i-0 s0
30
50
-
R-1 306' _
10660
30
R-2 306•
10640
30
9-3 30
20
30
t r
R-4 30
30
30
q.,
R-8 30
20
30
0-1 3060
15666
20
0-2 3066
10660
20
0-3 30
10
30
0-4 0
0
0
1-1 40
30
40
1-2 so
30
So
AUM1n1STnAT1Un - VArt1ANCrS AM) "kltCAIS 1 ,
SECTION:
10-23-1: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
10-23-2: Planning Commission and City Staff Reports
10-23-3: Finding of Planning Commission and City Staff
10-23-4: Non -Economic Hardship
10-23-5: Appeals
10-23-6: Procedures
10-23-7: Lapse of variance or Appeal
10-23-8: Performance Bond
10-23-1: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS: The Planning Commission shall
act as a Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
10-23-2: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF REPORTS: All written reports
and recommendations to the Planning Commission serving as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals from the City Staff shall be entered in and
made part of the permanent written record of the Board's meeting.
10-23-3: FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAPP: In considering
all requests for a variance or appeal, and taking subsequent
action, the City Staff and the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of fact that the proposed action (, 1
will not: �+
A. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
D. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
C. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
D. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within
the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of
this ordinance.
10-23-4: NON -ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: The Planning Com:isaion, serving as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals stall, after receiving the written
reports and recommendations of the City Staff, make a finding of fact and decide
upon requosto for a variance by approving or denying the same, in part or in
whole, where it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in
the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship that
by some reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of
property or a lot existing and of record upon the effective date of thin
Ordinance or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions
of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the
parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissablo within the district
in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon
®
the owner of such lot or parcel that the owner of another lot or parcel within
the same district would not have if he were to develop hie lot or parcel in a
manner proposed by the applicant. Should the Planning Commlaaion find that the
conditions outlined heretofore apply to the propound lot or parcel, the Planning
Commission may grant a variance from the strict application of this Ordinance co
a, -to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the dogreo considered reauonablo,
providing such relief may be granted without impairing the Intent of thin Zoning
Ordinance.
10-23-5: APPEALS: Tho Planning Commission, serving as tha Board of Adjust-
mant and Appnals, shall after receiving the written report and
raeommondation of the City otaff, make a finding of fact and make n d1:cl Dien
on_appoala whore it i..++.. -A I— ,w.. -• _ . — 1— nrrnr l :.. . .
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
11 Consideration of Water Study and Upgrading Well dl Q.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In late March of 1985, OSM delivered to us a preliminary water
system analysis for our review. Tom Eidem and I reviewed the
water system analysis and felt we should delay the formal
Council discussion on the water system analysis until such
time the City Staff had a chance to review the report with
OSM. We had several concerns about the possible abandonment
of current City facilities and the extremely high pressure
of the new system. In addition, the question of a water
treatment plant was not addressed, yet much of the report
hinged on the development of a treatment plant.
On April 16th, I met with John Badalich, Chuck Lepak and Bernie
Middlestadt of OSM at their office for the purpose of going
through the report and clarifying some of the areas that the
analysis addressed and to bring to light some of the areas I
felt were not properly addressed.
The 1915 Comprehensive Utilities Plan addressed the possible
future need for a central water treatment plant consisting
of filter beds or special equipment to reduce the amounts of
iron, manganese and softening.
Analysis of City water samples showed a concentration of iron
and manganese to be well within the limits for safe drinking
water. Treatment is not required by the Clean Water Act for
the concentrations found in the City of Monticello water.
The concentrations of manganese, if they become excessive, can
cause nuisance problems with spotting on laundry. In order
to offset the iron and manganese, the City of Monticello injects poly
phosphates into the water supply system to keep the con-
centrations of iron and manganese in suspension, thereby
reducing their effects. The only reasons that we would install
a water treatment plant in the City of Monticello would be at
request of a significant number of citizens in the City of
Monticello who are having problems with the concentrations of
iron and manganese in the water. To my knowledge we have no
major problems from these concentrations. The only other
reason we would install n water treatment plant would be if the
quality of water in the City of Monticello was greatly reduced
to the induction of some sort of pollutant or if a new well
failed to bring the qunlity of water found in the existing
wells. Bearing this information in mind, it is relatively
Safe to assume that the City of Monticello will not need or
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
require a water treatment plant in the near future. The water
analysis should be based upon this premises.
One of the items covered in the water analysis is the need for
approximately 88 PSI water pressure to cover the entire
community and the orderly annexation area. The new above ground
reservoir proposedly located on top of Monti hill will be
constructed to such an elevation as to provide pressure for the
expanded Monticello area. The problem comes about when we try
to induce this severe pressure to the existing Monticello water
system when by current standards it may not be needed and may
not be needed for several years in the future. One way around
this problem would be to construct the ground reservoir as
planned or even slightly larger and use only the lower portion
of the reservoir that would produce satisfactory or
tolerable water pressures throughout the community. In the
future when an increase in pressure is needed to reach a remote
area of the expanded community, the level of the reservoir could
be easily changed through the adjustment of some over flow
piping and electronic controls. At this time in the future
it may be necessary to install some pressure balancing belts
in a few areas of the community. With this type of design
we could expect pressures in the low to middle 60 PSI range
for the downtown area and for the low to middle 70 PSI range
for the River Front areas and for the higher elevations near
the freeway and in the Industrial Park, a minimum pressure of
50 PSI.
One other item of concern in the report is the demolition of
the existing water storage tank behind the Zoo. The report
talks about the practicality of keeping a storage tank in
the system that really does little more than provide pressure
and the condition is questionable. Because of some of the
problems noted with the existing tank during our routine
Inspection last fall, we have scheduled a television inspection
of the tank with the May cleaning this year. It is con-
ceivable that the tank may only need minor repairs. If the
tank is to be removed, the City needs an alternative method
to provide pressure within the water system in the event
that there is a malfunction with the water piping or the above
ground reservoir on the Monti hill. it is difficult to provide
pressure in the system now when our existing water tower is taken
out of service. We waste enormous amounts of water through
bleed off hydrants and it requires around the clock operations to
keep the pressure in the system.
- 12 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
It is my understanding that with the addition of a new well near
the reservoir, that the reservoir itself could be set up to
provide pressure in the system in the event of loss of the
above ground reservoir on the Monti hill. If this is so, and
such a system could be reliable, the staff would have no
objection to removal of the existing tower. If not, we would
recommend that the existing tower remain in place even if it
were left empty.
Another area of concern is the possibility of abandonment of
the existing wells downtown due to the fact that their deliver-
ing capabilities would be greatly reduced once the new above
ground reservoir is built. In addition, the report talks about
the inadequacy of the water lines between the existing well
area and the reservoir site. Mr. Lepak and I ran a couple
different scenarios through the high tech computer at OSM
in order to determine if it was feasible to salvage one or both
of the downtown wells without having to rebuild a new trunk
water main at a cost of $231,000.00 as indicated in the report.
By using the computer programs we found that by replacing the
water main on Cedar Street from pump house U2 to Fourth St.
and replacing the water main in the alley behind the Zoo, we
could achieve the desired flow characteristics to permit
1,000 gallons per minute with a very minimal increase in
water pressure in the area of the wells. The first program we
ran was during a period of low uscage when the water pressures
would be at their greatest. During a period of high useage
when the demand was great, an additional well at the reservoir
site was pumping we found that pressures wore actually reduced
slightly in the areas surrounding the wells. The cost of re-
placing this small amount of piping would be approximately
10% of the original estimated cost of $231,000.00.
This then brings us to the possible revamping of the wells to
have an output of approximately 1,000 gallons per minutes when
used with the new above ground reservoir. Well 01 is due to be
pulled this year for inspection and reconditioning. We have
budgeted approximately $11,000.00 to remove the deep well tur-
bino pump, recondition it and replace it in the well. It is
recommended that we delay this inspection and reconditioning
until such time we are ready to get additional performance out
of the way to incorporate it with a new system or approximately
one year. The total cost of getting the well refurbished
to a higher output Is estimated to be someplace between $25,000
and $30,000.00. Therefore, for about $50,000.00 we would have a
well capable of producing 1.000 gallons per minute and pumping
into the now system. Well 02 could be revamped at a later date
when it is due for its normal maintenance.
- 13 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
One other area the report did not address was the possible need to
upgrade the four booster pumps in the reservoir. These booster
pumps will not put out the adequate flow rates when subjected to
higher pressures just as the existing wells downtown would be
reduced. It is conceivable that two or three of these pumps
will have to be enlarged.
One final consideration that should be given and was not dis-
cussed is that there will be some cost involved with locating
the above ground reservoir on the Monti Club hill. I am not
talking about the construction cost but the land costs.
As far as the basic recommendations within the report, I am
in agreement with the need for a new ground reservoir and the most
logical place for It appears to be at the Monti hill. In
addition, it is the best alternative to locate a new well in
the area of the reservoir to pump directly into the reservoir
when necessary.
Thirdly, to achieve any type of significant increase in water flows
in the east end of town, it will be necessary to do some looping
of the water main across I-94 via County Road 118. The problems
this community has faced with low water pressure can only hamper
the growth of this community. It should be addressed now with
plans being made for the solution in the near future.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I will not present alternative actions with the agenda supplement,
the City Engineer will make a presentation at Monday evening's
meeting on the preliminary water system analysis and the changes
or clarifications contained within this supplement. He will go
into much greater detail than 1 have been able to go into In
this report. Ila will also answer any questions you may have as
for as alternatives are concerned.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the public works director that we
begin the planning for this proposed major change in our water
system this year so that we may have the land and casements for
construction in the near future, possibly, 1986.
ME=
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
12. Confirmation of Closing Details for the Acquisition of the North
Half of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 50. (T.E.).
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the March 25th, 1985, meeting of the City Council a motion was
passed to authorize the City Attorney to perform a title search
and pending clear title opinion authorized the staff to make an
offer for the acquisition of the northerly half of Lots 1, 2, and
3 in Block 50, Original Plat for the sum of $45.000.00, said sum
to represent $30,000.00 acquisition price and $15,000.00 relocation
price. In addition to the cash outlay, the City Council recognized
the abatement of special assessments outstanding. On Tuesday,
April 16th, 1985, we received from Pringle, the City Attorney,
clear title opinion on that land. I provided the opinion and the
abstract to Councilmember Maxwell who drafted a purchase agreement
for the $45,000.00. The sum on the purchase agreement shows solely
as a sale price rather than being broken down as we have discussed.
Lorrell and Ruby Hass will be picking up copies and have their
attorney review these documents in the interim. We have, for the
purpose of closing this matter, set the closing date for Tuesday,
April 23rd, 1985, with the sellers to vacate the premises for
no later than June 15, 1985. The purchase agreement also contains
a provision that the sellers may remove various parte of the
property providing that they receive prior approval from the City.
While the Council has already authorized the acquisition of this
property by ordering the preparation of a purchase agreement, we
did desire to bring the purchase agreement and closing details
back to the City Council for final confirmation. As you know, this
property lies within a tax increment financing district and now
acquired can be available for rehabilitation which will generate
tax increment within the district. We anticipate that private
development will more than repay the acquisition cost of this
property. The HRA has ordered this acquisition and will assist
the City In actively marketing for redevelopment.
While no formal action to officially required, I think it would be
beneficial for all parties for the City to reconfirm their offer
by a motion and direct that the Mayor and tho City Administrator
complete the closing for the acquisition of this property.
There is no alternative action or staff recommendation for this
item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the purchase agreement, copy of the deed.
-- --- - --- - --- T
113 STANDARD PURCHASE AGREEMENT d�e
rum Arprirree 6r cram. MwreaWa Ara ttmrod RFxrosSe room real
• Monl iecl to _,Mmm•solo_ Apri 123— -- _--- _ _ _ _. 19 85
RECEIVED OF City of MunLicelio
+ the sum of Forty -flue thousand _Dollars l6 45,000.00 _ f
I by check as earnest matey te! . l.,, ..',. ! 1. _ ! _: 1..; .r... ... _.. . .
r . _. ......'JieAaw+raritirglaad in paripaymem for the purchase o1 the premises legally described as
The North Half of Lot.a 1. 7 and 3. Block 50. City of Monticello• accordinR to the
plat on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, in and for the
ted ateel
f�Wrighl, Jtate of ninnesota.
City of Monticello ,county Of Wr1Rht ,State ofMinnesota.
including all planta. shrubs and trees.. ! ' . .. .._.. .
•t located on the promises which are the property of Seller and also the following personal property:
None
r/ all of which property Seller has this day sold to Buyer for the sum all:1111 45.000.00
•1 Forty-five Thousand
Dollars,
which Buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: Earnest money of s 45,000.00 and
s No zsh on or before April "13, 1985 the date o1 closing. and ibe li
Seller may remove portions off the structure if they so desire, but only with prior approval
of the Buyer.
Attached are . addendums which are mads a pan of this agreement -
SUBJECT TO performance by Buyer. Seller agrees to execute and deliver a _ . _ __ _ _ Warranty Deed.
to be joined in by spouse, if any. conveying marketable title to the premises subject only to the following exceptions.
(1) Building and toning laws•ordinances, State and Federal regulations -12) Restrictions totaling to use or improvement of the premises without
effective forfeiture provision. 13) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota. 14) Utility end drainage easements
which do not interfere with present improvements. (5) Rights of tenants, if any,
REAL ESTATE TAXES Seller agrees to pay __- 6 / 121hs and Buyer agrees to pay. ---A. . / 12ths of taxes duo and payable in the year
19 85, Seller agrees to pay. _ - �- f 12ths and Buyer agrees to pay _ _est r 12ths of annual installment of special assessments due
and payable in the year 19 B5. _ 84XPr._ -.agrees to .Q_ Uln(. --on the date of closing all special assessments lowed and pending
Buyer shall pay taxes due and payable to the year 19 86 and any unpaid installments o1 special assessments payable therewith
and thereafter. Seller warrants that taxes due and payable in the year 19.4-6- — win be _ Full _-w — . — homestead
classificat non Neither Sailor nor Seller's Agent makes any representation concerning the amount of future real estate taxes.
WARRANTIES Sellur warrants that buildings, of any, are entirely within the boundary Innes of the promises Seller warrants that all
appliances, hoaung andair conditioning, wiring and plumbing used and located on the promises are in proper working order ondetoof closing.
Buyer has right to inspect premises prior to closing. Buyer shall satisfy himself /hersell at his/her expense that all appliances, heating end air
conditioning, wiring and plumbing are in proper working order before closing Seller warrants that the promises are connected to-clrysower
W yes • r7 no: city water C7 Vas • O no, If the premises era destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or any other Cause before the
closing date, this agreement shall become null and ward at Buyer's option, and the earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer
POSSESSION Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than , June, 15, 1985__ _ doting
Allinteresl.cny une�17, 1r�h�rgos,otatlrititypndnaturelgaachargaa,fuolodarWlrqudpotrolaumpeashallbopro•ratOdbotwaenthc
parties as d , ,, -- _ _ _ . _z._ . Sailer agroas to remove all debris and all personal property not included heroin from thm
promises before possession date
r. TITLE d EXAMINATION Seller shag, within a reasonable ume cher acceptance of this agreement, furnish an Abstract of Title, or o
Rmgimered Property Abstract, curtif i d io dato to include proper searches covering bankrup(ues, State and Federal judgment$ and liens. Buyer
shall be allowed 10 business days after receipt for examination of title and making any objections, which shall be made in writing or deemed
waived. If any obloctwn is so made. Seller shall be allowed 120days to make title marketable, Pending correction of title, payments heroundoi
required shall be postponed, but upon correction of title and within 10 days after written notice to Buyer, the parties shall perform this
agreement according to its forms If title is not corrected within 120 days from the date of written objection, the agreement shall be null and
void, at option of Buyer, neither parry shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other, and earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer
DEFAULT Iftnteismarketablaaiscoirmtedwithinsaidtime,andBuyerdefaulminanyoftheagreementsherein,Sellermayterminatethis
agraemem, end on such termination all payments made hereunder shall be retained by Seller and Agent, as their fespettive interests may appear,
as liqudateddamagn,thnebeing ofIh@ossenceherool Thisprovision "it todepriveeitherparty thefightof enforcing the spadficparfonnance
of this agreement, provided this agreement is net terminated and action to enforce spocdne performance Is Commenced within six months after
such right of action arises
ACCEPTANCE Buyer understands and agrees that this safe is subject to acceptance by Salter In writing Agent is not liable or responsible
on account of this agreement, ekeript to return or account lot (he earnest mosey.
h the owner of ilia premKes, accept this agreement and Iagree topurchase the premises (or the twice and onthe terms Ind
the $ala homily made conditions set fonh above
SELLER. - - - _ - BUYER -
SELLER --- BUYER -- -- - - -- __
Delivery o1 all papers and moms# duh be made 814k ►sNo"
0e oma To 04 $91Ars ---
-
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE, ova sir
If
w.ntnrr terra. Form No. Yt-M. elillr..o..i. rn.. Minnr.pdi.
Ieal.No.1 m corrOrran.. Mi., , Und•nm ('.•nvry.n.'inti 01.4- (R.•.i-d 197-1
�tfjig nae/n�tucea diode thl...___z3rd __.._...day of_.__,__....._._April .......
betwern .IArrci _ Ila ss an Ruby M. 11a.m,_husband nnA wifC
Wri htMinnesota
o/ ilio County of _ -.......__$... __.._._..._._...._..__....,._...._.-..-...and Jtatc of .._....-_.._..-,-..._..._......._._.._ _..._....._........_, i
part ies. of the prat part, and..City_of_. Monticello,.,, . a municipal
a corporation under the latus o the State o 1"tlnnCsota ,•,_, party of the second part,
fGilfltttl;Stib That ilia said part_j�$ of the first part, in consideration of thn sure. of
Forty, -f i,ve _Thousand UOLL.111S,
to -..,_ .......... ... __ ...., ...,.in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt mhereaf is hereby
acknowledged, does __ hereby Grant, Darcaim, Sell, and Convey rinto the saidpartyof the Seennd part•
ii.9 sucerssors and assigns. Forever, all the tract nr parcel of lnnd lying and hcing in the County
of , Wright and Sante of dlinnreota, described as fallouts, to -Tait:
The North Half of Lots 1, 2 and 3. Block 50, City of Monticello, according to the
plot on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, in and for the
County of Wright, State of Minnesota.
go lbabt anb to jbofb Hie tame, Torether with rail the hrreditaments anti appterienanees
thuvonto brlonffinQ, or in antpriso appertainin-, to the said //ardr/ of the srrund part, its socreAtors and
us.tgns, Fbrever..1n t the said Lotrel ,C. Bass and_ Ruby M. Ilass ._ „...,.
tr,t,.t les of the first prat, far themselves, their, +.. heirs, rrrrtttors and a din inistra tars, do r
rarenant frith, the,, said larty of the second part, Its successors and assiens, flint they, arc bell
seized In fee of the lands and premises nforemid, and hn Ve gjanrl rijhf to sell and ronvey Nin sante in
mnnuerarid form aforesaid, anti that the sarnoare fire from all lrrruarhrnnrrs,
rt�
randthe nbtr it "0111 11mided lauds and pirurtarn, Gr the quiet unit prnecahle pot8sion of the
snid party of tier ermild Carl, its -01rri ks wh mut "ssll:ns, (q alust (it/ persona hurfall y elaluting or to rlalin
the irhnlr. u• any p iol thrrn•f, tub)rrl to iurntop bra stem, if tiny, Iir,Wnlif fora ntealinnrd, the F11;d joirt
of the /lest part will IPrtrmat and Defend.
311 Ctoff nonp Obtreol, Thr s"bl• Parti OR of the first part hot "e htrrunlo art their
hand a the day unit year Aral "lure trrillen.
Lorrel C. Hass
Risby M. Ilass
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
13. Consideration of Award of Bid on Project 85-1 Interceptor Sewer.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Wednesday, April 17th, 1985, the City of Monticello received
2 bids for Project 85-1. The high bid was for $92,960.00 from
ACG, Inc. of St. Paul, MN. The low bid was received from
LaTour Construction of Maple Lake for $65,813.00. As you
may recall, the original estimate given by OSM at the meeting
in which the Council voted to significantly reduce the scope
of the project was $50,000.00. This estimate was given by
OSM without adequate time to prepare an estimate based on the
reduced scope of the project.
As it stands the low bid is $15,813.00 over the rough estimate
for the work. I discussed the proposed project with Ted
LaTour, President of LaTour Construction. Ted indicated
that he did not have a large mark up of profit in the
particular job and there is evidence to indicate that he
always bids very cumpeLitively in Monticello. The primary
reason given for the high cost of this particular project
are the working conditions. Soil borings taken by LaTour
Construction just recently indicate that a clay layer
exists In the area of the proposed invert for the interceptor
f sewer. The significance of this cloy layer relates to the
\ proposed dowatering of this project. It is almost impossible
to completely dewater the sands down to the clay layer.
Consequently, Ted feels that they will be working under wet
adverse conditions when installing the pipe. It is also
possible that some rock or bedding material will have to be
used.
It is my opinion that the low amount of bids received is due to
the relatively small size of the project.
As for as mobilization costs, Mr. LaTour indicated that his
mobilization costs were relatively small on this project since
he is located in Maple Lake. At least a portion of the $27,000
difference between the low bidder and high bidder could be duo
to mobilization from St. Paul to Monticello.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to award the contract for
Project 85-1 to the LaTour Construction Company of Maple
Lake in the amount of $65,813.00.
2. The second alternative would be to reject tho bids received
on the project and enlarge the scope of the project and rebid.
CThe scope of the project could be enlarged by adding an
1
- 16 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
additional interceptor and jacking across Cedar Street or by
adding a much needed segment of force main across Broadway
at Chestnut Street or by adding a block and a half of 12 inch
water main on Cedar Street for extra capacity In the water
system.
3. To reject the bids and wait until the rest of the interceptor
is ready for construction and at that time jack the inter-
ceptor sewer under Hwy 25. It is my opinion that this
alternative could lead to extremely higher costs. In dis-
cussing the proposed job with the La Tour Construction,
Ted indicated the clay layer would cause more significant
problems with jacking across Hwy 25 than it will cause with
the open cutting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we
award the job to LaTour Construction of Maple Lake as outlined
in Alternative AI for the amount of $65,813.00. It is my
opinion that we would not receive better prices on that portion
of the interceptor near Hwy 25 by rebidding and/or enlarging the
scope of the project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
John Badalich will be making a presentation Monday evening and
will have the accounting of the bids and have his recommendations.
- 17 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
14. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of a Pre-
liminary Application for Legislative Commission on Minnesota's
Resources Grant Funds. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCES AND BACKGROUND:
This agenda supplement comes in two parts, the first part being
conceptual and prepared by me while the second part will be
physical and is being prepared by John Simola. I am sure you
will be delighted to know that having wrangled and wrestled
with the question of softball fields for such a long time and
finally resolving it, we are proposing something new completely.
I recently received an announcement that the State of Minnesota
has initiated a brand new grant program exclusively for the
development of athletic fields, including softball fields. The
grant formula cites certain eligible activities and is meant to
be a 50/50 matching program. That is, 50 percent of the project
cost will come in the form of a State grant, while the remaining
50 percent will come from local sources, be it exclusively City,
in kind match, or combination of City, in kind and voluntary
donations, etc. In fact, priority points are granted in the
ranking of applications for cities who have the support of other
organizations.
When we received notice of this new grant program, we immediately
decided to pursue application in order to reduce the cost of the
project that had previously been authorized. The more we reviewed
the proposal we came to understand that the current site became
less and less desirable for expanded development. Clearly, we
could upgrade the two fields and build a third, but field four
became a major problem. In the process of reviewing the entire
project. we came across a new site that would accommodate a
full four field development proposal including parking and
amenities. Likewise, the site would not require wall work and
would not require the removal of a large number of trees. The
site in question is the old Dick Brooks farm just adjacent to
the NSP Training Center. The site in question is approximately
31 acres of which the City would require 15. The soil is
relatively sandy, there is not a tree that needs to be removed,
and it is very flat and ready for development. The site is
buffered by the freeway and a grove of trees. It has sewer
and water available.
On Tuesday, April 16th, 1 mot with Harvey Kendall and Wayne
Shomla of the Nuclear Plant who gave their full support to the
relocation. Approximately one week prior to that meeting, I mat
with Norm F.cklund of the St. Cloud office and Dave Fischer of
the real estate division in Minneapolis and they both gave their
full support to the concept. They agreed to process our request
- 18 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
as rapidly as possible so that we could submit our grant appli-
cation by May 6th. Generally speaking, thus far the City
identifies the new site as far more desirable, and we have full
concurrence from NSP personnel. Thus, both NSP and City Staff
would like to see the facility totally relocated to the new
site and eventuallyphase out the existing site. We feel this would
be beneficial whether the grant monies are approved or not.
If grant monies are approved, we could receive up to $40,000.00
in State funds and we would have to provide the remaining $40,000.00
In value, not necessarily all cash. That is to say, we can
generate an $80,000.00 project if we are funded. This sum of
money would allow us to have the majority of development com-
pleted in a single construction season. The time factor is a
problem however. The schedule for this grant program is for
applications to be submitted by May 6th. In mid to late August
the City will be notified as to whether or not they will be
Invited to submit a final application. if our preliminary
application is rejected, then we propose to commence con-
struction immediately in the fall of 1985. If, however, we
are asked to submit a final application, we shall do so in
the fall of 1985 with final approval anticipated in December of
1985. 1 should note that I have successfully written four or
five of these recreation grants, and that once invited to sub-
mit a final grant, a City is virtually guaranteed the funding.
The reason they do it in a two step phase is for those cities
who make specific promises in their first application and are
unable to deliver on those promises at development time. If
the preliminary application is given approval and we are in-
vited to submit a flnnl, that means that the money has officially
been allocated for our project. The only reason that it would be
withdrawn at that time would be for an inability to secure a lease,
a substantial change in the development plan, or some violation
of State or Federal, regulations such as the Civil Rights Act.
Getting back to the schedule, once given approval in December of
1985, the funds can be drawn upon in the early part of 1986 for
construction to commence. Thus. 1986 would be the construction
season with the fields ready for play in the Spring of 1987.
Should we fund, we still feel it would be essential to do some
top dressing of the existing fields so that they may be snfe and
habitable in 1986. We simply would not go into the expanded
facilities if we are planning a relocation.
If the grant is not funded, we would still like to construct the
fields at the now site, and could, in fact, conceivably be playable
by 1986. We may choose to construct only ono or two fields
depending upon finance, and utilize both sites during a phase
- 19 -
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
out period of the old site. Again, as I noted, with or without
grant money, we feel that the new site is far superior to the
existing location for eventual softball field development.
In order to submit our preliminary application, we need a
resolution adopted by the City Council authorizing that sub-
mittal. Again, between our submission in May and approval
in August we may find reasons to change our mind in which
case we simply withdraw. The resolution is required because
we are saying "Yes, we are willing to participate should we
be funded". Such a resolution is required to submit the
application with substance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Adopt the resolution authorizing the submittal of the grant
application.
2. Do not adopt the resolution authorizing application, and
directing City staff to stay with the original plan.
3. Do not adopt the resolution for submitting the grant application,
but directing staff to develop the new site development plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that we take the time and effort to submit
the application in hopes of receiving at least $40,000.00 in
funding for the major project. We also encourage the Council
authorize the City to create the new development at the new site
and eventually abandon the old site whether there be funding or
not. At this point, we have NSP's support and in fact. encouragement
that we do locate to this site. Lastly, I apologize for throwing
softball fields back at you after we worked so hard at it and felt
we arrived at a good solution. We have, however, the opinion that
we now have even n better solution.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resolution required, a site map, and a site plan.
20
RESOLUTION 1985 07
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FISCAL YEAR 1986 PRE-
LIMINARY APPLICATION FOR LAWCON/LCMR ATHLETIC FIELD FACILITY GRANT
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Develop-
ment through its community development division, provides for the
making of grants to local governments for the development of
athletic field facilities, and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has identified a need for
athletic fields within its comprehensive plan, and
WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the
regulations promulgated pursuant to such act by the Secretary of
the Interior, effectuating that title, provides that no person
shall be discriminated against as of race, color, or national
origin in the use of land development, and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the total cost of athletic
field development shall be
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA:
1. That an application be made to the Community Development
Division of the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic
Development for a grant from the I.AWCON/I.CMR Program for
an amount estimated to be , said amount to
represent 50% of totnl project cost.
2. That the City Administrator for the City of Monticello is
hereby authorized and directed to execute and to file such
preliminary application with the State of Minnesota and
to provide such additional information and to furnish such
documents as may be required by the Community Development
Division and to act as the nuthorized representative of
the City of Monticello.
3. That the proposed development is in accordance with plans
for the allocation of land for open space uses, and that
should said grant be made, the applicant will develop and
retain said land for uses designated in said application
and approved by the Community Development Division of the
Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development.
4. That the United States of America and the State of Minnesota
be, and that thoy hereby arc, assurad of full compliance
by the City of Monticello with the regulations of the
RESOLUTION 1985 GI
(Continued Page #2)
Department of the Interior, effectuating Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Adopted this 22nd day of April, 1985.
Arve A. Crimsmo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
m
t �Fif. tD 'X'�awer
'a`14r �f1EtD PrCP�C
•:�y�..:=--r"'-°lid..:.^_ 54,
_7G,.��; ,
..................
�
L1`�lw• � �,�"i:J� � �Nr%CY" .l A!L/. �f1 \C�
�, o�
3
FL�nxh, s t oPs
lj�
414
t... � t•^. �� � c ,•�� \An arm,
�o ,'2 U O
S,680
i
00
17�I
a71```vIF�CT J1ARl�l4 r"C (2. �JO�NROPF:O
oo
��r
°o
,�
iJ��rAtt,\v�S
L , tt.�r �a t��.� �e , ty t
2 ,meq 0
it'll:
-Tzi T�In �SiR►Si � ;3 0 { s P�c,c 6�eS o,�t ��r�y
t�sr�� 1 , o� O
i l '
1 1
� `� -� i -o2 Plus j� I Nts le�`
�ti ls t
co
8c;905
1z,
jB.
A, t'oNC�eSSta.� $;i�sJp �� lti5i Qoo+•�
Ta ��vcucy.
tloo
at?
Spa•i3wn.f� VA_S w,c�
i
z_ S •.y 'torw..
s 2 9 800
3.
5=1�k-!7 \,•6F,T„�a
28,00oek
• � 4,'
L•�xT�' i 1'0l� e�F ��"i Q.� .-,. sT .� gSo
� .
A. QAvt
640
8. o” P -i C- S„� . � ��. 74 ocep
3,3So
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
15. Consideration of Granting a Seasonal 3.2 Beer License to the Monticello
Softball Association. (T. E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The softball association has again requested a 3.2 beer license to
sell at the softball fields. With the exception of the one year
that we issued the license to the Jaycees, the softball association
has been the holder of this license. At the time of the making of
this application we had not yet received the certificate of insurance
or even established the license fee. As we have done with the Lions
Club, the City Council can approve this license contingent upon the
receipt of the certificate of insurance, liquor liability, and
appropriate fees.
If I recall correctly, the sale of beer did not cause any difficulty
last year. I see no difficulty with granting a new seasonal
license for the softball association.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant the license contingent upon the receipt of
necessary documents and fees.
I
` 2. Deny the license - some rationale must be stated for denial.
C. STAFF RECOMMF.NDAICN:
The staff recommends that the license be granted, again contingent
upon proper documentation and fees.
No supporting data for this item.
c
CITY OF MONTICELLO
LICENSE APPLICATION
This application is being submitted for the following license(e)s
Set-up license Off -sale, non -intoxicating liquor
On -sale, intoxicating liquor On -sale, wine
){ On-eale, non -intoxicating liquor On -sale, wine/7.2 beer
Applicant 14ame: Age: Date:-*,,.) / A/R -1
Applicant Address:90, , inV Phone:
Nance of Business: /-/I" ; c "AI, :2-7)j All �� �� •c N,.
Address of Business. Aly 4 ga,/
Business Phone: [? Q.; • 42e/•4V.I
Describe nature of business operations
If Corporation: Otfieers s �s.•rf, X. --k — 1'r�S .
41
Directoras
Do you or does your corporation, l-,artnership, otc., currently hold any license
allowing the calo of wise, into�caCiny liquor, non -intoxicating liquor, or
cut -ups? yes A nci
1t you: Name of Buoine■us
Address of Buaineasss
IPhone s
Type of License Years holds
Roferencess
Name Addresn
Telephone Number
Credit References (list at least one bank you do business with):
Name Address Telephone Number
Amount of investment, excluding land,
(Only applicants for on—sslo, intoxicating liquor must provide this information)
Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or of violating the National
Prohibition Act or any State lav or ordinance relating to manufacture or
transportation of into1 ting 1 quorss
I declare that the above Information is true and correct, to the best of
my knowledge.
Applicant Signature
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
For City Use Only
Surety Bond Liquor Liability Certificate of
Insurance
Application Pae Liccnse rco
Sheriff, Wright County
Date
Mayor, City of Nonticollo
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 4/22/85
16. Consideration of Ratifying Election Returns of Monticello Volutneer
Fire Department - Re-electing Willard Farnick as Fire Chief. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
It is part of the by laws of the Monticello Fire Department that the
City Council ratify the results of their elections for Fire Chief.
At the Monday, April 15th, 1985, meeting the election was held for
Fire Chief and Willie Farnick was elected. A simple motion
ratifying that election and making that appointment will suffice.
I am presenting no alternative action, supporting data nor staff
recommendation for this item.
- Y2 -
CI
GENERAL FUND _ APRIL
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Rog. fees
142.00
20372
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
15.50
20373
MN. State Treasurer - Dop. Reg. fees
144.00
20374
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
4,737.50
20375
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
160.04
20376
Internal Revenue Service - Payroll W/H
150.00
20377
Joseph Johnson - Animal control payment
250.00
20378
Mary R amthun - Animal contract payment
212.50
20379
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at library
172.92
20380
PERA - Ina. premiums - reimb.
18.00
20381
MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H
2,772.60
20382
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
1,459.51
20383
Arvo G rimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
20384
Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
20385
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
20386
William Fair - Council salary
125.00
20387
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
20388
James Preusso - Cleaning city hall
308.35
20389
YMCA of Mple. - Monthly contract payment
458.33
20390
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT taxes
2,573.00
20391
City of North Branch - Used Chov. van for Fire Dept.
6,000.00
20392
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
266.00
20393
MN. State Treasurer - Dap. Reg. fees
18.00
20394
MN. State Treasurer - Dop. Rog. foes
58.00
20395
State Treasurer - Building Permit surcharge - let qtr.
356.42
20396
North Central Public Service - Utilities
3,487.18
20337
Safety Kloon Corporation - Cleaning service
34.00
20398
Phillipe Petro. Corp. - Gas - Water Dept.
31.81
20399
Snyder Drug - Supplies
36.17
20400
Maua Foods - Supplies for all Depts.
269.86
20401
Local #49 - union dues
126.00
20402
Paul Waingarden - Annexation Board legal expense
385.60
20403
Campbell Abstract Co. - Land acquisition costa - Hasa property
56.00
20404
National Life Ina. - Premium for T. Eidem
100.00
20405
Dick's "66" Service - Fire Dept. gas
30.20
20406
Wright County Journal Press - Renewal for Press
10.00
20407
Montieolls Times - Pub. - printing - sub. renewal
259.32
20408
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
99.73
20409
Monticello Printing - Lotter-hoado, o/w pastels, envelopes, oto.
382.66
20410
Wright County Treasurer - Police contract
9,782.06 `
20411
Polar Plastics Incorp. - Piro Dept. Supplies
44.78
20412
Wright County Treasurer - tat half taxes for Fire Hall
514.10
20413
TKDA 6 Assoc. - Nov Piro Hall foes
15,229.38
20414
Orkin Post Control - Contract payment WWTP
106.00
20415
Pyle Backhoo - Steaming for water shut-off - L. Smith
45.00
20416
MN. Dopt. of Health - Water analysis fee
197.83
20417
U. of MN. - Conference foo for Roger Mack
40.00
20418
Wright County State Bank - FWT
2,152.00
20419
Maus Foods - Supplies for Library
9.19
20420
Dop. Rap. 42 - Dop. foes for snow plow dump truck
10.75
20421
Hoglund Bus Co. - 1985 Int. snow plow dump truck
51,750.00,
20422
Marco Businosa Products - Office supplies
58.73
20423
Howard Dshlgron Assoc, - March consulting foes
1,176.10
20424
AT 6 T Information Systems - Firs phone charges
3.59
20425
K
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Foater-Franzen Ina., - Additional for workmen's Camp.
1,327.00
204
Food Rite Controls - WWTP supplies
1,964.09
2042,
Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins.
4,226.12
20428
Monticello Fire Dept• - Wages
1,078.00
20429
Burner Service 6 Combustion - Repair of burner at WWTP
6,126.14
20430
Brenteson Const. - Rental of truck and loader
1,520.00
20431
MacQueen Equip. - Filter element, fuel unit 6 deflector
191.53
20432
water Products - Motor
127.39
20433
Earl Andersen 6 Assoc. - Latch for Exerglide
32.40
20434
Lindberg Paints - Paint for WWTP
20.74
20435
Hawkins Chemical - Chlorine
376.70
20436
Wright County Highway Dept. - Sand and salt mix
352.50
20437
First Bank Mple. - Public fund charges
12.00
20436
Audio Communications - Repairs, speaker mike, loather case, etc.
125.25
20439
Sorvi/Star Hardware - Supplies for all Depts.
453.54
20440
Coast to coast - Supplies
33.12
20441
Wright County Auditor - Printing fees for Assmt. 6 tax books
143.13
20442
Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental for March
153.60
20443
Curtin Matheson - Supplies for WWTP
195.57
20444
W. N. Grainger, Inc. - Parts
48.93
20445
John Simola - Mileage expense
19.60
20446
Davis Electronic Service Co. - Repair pagers - Fire Dept.
176.96
20447
Conway Fire 6 Safety - Distress locators for Fire Dept.
320.00
20448
SMA Construction - Metal for WWTP
31.25
20449
X-orgon Co. - Naga stick and cloth - WWTP
148.67
20450
Voss Electric - Lights
10.72
2045
Gould Bros. Chev. - Repairs to trucks
116.49
2045
Corporate Report - Renewal of sub.
21.00
20453
St. Cloud Fire Equip. - Repairs for Piro 6 St. Dept.
136.50
20454
Monticello O. K. Hardware - Supplies
70.90
20455
Lubrication Engineers - Grease - Public works Dept.
236.75
20456
Rockmount Research 6 Alloys - Flame hold for Public Works Dept.
57.97
20457
Jerry Hormoa - Clowning Library
172.92
20456
Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense
212.50
20459
Tom Eidom - Mileage allowance
300.00
20460
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
160.04
20461
Internal Revenue Service - Payroll dad.
150.00
20462
MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/11
2,602.30
20463
MN. State Treasurer - PERA WWII
1,369.13
20464
Northern States Power - Utilities
8,320.26
20465
Karan Hanson - Expenses for seminar to Son Francisco
180.00
20466
Anoka County Social Sorvicos - Payroll dod. - raimb.
132.00
10467
Fortune - Sub. renewal
39.00
20468
Gary Anderson - Rise. miloago expanse
46.43
20469
Bridgewater Tolephono - Telephone
903.41
20470
EPL/MBL - Soil tenting
552.00
20471
Allen Pelvlt - Mise. miloago and expenses
82.00
20472
Bowman-Barnoa - Nuts and bolto for Public Works Dept.
255.43
20473
Voosco. Co. - Materials for WWTP.
216.15
20474
State Treasurer - Push mower -Public Works
5.50
20475
National Bushing -Supplies - Mtca.
329.70
20476
Harry's Auto - Supplies WWTP 6 Mtco. Dept.
528.44
2047 /
Rick Wolfatalior - Mileage t conference expense
206.67
20478
MN. Coalition of Outatato Citioo - Annual duan
25.00
20479
Automatic Garage Door - Repair garage jr at WWTP
250.00
20480
MacQuoon Equip. - Filtog ocroon and r .y nozzle 1t. Dept
27.40
20481
Northwestern Boli Telephone - Fire charge*
36.68
20402
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK -NO.
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
334.00
20483
Petty Cash - Reimb. petty cash fund
45.32
20484
Cragun's Conference Center - Dep. for conference - T . Eidem
50.00
20485
Government Training Service - MC14A Conf. reg. fee
125.00
20486
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Misc. mtce. and repairs
457.25
20487
Gary Anderson - Bi-annual Insurance payment
120.00
20488
Water Products - Meters
616.89
20489
Arvig Phone Center - WWTP supplies
20.18
20490
W. W. Grainger, Inc. - Filter
7.38
20491
MacQueen Equipment - Street supplies - Gauge 6 filter tank
98.48
20492
West Publishing Co. - 85 Session laws
70.00
20493
Century Laboratories - Grass killer - St. 6 Parks
832.83
20494
OSM - Misc. eng. fees
2,267.87
20495
Curtin Matheson Scientific - WWTP supplies
131.86
20496
Payroll for March
26,071.35
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - APRIL
$175.609.66
LIQUOR FUND
AMOUNT CFECF
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR APRIL N
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,717.25
11698
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
977.68
11699
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
1,100.95
11700
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
1,900.19
11701
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll W/H
20.00
11702
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
160.66
11703
MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H
274.56
11704
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H
229.00
11705
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,083.12
11706
Ed Phillipe 6 Sons - Liquor
498.08
11707
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
908.30
11708
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
1,056.81
11709
Ed Phillipe 6 Sone - Liquor
3,492.49
11710
Grigqs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
4,373.25
11711
Seven Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse.
38.75
11712
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. axles.
230.95
11713
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Misc. mdse.
350.60
11714
Dahlhelmer Dist. Co. - Beer
9,974.80
11715
Grossloin Beverage Co. - Beer
10,952.63
11716
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
29.75
11717
Granite City Cash Register - Store supplies
66.12
11718
Judo Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse.
502.80
11719
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Bear
2,442.50
117:
Dick Beverage Co. - Boor
2,259.45
1172.
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract payment
82.50
11722
Day Dist. Co. - Boor
623.60
11723
North Central Public Service - Utilities
202.15
11724
National Child Safety Council - Cont. to child safety program
62.00
11725
Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes
1,299.00
11726
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdoo.
85.02
11727
Frito Lay, Inc. - Misc. mdso.
129.90
11728
Banker's Life Ina. - Group Ina.
364.91
11729
14 ofort Trucking - Freight
324.45
11730
Fostor-Fronzon Ina. - Add. premium on Workmun's Comp.
57.00
11731
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
49.62
11732
Coast to Coact - Store supplies
30.58
11733
Northern States Power Co. - Utilities
459.52
11734
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dad.
20.00
11735
Ed Phillipa 6 Sons - Liquor
2,699.03
11736
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
1,597.76
11737
Eagle Wino Co. - Liquor
595.81
11738
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,165.55
11739
Quality Wine Co. - Liquor
154.38
11740
MN. Stats Treasurer - FICA W/11
276.60
11741
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H
161.04
11742
Payroll for March 3,777.71
TOTAL DISBURSE14ENTS FOR APRIL $60,862.22
MDIVIDUAL PPfMIT ACTIVITY REPO?.T
MONTH OF March , 198 5
r-�
DE11MIT
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
P
I_
NAME/LCCATION
VALUATIONsccz
PF,RMIT
SURCHARGE
PLUMB ING
SURCHARGE
_�
85-724
Single Family Dwelling
SF
Daye veches Const./153 Jerry Liefert
5 57,900.00
S. 306.70
S 28.95
S 23.00
S .50
Drive
��
85-725
Single Family Dwelling
SF
Marvin George.Builders/6•Eagle Circle
46,200.00
265.90
23.10
23.00
.50 '1
85-726
Single Family Dwelling
SF
Marvin George Builders/4 Eagle Circle
46,200.00
265.90
23.10
23.00
.50 •i
_ 85-727
Single Family Dwelling
SF
Marvin George Builders/2 Eagle Circle
46,200.00
265.96
23.10
23.00
.50
85-728
Rental Retail Business
[
Samuel Properties/216 Sandberg Road
70,000.00
343.00
35.00
25.00
.50
85-729
House Reroofing
AD;
James Fitzgerald/448 West Broadway
1,430.00
14.30
.70 j
' 85-730
House Reroofing
AD;
Lindsay Reagan/348 East Broadway
1,430.00
14.30
.70
85-731
16 Unit Tor -house
HF!
IAC;
Donald 6 Daryl Hoikca/149 Riverview D
261,700.00
837.20
130.80
144.00
3.00
1 85-732
1 Interior Renovation
Perkins, Inc./700 Pine Street
23,000.00
158.50
11.50
85-733
Two Family Dwelling
!
John Miller/129 Jerry Liefert Drive 1
97,700.00
426:10,
- 48.80 }
30.00
.to
85-734
Detached Utility Building
ID
ACI
Hugo SonbucMer/1504 West River St. 1
1,430.00
14.30
.70
iTOTALS
!
$653,190.00
52,912.10
5332.45 _
5291.00
56.00
PLA3 REVIEW
. 85-728
Rental Retail Business
C I
Samuel Properties/216 Sandberg Road
$ 222.95
1
,
85-731
16 Unit Townhouse
MFI
Donald 6 Daryl Heikes/149 Riverview Di. 544.10
1
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW d
5 767.05
_
--
'
1
TOTAL REVENUE
S 4,302.60
1
CITY OF MONi'ICELLO
Monthly Building Department Report
Month of NMCH 1985
PMRMTS and USES
Last
-This
-Same Month Last Year
This Year i
PERMITS ISSV» y
Month February Month March
Last Year To Date
To Date
RESIDENTIAL
Number -
1
9
7 13
12
Valuation a 8,500.00
S 560,190.00
S 236,400.00 51,123,500.00
5625,,120.00
Fees
71.50
2,954.70
1,336.55 5,508.46
3,338.50
Surcharges
4.25
279.95
118.15 551.65
312.40
OOM M RCIAL
Number1
2
1 9
4
Valuation 15,000.00
93,000.00
30,000.00 261,700.00
=109,430.00
Fees
110.50
724.45
318.45 1,955.55
849.25
Surcharges
7.50
46.50
15.00 130.85
54.70
INE6iRIAL
Number
1
Valuation
I
Fees
Surcharges
j
PLUMBING
Number
1
7
5 10
8
Fees
12.00
291.00
122.00 380.00
303.00
Surcharges
.50
6.00
2.56 5.00
6.50
OTHERS
Numbor
Valuation
Foes
Surcharges
is
13 32
24
TOTAL NO. PFRM17S
3
TOTAL VALUATION 23,500.00
653,190.00
266,400.00 1,385,200.00
734,550.00
TOTAL FEES
194.00
3,970.15
1,777.00 7,844.01
4,490.75
'DOTAL SURCHARGES
12.25
332.49
135.69 §97.50
373.60
CURRENT MONTH
vp�e
Number to Date-
PERMIT NATURE
Number
Pam 2M0ARGg Valuation This veer Last vearq
Single Family
4
i 1,104.40
$ 98.25 t 196',500.00 4
5
Duplex
1
426.10
48.80 97,700.00 1
1
Multi-family
1
1,381.30
130.80 261,700.00 1
1
Commercial
1
565.95
35.00 70,000.00 1
3
Industrial
0
0
Roe. Garages
0
2
Signs
0
0
Public Buildings
0
0
ALTERATION OR REPAIR
Dwollinge
3
42.90
2.10 4,290.001 6
4
Commercial
1
158.50
11.50 23,000.00 3
-6
Industrial
0
0
1
PLUMBING
All types
7
291.00
6.00 8
10
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Sviming Pool.
0
0
Docks
0
0
( TEMPORARY P2WUT
0
0
DEMOLITION
0
0
Z WALE
18
3,970.15
332.45 653,190.00 24
32