No preview available
City Council Agenda Packet 06-24-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 24, 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 June 10, 1985. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of Bids and Awarding Contract for 1985 Sealeoating Project. S. Consideration of City Participation in County Improvement of County Road 39; A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Study and Setting a Public Hearing. 6. Consideration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment to HRA. D Now Business 7. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone - Applicant, Jay Spitzongol. ., 8. Consideration of Utility Improvements for the River Road Plaza Project. 9. Consideration of a Roplat Concept Plan of Lots 36-47, Block 2, Ritzo Manor; Calling for the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements in Kenneth Lana and Setting a Time for a Public Hearing to Consider the vacation of Part of Kenneth Lane. I 10. Consideration of Maintenance Service Level on a Private Driveway. 11. Consideration of Renewal of Annual Licenses. 12. Consideration of Dille for the Month of Juno. 13. Adjournment. 1 �1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE:LLO CITY COUNCIL i Juno 10, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1 Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonige n. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Potion was made by Bili Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold May 28, and the special meeting hold June 3, 1985. 4. Consideration of Accepting 1984 Annual Audit Report. Mr. Rick Borden and Mr. Kim Liliehaug. of Gruys Johnson & Associates, the City's auditing firm, reviewed with the Council the recently completed 1984 Annual Audit Report. After a brief presentation was made by Rick Borden highlighting some D financial data included in the report. motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to accept the audit report as presented. 5. Consideration of Adopting a Joint Powers Agreement for the SWC4. Initially, the City of Monticello entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with ton other communities to form the Shorburne/Wright County Cable Communications Commission for the purpose of preparing a request for proposals and reviewing bids and awarding a franchise for cable. Now that this process has boon completed with the franchise being awarded to Rito Cable Company and installation proceeding on schedule, it is now essential to create a now Joint Powers Agreement with Commission members chargad with the responsibility of administering the cable franchise on bohalf of the tan cities. The Joint Powers Agreement would be virtually identical to the firot one in terms of responsibilities and obligations of each city and their delegates; however, the intent of the Commission would now be to daily oporations adminiatration rather than for tho purpose of franchising. A resolution has boon proparod by the Cable Commission 'a legal advisor amending the original agroemont and appointing the actual dologaten from each community. } Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carriod to adopt Resolution 1985010 amending the Joint Powers i Agreement of the SWC4 Cable Commicai on appointing Tom 8idam as the City -a Commission mombor, with Rick Wolfatollor as alternate. .1_ 0 Council Minutes - 4/10/85 6. Consideration of Providing Direction to City Staff for the Ongoing Preparation of the Revised Zoning Ordinance - Discussion Item. The purpose of this item was to receive input and direction from the Council to the City staff in regards to the proposed zoning ordinance map revisions that were recently part of a public informational meeting hold by the City staff on June 3, 1985. At the informational public hearing, a majority of those in attendance overwhelmingly opposed PZ -R Zoning District on East River Street that would allow flexibility in the residential area for multiplb structures along the river. Additional input received from residents about other potential rezonings in other areas of the City have been reviewed, and it is felt by the staff that adjustments can easily be made to accommodate the types of concerns expressed by these property owners without jeopardizing the proposed established zones. Of primary concern to the City staff was whether or not the proposed PZ -R Zoning District along East River Street should remain for future public hearings. Mr. John Sandberg, property owner within the proposed PZ -R Zone, spoke briefly to the Council and provided general information supporting the proposed PZ -R Zoning District. Mr. Sandberg felt that if this zoning district existed, a woll-planned condominium unit may provide higher property valuations for neighboring properties rather than hurt market values in the sroa; and he felt that multiple structures will be the trend in the future and that the City should consider a zoning district that would allow for this type of development with proper controls. Council members in general agreed that the River Street property along the river may sea changes in the future with the largo homes deteriorating or possibly becoming too cost effective to maintain as single family rooidoncoo and that the City should provide proper planning and controls to handle the forthcoming changes that could occur. The general consensus was that the City should be aware of the long-term needs of its residents and what would be proper and good for City planning over the long haul, and felt this typo of district should be researched further. Although a final decision on this typo of zoning would not be made until future public hearings aro hold by the Planning Commission and the City Council, some Council members hope that additional citizens would coma forth at future public hearings in favor of this typo of housing alternative. After a brief discussion by all Council members, the general consensus of the Council was to direct the staff to continua research on the PZ -R Zoning District proposed and to loavo the proposed district in for future public hearings that will be hold. ! 7. information Item - Update on Negotiations for the Relocation of the LSenior Citizen Cantor. t The City Administrator updated the Council on a discussion ho had had with the Pastor of tho Assombly of Cod Church, which had proviously boon diocuosod as a p000ibla location for the Senior council Minutes - 5!10185 `- Citizens Center relocation. Mr. Eidem noted that the Church's asking price was 5200,000.00, which was substantially higher than an appraisal figure supplied by Councilmember Jack Maxwell. In addition to the $200,000.00 cost, the City would have to expend additional monies for remodeling and alterations that would be necessary to convert the facility for Senior Citizens use. The general Council consensus was that at this cost plus alteration cost, the price would be too high for the City to consider and that a new building could possibly be designed specifically for a Senior Citizen Center at a similar or lesser cost. A representative of the Church noted that their asking price is only half of a new building cost and that the City shouldn't abandon the idea of purchasing it without further negotiations. Again it was noted by Councilman Maxwell that the asking price may be reasonable if the building was to be continued to be used as a church facility; but with the remodeling coat that would be necessary to make it suitable for City use, the price seemed prohibitive. It was suggested by the Council that before this item is discussed again in the future, appraisals should be obtained by the City and also by the Church that could be reviewed. In addition, cost comparativc+o on remodeling the Church for City use, along with the cost of a new structure at other locations, should be available so that a decision could ba made whether future noyotiations aro realistic. No action was taken other than general discussion and directives to the staff to prepare soma cost comparatives. Rick wolfsLji!trator Assistant Council Agenda - 6/24/85 4. Consideration of Bide and Awarding Contract for 1985 Sealcoatina Project. W.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Wednesday afternoon at 2:00 p.m., the City received three bide for this year's sealcoating project. A copy of the bid tabulation is enclosed for your review. As can be seen by this tabulation, the low bidder was Buffalo Bituminous from Buffalo, Minnesota, in the amount of $27,929.00 with the City doing the sweeping, and $29,693.34 with Buffalo Bituminous doing all the sweeping. The coat differential for Buffalo Bituminous doing the sweeping is one of the lowest we've ever seen at 3.4C�, per square yard. Most of the bids for sweeping have been in the area of 5C per square yard; and the bids we received from Batzer and Allied this year were at 6-6.4C per square yard. The amount budgeted for this sealcoat project was 528,500.00. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: „ 1. Alternative N1 would be to award the bid to Buffalo Bituminous with the City doing the sweeping for an amount of 527,929.00. D i� 2. Alternative 02 would be to award the bid to Buffalo Bituminous with them doing the sweeping in the amount of $29,693.34. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we award the bid to Buffalo Bituminous with them doing the swooping as outlined in Alternative q2. This is one of the lowest bide wo'vo ever soon for the swooping portion, and the Public Works Dopartmant'e work load for this summer is already extensive. This would put us approximately $1,193.34 over budget. However, I should point out that in previous yearn we have been under budget in the soalcoating projects, and I do not fool thio is a significant amount to be over budget. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Bid tabulation for coalcoat project SC 65-1; Tabulation from the specifications of the areas to be sealcoatod this year. �l MC BID TABULATION BITUMINOUS SEAL COAT PROJECT SC 85-1 June 19, 1985 - 2:00 p.m. NAME Batzer Construction Company P.O. Box 1025 St. Cloud, MN 55301 Allied Blacktop Company 10503 89th Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369 Buffalo Bituminous Box 337 Buffalo, MN 55313 (City sweeping) BID I Sq.Yd. BID II Sq. Yd. $38,684.98 5.74 $35,548.36 $.68 $31,052.53 5.594 $28,177.30 5.539 529,693.34 5.568 $27,929.00 5.5343 NOTE: Last yoor'9 soalcoating project was awarded to Batzor Construction from St. Cloud for 515,871.19 (5.589 per sq. yd.). n -,l C 0 Area Street Sealcoat Size Square Feet Square Yards Country Club Rd. 42' x 2400' 100,800 sq.ft. 11,200 yds2 Eagle Circle 34' x 200' 14,650 sq.ft. 1,628 yds2 50'-R Center Circle 34' x 100' 11,250 sq.ft. 1,250 yds2 50'-R Bunker Circle 34' x 100' 11,250 sq.ft. 1,250 yds2 50'-R Fairway Drive 38' x 2000' 76,000 sq.ft. 8,445 yds2 Dundas Road 40' x 2600' 104,000 sq.ft. 11,555 yds2 west River 30' x 1400' 42,000 sq.ft. 4,666 yds2 75-I-94 Marvin Elwood 34' x 1500' 51,000 sq.ft. 5,666 yds2 Prairie Rd. 24' x 1800' 43,200 sq.ft. 4,800 yds2 Sandtrap Circle 34' x 250' 16,350 sq.ft. 1,817 yds2 50'-R Total Square Yards 52,277 yde2 C 0 r41 L Council Agenda - 6/24/85 5. Consideration of City Participation in County Improvement of County Road 39; A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Study and Setting a Public Hearing. (J -S-) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A few months ago during a Council meeting, we discussed the County's improvement of East County Road 39 in regard to its affect on the Curtis Hoglund property. As you may remember. the County would need to purchase additional right-of-way along County Road 39 in order to get the proper clear zone for the new County Road 39 construction. This additional area needed for a rural type street would be approximately 12 feet and would have an affect on the Curtis Hoglund property in that the gas station convenience store would lose some of the recreational vehicle parking on the east side of their property. The Council's action on the Curtis Hoglund property was to withhold the occupancy until the County and Mr. Hoglund work out the new property line. After the meeting, Mr. Jack Maxwell discussed the Hoglund project with Mr. Wayne Fingalaon, the Wright County Highway Engineer. Jack indicated to Mr. Fingalaon that he felt that the portion of East County Road 39 from County Road 75 to Mississippi Drive should be of urban design with curb and gutter. Mr. Fingalaon indicated to Jack that if the design ware of an urban typo with curb and gutter, there may be no or very little additional right-of- way required. I discussed the proposed project with Jack at that time and than requested that the County perform a cost study of the alternate types of construction for this portion of East County Road 39. The County's scheduling of the project is for the purchasing of easements to be done in 1986, with the actual construction to take place in 1987. It would be important that any of our utility construction such as our largo diameter water main and possibly soma sanitary sower crossings be constructed before the completion of the County Road 39 project in that area between County Road 75 and Mississippi Drive. It Is expected that any utilities constructed seat of Mississippi Drive be in the ditch on either side of the now County road. On Tuesday, Juno 18, I mat with Mr. Wayne Pingalson and his assistant, Richard Marquette, to discuss the coot estimates for the different alternates for East County Road 39. The following aro those coat estimates. 1. Altornato A 30 mile par hour design using existing alignment and a 10 -ton all weather road for a length of approximately .26 miles. -2- tJ Rural Design 24 -foot mat with 8 -foot paved shoulders Average cost $200,000/mile - Additional right of way required .77 acres x $10,000/acre = Slope easements required 1.7 acres x 51,500/acre v TOTAL RURAL DESIGN COSTS Council Agenda - 6/24/65 I $ 52,000.00 $ 7,700.00 S 2,550.00 S 62,250.00 EXPECTED CITY PARTICIPATION (0.00] Urban Design Using a 44 -foot curb to curb street with a 10 -ton all weather design. Average construction coats $65/lineal foot $ 90,675.00 Estimated City Participation [S 27,202.50] The above figure for urban dosign does not include storm sower construction, which should be minimal, in the area of $5-10,000.00+ nor does it include sanitary sowor crossings or the now water main. 2. Alternate 8 45 mile par hour design with an 8 degree 45 minuto curve. This would involvo moving the cantor lino approximately 38 foot to the east at its sharpest point and, therefore, the purchase of more right of way in either the urban or rural design. Rural Design Average construction coat 5200,000/mile $ 52,000.00 1% acres of right of way at $10,000/acro $ 12,500.00 1.7 acres of slope easement at $1,500/acro $ 2,550.00 TOTAL RURAL DESIGN COSTS $ 67,050.00 ANTICIPATED CITY PARTICIPATION (0.00) -3- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 Urban Design Average construction cost $65/lineal foot $ 90,675.00 Right of way, h acre at $10,000/acre - S 5,000.00 1.7 acres slope easement at $1,500/acre $ 2,550.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 98,225.00 ANTICIPATED CITY PARTICIPATION [$ 34,752.501 This construction coat does not include the storm sewer, which is expected to be minimal, or the sanitary sewer crossings, or the installation of the 16" diameter water main. In my discussions with the Wright County Highway Engineer, it appears to be most foasible to design the roadway for the 45 mile per hour design due to the fact that the curve, as it exists, is rather sharp. There also is a possibility of some state aid funds should the roadway be designed at 45 miles per hour. The question becomes then whether it would be beet to place an urban design or a rural design in the section of County Road 39 from County Road 75 to Mississippi Drivo. The basic difference in cost to the City of Monticello for the two designs would be approximately $40,000.00. This would include a vary modest sum of $5,200.00 for storm sower, which may not be enough. if we take this very rough catimato of $40,000.00 and divide it by 1147 foot of frontage on the oast side and 667 foot of frontage on the wast aide, which could p000ibly be assoseablo, we tomo up with a figure in the area of $22.05 a front foot. This. of course, does not include any of the engineering costs and/or bonding costs and ouch. The engineering costs in themselves should be somewhat light, as the County reimburses the City for 5% of the initial design engineering coats. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Although at this point in time we aro only discussing the alternatives as to whether to have a rural or urban design, one must consider the installation of the 16" water main and some pooeiblo sanitary sower croeoinSe as also having a high priority. 1. Alternative 01 would bo to use a rural design under Alternate A at 30 miles par hour with no coat to the City. 2. Alternative #2 would be to use an urban design under Alternate A with an estimated coat to the City of $33,000.00, which includes a small amount for storm sower. -4- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 3. Alternative #3 would be to use a 45 mile per hour design as outlined in Alternate B using a rural type of design at no cost to the City. 4. Alternative #4 would be to use a 45 mile per hour design as outlined in Alternate B with an urban type section utilizing curb and gutter at an estimated cost of $40,000.00. This amount would then be assessed to the benefitting property owners, as would be the case in Alternative Y2. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that you consider Alternative 04, the 45 mile per hour design using the urban section, and assess the amount to the benefitting property owners. If this alternate is chosen, it would be necessary to authorize the City Engineer to perform a feasibility and cost analysis of the proposed project to have the information for a public hearing. I have discussed the proposal with Mrs. Curtis Hoglund, and she has indicated that in their particular case they would be better off with the urban design than they would with a rural design and having to move the curbing on their property. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Construction estimate from Wright County and letter from the County Highway Engineer if received in time for the meeting; Resolution for adoption. -5- Con sthUcfl°a'1 CS}�»ioter - I I!'T�}crn4�e �• 30 (�Ipi1 d�slgrl � llr�n�. Cxitt�r9 %��1gnMen7 �IX- 0.;?v M;,es ¢�c0,ct4 p•• ro. �SQl000 �:1 U r 10 o w D c r 'n OAD z'w--t \J►+.� • �o S P.,, Ii- F i 139,S x 6-S �75 I:; CST's C-Z� 3t% 37'.2.5: i X.M. ..; V7Slq jam,..Sl O�*�j^<1y'yy.p RJw . Q 74/r..X V'o e:o a1,, 7c: •t.E. 5t•.j0,aso !!IT)ta}n4�a �, �5mp��cslar� 8`�$ CIJhJC. 1 i ,.C�./.5'�'}ucf1-r C�i7r W..).� �e gPPti.y /riQj'c)� `}•ka S4Y'!�, f,'o �5av�l-9L�', Rla��a-�►SPSc1V ��y i'v*A� �jj.Sl�ti�du� i`ia ..lrali.�a S1.p.e q�:�,h...'}s n.,a }•1d13tiW.� PjJul NUJ}:1$ 11 / 1;!I UF�a`n Gca�'1 e0c," �t DC►a RJW tmIe/000 YS/e.w Al } 5so / -rot+ Q1w 75So III "r v—\ (r RESOLUTION 1985 M RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 39 EAST AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID IMPROVEMENT ThymAd A. aw City Administrator 05 WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Wright County Highway Department. Wright County, Minnesota to make substantial improvements on County Road 39 East, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello may request that certain design standards relating to urban design of streets be incorporated into the project contingent upon City participation in said project, and WHEREAS, it is determined to be in the best interests of the City of Monticello to improve portions of County Road 39 East according to -urban standards, and to assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA: 1. That the proposed improvement be referrod to Orr-Scholon-Mayeron and Associates, City Consulting Engineers, for study and that they are instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible, and as to whether it should boat be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. 2. A public hearing shall be hold on such proposed improvement on the day of , 1985, in the Council Chambers of the City !tall at 7:30 p.m., and the City Administrator shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by low. 3. The Public Works Director in and for the City of Monticello to hereby directed to inform the Wright County Engineer of the City -a desire to participate in the urban section of said improvement, that the City hcs ordered a feasibility report to investigate said improvement, and that City confirmation shall be given to Wright County upon completion of the above stated public hearing. Adopted thio 24th day of Juno, 1985. Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor ThymAd A. aw City Administrator 05 C� Council Agenda - 6/24/85 6. Consideration of Ratification of Mayoral Appointment to HRA. (A.P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the 5/28/85 Council meeting, staff recommended and you ratified the Mayor's appointment of Roger Hedtke to the HRA. Roger will fulfill the remaining 3;1 years of Jack Reeve's term. At the same meeting, it was recommended to consider the appointment of another HRA member for the June meeting. I Vic Vokaty's vacancy was created when Vic resigned in April. His term will expire on December 31, 1985. At that time it is anticipated that whoever replaces Mr. Vokaty will accept a second term. As of June 10, 1985, I have been in contact with several individuals that were considered by the HRA members to be acceptable nominees. Since that time, the HRA members and myself have talked with these candidates and have narrowed them to Mr. Bon Smith. Ben is a retired engineer that became a Monticello resident approximately nine years ago. Although Ben does not have experience in the economic development/redevelopment areas, he is concerned about Monticsllo's senior citizens and their beet intare ata. The Authority foole that the HRA needs a member to represent Monticello's elderly, especially when it portaine to redevelopment projects that may involve housing and relocations. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not ratify the Mayor's appointment of Ban Smith to the HRA, thus forcing the Authority to submit more nominees to the Mayor for his appointmont and your ratification. 2. Ratify the Mayor's appointment of Ben Smith to the HRA. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: After discussing all of the candidates and their qualifications, otc., with HRA members and City staff, we recommend your ratification of the Mayor's appointment to the Monticello HRA. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None needed. -6- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 7. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone - Applicant, Jay Spitzengel. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Jay Spitzengel is requesting to be allowed to operate a major auto repair business in a B-4 Zone. The location is the former Monti Motors business in the rear of the old Monticello Ford building. The auto body repair will be his only type of business operated in this location and will be done by himself only. Mr. Spitzengel has indicated he would like to work only on small repairable cars that could be fixed in a very short period of time rather than fix care that have a lot of damage. Mr. Spitzengel would like to be allowed to operate an auto body shop out of this location to get his business established, and hopefully within a year or two construct a new body shop at some other location in the City of Monticello. At the Monticello Planning Commission, there was some objection and some support for Mr. Spitzongel'e request. Much of the objection came from current businesses across the street. Objection also came from developers as to this type of activity going on once the now proposed elderly housing project Is in place. Other businesses in the area of the proposed request supported Mr. Spitzongol-e request only if he operated on the same conditions as Mr. Pat Townsend, owner of Monti Motors. 8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use roquost to allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a D-4 Zone. 3. Allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone with the following conditions: a. No extra storage of damaged automobiles, automobile parts, otc., allowed. b. Conditional use be granted for a period not to exceed 1 year; and at any time upon being given a written notice by the City, the applicant will vacate the promisor within 60 days. c. All automotive repair work be done insido the building with the doors closed. d. A flammable waste trap be inatallod prior to opening business. o. The entire area around the property be maintained in C, the same manner in which it In being maintained pranantly. -7- Council Agenda - 6124!05 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request with the conditions as suggested in Alternative q3. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed location of the conditional use request; Copy of the minutes of the Monticello Planning Commission meeting. -0- ailOy 1 i°nal ' main dig 1 e1!-:- 17 It _ ,1'n- (��,,,---...=•i�T � •i' �: :it• y t ""`it;f �l �� ,� ' � � f lI 1l'r:' • +• LIl t 11 "^`•. �d� ��';i+d� L� lt. 'i j•., •�• , sy... I t' 'WAY N0. 84 t +.• �� Planning Commission Minutes - 6/1 1/85 3. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 {Regional Business) Zone - Applicant. Jay Spitzangal. Mr. Jay Spitzongel was preaent to propose his request for major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. Mr. Spitzengal would like to operate a major auto body repair business out of the former Monte Motors building. Commission member, Joyce Dowling, questioned if Monte Motors had a major auto repair conditional use permit; and Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that they had obtained a conditional use to allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. Chair Jim Ridgeway then opened the meeting to co=ents from the public. Mr. Pred Topel, property owner a couple of businesses down from the proposed conditional use request site, said he would not be in opposition to the proposed major auto repair if it was conducted under the same type of circumstances as the currently existing Monte Motors. Mr. Topel also handed a lattar to Chair Jim Ridgeway from Season All Sports indicating that they are also not in opposition to the proposed major auto repair if it is operated under the same conditions as the current Monte Motors. A letter was also received from the tenants in the Metcalf & Larson Professional Building indicating their objection to any type of major auto repair in this location. Mr. Bud Schrupp, co-owner in Golden Valley Furniture Store, was also present to support the conditional use request for major auto repair in a B-4 Zone as long as it is operated with the conditions as attached to the conditional use which was issued to Monts Motors. A letter was also received from the Monticello BRA reiterating their position that should a developer come in and want to develop the property that the conditional use permit could be pulled from the proposed applicant should It be granted to facilitate now development of the entire property. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Dick Martie, to approve the conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a B-4 {Regional Business? Zone with the following conditions; I. That any major auto repair be done inside the building only. 2. That no exterior storage of damaged automobiles, automobile parts, ate. be allowed. 3. The conditional use be granted for a period not to exceed one year; and upon being given a written notice by the City, the applicant will vacate the premises within 60 days: 4. That a flammable waste trap be installed as per Uniform Plumbing Code specifications. S. That the entire area around the proparty be maintained in the same manner in which it is being maintained presently. The action carried unanimously. 3 -- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 8. Consideration of Utility Improvements for the River Road Plaza Project. (J.S., T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: (J,S,) Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Hoglund have been involved in developing a portion of MacArlund Plaza, specifically Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1, which will be known as River Road Plaza. A gas station/convenience store is being built upon these lots. At an earlier meeting, we discussed with the Hoglunds the need to extend sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer from the townhouse area into their proposed development. This extension of utilities would serve Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, of Block 1, MacArlund Plaza. The Hoglunds contracted with Winkleman to provide the necessary data for the installation of the sewer and water services. The estimate given the Hoglunds for the installation of the sewer and water services was 54,000.00. Consequently, this is the amount of money that was built into the project and built into the mortgage on the property. The improvements for serving these six lots was designed by Williamson & Kotomith, Inc., enyineurs and surveyors in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Williamson 6 Kotsmith provided the City of Monticello drawings, which we passed on to the City Engineer. The drawings and specifications are in accordance with standards for the City of Monticello. Upon reviewing the specifications, John Badalich and myself requested that they add approximately 150 fact of water main to loop the water main to County Road 39. This would provide better flow characteristics through the MacArlund Plaza property, specifically those six lots, and provide bettor fire protection as well as cleaner water. After approval by the City, the bids were lot by Winkleman: and Ted La Tour Construction of Maple Lake was low bidder in the amount of $23,OOO.CO. This is approximately $19,000.00 over the original estimate the Hoglund4s were given for the sewer and water services. Splitting the coat among the six lots comes out vary near $4,000.00 per lot if you include the engineering coats paid to Williamson 6 Kotamith. The project consists of approximately 392 fact of 81, sanitary sower, 516 feat of 8" ductile iron water main with a hydrant, and 152 foot of 15^ storm sewer. I have enclosed a copy of the bid schedule for your rovio%-, and a copy of the plans is also enclosed. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: (T.E.) The attached lottor/potition from Anna Hoglund requests that the City participate financially in the extension of the sewer and water services that will be utilized to hook up the oorvico station/convenionee store. As you will note in the fourth paragraph, Hoglundo acknowledge the fact that the City dean not got involved with private sewer and water extensions. My understanding of -9. Council Agenda - 6/24/85 the difficulties that Hoglunds face derive from the fact that Winkleman originally bid a small private sewer and water line at $4,000.00, while the City was requiring acceptable extensions of City services that were bid at $23,000.00. Mrs. Hoglund's contention is, I presume, that City designed/required services could be partially paid by the City. I discussed this matter with the City Attorney, and it is our agreement that the City not participate in this matter. However, if it is the Councils position that they would like to lend assistance in this case, we feel it is bettor to enter a private contract with the Hoglunde rather than go through the special assessment procedure that would place it on the County tax rolls. The provisions of such a contract would be something like the following: 1. The City will assume full construction responsibility for the installation. ' Y 2. Within 5 days of ordering the job to begin. Hoglunds must pay to the City a certain percentage of the $23,000.00 bid cost. 3. The City will assume no financial liability for any contingent or associate costs. We will only be involved with the $23,000.00 bid figure. The percentage that would need to be paid would be in excess of 50%, in my estimation. 4. The balance of the actual construction cost (not just the bid amount) would be payable at 126 over the next three yoars. 5. No building permits could be issued on Lots 1-4 until the entire balance is paid in full. I 6. No sale or transfer of any land. Lots 1-6, could occur without payment of the balance in full. 7. Failure to make prompt payment would be cauno for substantial daily penalty as well as immodiato discontinuance of all sower and water aorvlcoo. 1 S. Other protective clauses that may be doomed necessary by the City Attorney. This typo of arrangamont is, in fact, a typo of aseeasmont, but it -s being guaranteed by contract rather than by a levy recorded with the tax statement of the property. This typo of a contract is also, however, nothing more than a loan to the developers. I`I Docauoo there is only one property owner involved, it Is difficult to dofino the project as a public improvement under the strict interpretation of Minnesota statute 429. r, -10- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 11 -- B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Deny the request to participate financially in the construction of sewer and water lines. 2. Agree to accept construction responsibility for the project, require a specific amount paid up front, and assess the balance in equal amounts against five parcels (5 and 6 are treated as a single parcel under this current development), and certify said amounts to County Auditor. 3. Agree to finance the construction but require the execution of a contract between Hoglunds and the City of Monticello. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Attorney and City Adminl.strator recommend that the City not become involved with financing private utility extensions. If, however, the Council elects to assist the developers in this process. we do recommend utilizing the contract package rather than the certified assessment policy. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter from Mrs. Hoglund; Copy of the bid schedule; Copy of a site plan showing improvement layout. Monticello, Ma. June 19, 1985 City Administrator Tom didem City of Monticello Monticelho, Mn. 55362 Dear Mr. Eidem, We would like participation in Monday nights council meeting (June 24, 1985), concerning River Road Plaza sanitary sewer, water main & storm sewer, which serves lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & b, Block 1, Macarlund Plaza. Plane have already been drawn & approved by city & city engineer & drawn up according to city specifications. WE realize the city does not go the 25A - 75A basis, but was wondering if you would consider sharing any of the expenses. We have to install approximately 200 ft. of ex- tra 8" water line to Co. Rd. 39, which will benefit others besides ourselves. We realize this is all our responsibility, but would like some of this expense aoseused to each of the lots mentioned in the first paragraph. We are the soul property owners in this project & would waive any public hearing on assessments. "7 2� /J YJuro t�r/u)lJy! �� River Road Plaza Curt & Anna Mae Hoglund 1511 East Broudw ay Monticello, Mn. 8 RIVER ROAD PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ( BID SCHEDULE EST. UNIT TOTAL NO. ITEM UNIT QUANT. PRICE PRICE 1 8" Sanitary Sewer(8-10' Deep) L.F. 250 2 8" Sanitary Sewer(10-12' Deep) L.F. 116 3 8" Sanitary Sewer(12-14' Deep) L.F. 26 4 Standard Sanitary Manholes (0-8' Deep) Each 3 5 Excess Sanitary.Manhole Depth L.F. 9 6 B" X 6" wyes Each 4 7 6" Sanitary Service Pipe L.F. 57 8 B" Ductile Iron water Main Class 52 L.F. 516 9 8" Gate Valve a Box Each 1 10 6" Gate Valve a Box Each 1 11 6" Ductile Iron Hydrant Lead Class 52 L.F. 10 '2 5" Hydrant Each 1 `13 Fittinas Lb. 665 14 IV Corporations Each 4 15 ly" Curb Stop a Box Each 4 16 ly" Copper Service Pipe L.F. 67 17 15" RCP Storm Sewer, Class IV L.F. 152 18 Standard Storm Sewer Manhole (0-8' Deep) Each 1 TOTAL BID .................. i Pago 1 of 1 Pages C 8 Council Agenda - 6/24/85 9. Consideration of a Replat Concept Plan of Lots 36-47, Block 2, Ritze Manor; Calling for the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements in Kenneth Lane and Setting a Time for a Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of Part of Kenneth Lane. (J.S., T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: W .S.) Approximately 18 months ago, the City Council directed the Public Works Director to look toward the replatting of Ritze Manor in the area of Kenneth Lane. This replatting was to have the end result that Kenneth Lane would become a through street from West River Street to County Road 75. This much needed route would take the load off the corner of River Street near Riverside Circle. It would also take the load off of the triangular intersection of West River Street, County Road 75, and Prairie Road. My early discussions at that time with Mr. Charles Ritze were favorable. However, his son, Phil Ritze, had soma objections to the street becoming a through street. At that time, Phil was proposing to purchase one of the lots from his father on the and of the cul-de-sac and make his home in that area. Over the past 18 months, things appear to have changed significantly with the Ritzes. Phil has changed his mind about the project, quite possibly due to the financial situation. It appears at this time that the Ritzoa do not have sufficient funding to complete the public improvements themselves to make this property saleable. The area that we aro talking about consists of Lots 36-47. At the last Council meeting, I passed out to you a copy of a possible roplat of Ritze Manor. This roplat was drawn by the Public works Director using angles and dimensions that would have the least affect on the plat, salvage as much of the existing atorm sower as possible, and join County Road 75 at a 90-dogroo anglo as requested by Wright County. Last weak, the City staff mot with Charlie and Phil Ritzo concerning the project. We indicated to them if they would replat thio portion of Ritzo Manor at their own expense that the staff would recommend to the City Council that the City install the necessary street and utility improvements and aaaoaa those 12 bonofitting Iota. Staff would make thio recommendation to the Council duo solely to the acquisition of a now access road to West River Street. Both Charlie and Phil agreed to this proposal. Charlie and his wife, an land owners of all bonofitting property, than petitioned the City of Monticello for those public improvements. At this time, I made a detailed list of those improvements and passed it to OSM for a coat analysis with estimated assessments on each lot. Ono thing that Charlie Ritzo asked for or indicated that may be desirable in thin area Is that the oast aide of Kenneth Lane havo,ne an option,a sidewalk from River Street to County Road 75. The cost estimate is to have this as an option. Additionally, Ci -12- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 when the original project went through in 1975 on River Street, most of the sewer risers were located and left beneath the ground water table making it extremely difficult to hook up at a later date. Therefore, with this project, when dewatering, the existing sewer services to Lots 36 and 47 and to the garage portion of the Ritze lot will have risers extended above the ground water. A copy of this list which I prepared is enclosed for your review. The cost estimate from OSM is also enclosed for your review. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: (T.E.) The timing for this particular project is somewhat tenuous and delicate. I think it is essential that the Ritzee indicate their willingness to fully accept the assessments as estimated from the feasibility report, including variations from 10-159 higher. In order to actually expedite this matter, we would like to begin the plans and specifications part of this project, but we realize that the replat has certain essential steps, including public hearings, that must occur before the Planning Commission. we are attempting to do both the roplat and the preparation for construction concurrently. Anticipating that the replat will have its hearing before the Planning Commission on July 9 and be referred to the City Council for final consideration on July 23, I am also requesting the order for a public hearing on the vacation of Kenneth Lane so that adequate publication requirements can be mot. At the second meeting in July, much like we did in the Construction 5 replat, we will have to vacate a portion of Kenneth Lane in order to have it rededicated as the newly designed Kenneth Lana. Depending on the actual plat, and a racommondation by the engineer, we may conceivably vacate all of Kenneth Lane and then have the now alignment of Kenneth Lane rededicated the vary next agenda Stem. Ono might quantion, in light of the preceding agonda item, whether or not we are getting involved with the installation of improvamanto for a private development project. Yoe we are; but the major difforenco in our willingness to participate is our leverage in requiring the Ritzoo to roplat and create a through street for us. Consequontly, we aro using our ability to noncom public improvements an a bargaining tool to got the realignment of Kenneth Lane according to a design we prefer. Again, this Is not unlike our willingness to utilize tax increment and spacial asaeasmont procoduron in the Construction 5 area because we were gaining the total roalignmont for our collector road. It's simply a matter of using our bargaining chips where we can derive maximum benefit. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: C1. Do not adopt the resolution calling for plane and spot's and public hearing - this would essentially stop the rodonign -13- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 of Kenneth Lane and eliminate the potential through street. If Ritzes are required to put in their own public improvements, I fully expect thea to not go to the expense of replotting an already approved plat. Approve the concept of the replat and adopt the resolution - this will order OSM to begin the preparation of plans and spec -a and will order the Ritzes to begin the replat process under the provisions of our subdivision ordinance. Not included in the resolution, but fully anticipated, is that upon adoption I will contact Springsted in order to begin the financial arrangements for bonding for this public improvement. Based on the estimated total cost, I think it is better for the City to bond for this improvement rather than utilize surplus funding. I will attempt to have some general background information with respect to bonding for discussion Monday night. I simply em unable to get that information without proposed construction estimates at this time. I will be prepared, however, to suggest a possible time frame for the assessment roll and an estimated interest rate based on current sales. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we order plane and specifications, set the hearing for vacation of Kenneth Lana, and order the Ritzes to commence their replatting procedure. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Cost projections for development; Roplat concept plan; Copy of the resolution; Copy of the coat estimates; Copy of the petition. -14- C Council Agenda - 6/24/85 Additional Information ( J.S. On Friday morning I received the estimates for possible assessments for Kenneth Lane from OS M. As stated previously, they are enclosed for your review. The average assessment, based upon the estimated cost, would be $14,630.00 per lot. I discussed this with Mr. Charles Ritze. He felt these assessments were out of the question. The lots would not be saleable. The City staff tends to agree with him. Upon researching the cost data and old assessments along Kenneth Lane, we find that all of the lots have been assessed for storm sewer construction and that the storm sewer would be adequate to support the drainage from the cul-de-sac street as now platted. Staff, therefore, felt that this storm sewer construction should be picked up by the City. In addition, in talking with Mr. Charles Ritze, we felt that the dewatering cost may be high. Mr. Ritze indicated that we should only encounter water near River Street. we, therefore, reduced the amount of dewatering from $13,300.00 to $10,300.00. By making these adjustments, we were able to lower the assessments on Late 36 and 47 to $7,265.00 each respectively. The remaining 10 lots, 37-46, would each receive an assessment of $10,600.00 per lot. These, of course, are based upon the coot estimates, and the actual assessments could be batter determined upon receiving bids for the project. A total additional assessments other than those already in place for the area in Kanneth Lano would bo 5120,530.00 based upon the coat estimate. I wi 11 be discussing this with Charles Ritzo on Friday afternoon. If he so agrees, and the Council agrees, the plans and specifications could be ordered with the Advertisement for Bids to follow upon acceptance of the plane and specifications and the completion of the public hearings and roplatting. -148- KENNETH LANE I. Street Construction A. 715 lineal feet of street (7 ton, 36' gutter -gutter) B. 1265 lineal feet of "D" Curb C. Sidewalk 630' x 5- one side ? option D. Sod between plat and pavement Hwy 75 Both sides (steep ditch) use 100% crushed granite Class V shoulder in lieu of curb II. Storm Sewer A. 125' 21" storm sewer B. 2 catch basins, 30 ft. 12" leads C. Relocate 1 manhole D. Culvert at Co. Rd. 75 (possibly by County?) III. Sanitary Sewer (stub 60' S. River St.) A. 540' - 8" PVC, 8-10-12' deep B. 10-4" PVC services with Risers C. Place risers on 3 existing services off River Street l D. Two manholos 8-10' deep IV. water Main (stub 68- south of Main on River St.) A. 600 ft. 6 or 8" Dip B. Two hydrants, 3 valves C. 12 x 6 or 8" too C IN KENNETH LANE IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO JUNE 20. 1985 Street Construction $41,700 Storm Sewer Construction 16,400 Contingency (10%) 5,800 Indirect Costs (27x) 17,300 SUBTOTAL..................................... S 81,200 Sanitary Sewer Construction $19,100 6latermain Construction 15,100 Dewatering 13,300 Contingency (10%) 4,800 Indirect Costs (23) 12,800 SUBTOTAL..................................... S 65,100 TOTALPROJECT COST ................................ S146,300 Locate and Raise 3 Sewer and stater Services S 3,000 ASSESSMENTS: The average assessment for the project would be $14,630 per lot. If sanitary sewer and water costs were divided evenly among the lots and street and storm sewer costs were assessed on an area basis, the total assessment per lot would vary from $11,908.00 to $22,165.00. The dewatering cost assumes that most of the job would require dewatering for the underground work. If this proves to be unnecessary, then a savings could be real i zed. 1 hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Pro- fessional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ar �ep Date: June 20, 1985 Reg. No. 15138 U C' POSSIBLE REI Ln T Of RITZE MANOR Rev sr e 36'� a ,� 4 0 37 /� 47 0 e pr 38 ppi I 46 8 . i15.ee C Izz ioe.G� � /o/ Eco Iv 39 -12 45 RS -m, IW ter.y> 40 ' 44 I� t 41 ° 43 .b b 42 • o, le�sias as RESOLUTION 1985 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT OF KENNETH LANE, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAID IMPROVEMENT, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF KEN14ETH LANE WHEREAS, a proposed replat concept of Lots 36 through 47 of Block 2, Ritze Manor, has been presented to the City Council, and WHEREAS, said replat has been found to be in the best interests of the City of Monticello, and WHEREAS, a certain petition requesting the improvement of Kenneth Lane between County Road 75 and River Street by the installation of sewer, water, storm sewer, hard surfaced streets, curb and gutter, and appurtenant facilities was duly presented to the City _Council on the 24th day of June, 1985, and WHEREAS, a preliminary feasibility report prepared by Orr-Scholen- Mayeron and Associates, City Consulting Engineer, with reference to the improvement, was received by the Council on Juno 24, 1985, and WHEREAS, said replat of the aforementioned lots and block of Ritze Manor requires the vacation of a portion of Kenneth Lane. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council finds and daterminoa that said replat will be beneficial to the City of Monticello. 2. The Council finds and determines that said petition wan signed by all owners of real property abutting upon Kenneth Lana nomad as tho location of the improvomant. 3. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the feasibility study accepted Juno 24, 1985. 4. Orr-Scholon-Mayaron 6 Associates, Consulting Engineers, is hereby designated as the engineer for thio improvement. Thoy shall prepare plana and opocifications for the making of ouch improvement. 5. The patitionora, being ownare of all coal property affected by said proposal, ars hereby ordered to commanco the formal replat procaduro under the provl,aiono of the City of Monticello CSubdivision Ordinance. a Resolution 1985 0 Page 2 6. A public hearing shall be conducted on the day of 1985, for the purpose of accepting comment on the proposed vacation of a portion of Kenneth Lane. 7. The City Administrator is hereby directed to give mailed and published notice as required by Minnesota Statute for the vacation of public streets. Adopted this 24th day of June, 1985. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator 1 Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor 09? Pursuant to M.S. 429.031, Subd. 3, I (We), being the sole property owner(s) affected, hereby petition the Counci of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, for the preparation of a feasibility report for the installation of water distribution lines, sever collection lines, hard surfaced streets with approved curb and gutter, storm drainage system, and &1 2. other appurtenances necessary thereto to serve Lots 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47, Block 2, in Ritze Manor Subdivision. I hereby agree to pay for said report. If the project is found to be feasible and the improvements ordered, I hereby waive my right to receive mailed notices and attend public hearings as provided for under Minnesota Statutes 429.031, Subd. 1, and 429.061, Subd. 1, and further, will accept, without challenge, the spacial assessments to be levied against the aforementioned benefitting lots upon the completion of construction ( of said public improvements. Witnea N Name r Data 0 Council Agenda - 6/24/85 10. Consideration of Maintenance Service Level on a Private Driveway. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Approximately three years ago, the City Council discussed the upkeep of Territorial Road with Mr. Bob Jameson, who owns Little Mountain Settlement at the end of the traveled portion of Territorial Road. At that time, the City of Monticello Public Works Department was continuing to plow Territorial Road up to the Little Mountain Settlement. It was becoming more and more difficult to plow the road due to the growth of trees and vegetation in the area as well as the extremely confined space at the top of the hill near the Little Mountain Settlement. This area was becoming more and more clogged with vehicles and such, making it difficult to turn around in this area. The Council informed Mr. Jameson that the City of Monticello would maintain that portion of Territorial Road only to the northerly right of way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and that they would consider the remainder of Territorial Road a private driveway. If it were easier for the Public Works vehicles to run up the hill and turn around when plowing, they would do so. Otherwise, they would back out or attempt to turn around on that portion of Territorial Road lying north of the Burlington Northern Railroad. // With the expansion of the Little Mountain Sottlement, Territorial l.. Road is becoming more and more difficult to maintain. The traffic on the road tends to pothole the road in a relatively short time, and water runoff coming down the portion of Territorial Road lying south of the Burlington Northern Railroad rooks havoc with the railroad crossing, causing numerous washouts. The City has continued to maintain that portion of Territorial Road lying between Washington Street and the Burlington Northern Railroad for the poet three years. We have rogravolod it and bladed it often. We have continued to remove anow from this area but have seldom ventured boyond tho railroad crossing. We have, at Mr. Bob Jam000nlo intensive insistenco, done some repairs to the southerly eido of the railroad crossing due to his insistence that the City of Monticello was allowing hazards to traffic to exist in that area. We have placed, on several occasions, fill on that portion of Territorial Road in the area of Burlington Northern Railroad right of way and dust to the south. Moot recently, we bladod and filled thin area on Tuesday, Juno 10. The question I havo bofora you this evening is whether the City should still be continuing maintenance on that portion of Territorial Road between the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way and Washington Street and if we should continuo to work in the area of the crosaing and on tho south aide. The lack of maintenance on tho south aide of tho railroad tracks and on that portion -15- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 of Territorial Road running up the hill is causing numerous washouts. This area south of the railroad tracks needs to be regraded, widened, with proper ditching to control the runoff. Mr. Jameson does not appear to be willing to do this maintenance work himself or have it professionally done but keeps insisting that the City should be doing more and more work in this area and has, on occasions, threatened lettere to the Monticello Times as well as the Minneapolis Star and Tribune if the City does not take some sort of action. There is some question as to who really has responsibility for Territorial Road, and does Territorial Road exist as a City street or merely as a historical monument in many persons memories. I did some research on the ownership of Territorial Road, and I went to the Recorder's office in Buffalo and obtained copies of the deeds for all those properties along Territorial Road. The school's 1947 deed for Block 40, that portion adjoining Washington Street and Territorial Road, does not mention Territorial Road at all, but refers to the original plat of Lower Monticello dated in 1857. By referring to this plat, I found no information whatsoever about the existence of a townsite or Territorial Road- A 1911 Wright County General Plat Book shows Territorial Road (often referred to as "Townsite Road") as being 60 feet wide - Tho 1962 dead of the portion of property that the school owns between the railroad tracks and between Block 40 does mention Territorial Road, and it mentions that the school owns that portion of property north of Territorial Road and north of tho Burlington Northern Railroad. I wan not able to find the decd for that pieta of property between Territorial Road and Washington Street on the north side of the railroad tracks, that is not Block 40. The 1945 dead from Holan Rand to Anna Malone, as wall as the Ed Doran dead, show their property running to the cantor line of Old Territorial Road as it exists north and south. The dead for Bob Jameson and Marion Jameson's property shows that their property runs to the came cantor line of Territorial Road as it runs north and south, but only rune to the northerly lino of Old Territorial Road so it runs oast and wast towards Dahlhoimor Distributing. There was not enough time to research the deeds to find out at what point Territorial Road entered into the description of those deeds. Since it is currently unclear as to whether the City has any rights to this road and whether we should be maintaining it at all. I am requesting instructions from the City Council as to how to proceed. 1 have contacted the City Attornoy's office for coma clarification of this matter, but do not expect it to be forthcoming in time for the meeting. -16- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 On Friday morning, I met with Gary Pringle, the City Attorney, to discuss the possible ownership and/or responsibilities of the City in regard to Territorial Road. I provided Gary with the deeds and information which I had researched. He directed me to the Campbell Abstract Company in Buffalo, and said that an abstract should be drawn up on Territorial Road. He indicated that if the abstract company could provide him with some additional data by noon on Monday, he would be able to respond in time for the meeting. I have also contacted the Burlington Northern Railroad in regard to the railroad crossing and its upkeep. There may be some significance if the crossing is a private one. Normally to go from a private crossing to a public crossing requires application to the Burlington Northern Railroad. If this crossing had never been upgraded to a public crossing, that, indeed, may not give us any rights on the crossing itself. Mr. Bob Murphy, the Assistant Road Master who was to meet me on Friday morning to discuss the problem, has not shown up as of the writing of this agenda supplement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Alternative 91 would be to continue researching as necessary the ownership and responsibilities of Territorial Road while continuing maintenance on the northerly most portion of Territorial / Road on an interim basis. The maintenance would consist of grading and graveling and snowplowing an necessary. Thin alternative would include insiotenco that the Burlington Northern Railroad maintain that portion of the crooning under their responsibility. 2. Alternative 42 would be to discontinue interim maintenance of the Territorial Road and consider it a private drive. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that we use Alternative Al and make a decision whether to maintain or improve Territorial Road at a later date when having additional information. In the meantime, we would continua maintenance 09 we aro. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the 1911 plot map ahowing Territorial Road. C� -17- = Z ;�<< „�� � �� %'�°'�' - `� � �•� = may='>`-'`` J � a s wr . TF s •� V T �, /yrI A � M 96 •`' i. d SIt8rN1 • .S ray � ,� Jerre• t\t•l• 3.1 r0 Council Agenda - 6/24/85 t11. Consideration of the Renewal of Annual Licensee. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the past, you have renewed the licenses listed below in a single motion. I believe that the motion has been a contingent motion such that licensee are approved depending upon successful completion of the application, filing of the bond, approval at the State level, atc. The licensee submitted for your consideration are as follows: Intoxicating Liquor, On -sale (Fee $3,300) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Charlie's West 4. Joyner -e Lanes 5. Stuart Hoglund - Oakwood Motel Intoxicating Liquor, On -sale, Sunday (Foo $100) Renewals 1 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Charlie's West 4. Joyner's Lance 5. Oakwood Metol Non-intoxicatinq Malt, On -sale (Foe $245) Ranowale 1. Rod & Cun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sato, Temporary (Fee S10/day) 1. St. Honry-o Fall Foatival, 2 days - $20.00 Non -intoxicating Malt, Off -Bala (FOO $50.00) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor 2. Ernie -a Sport & Bait Shop 3. Wayno-e Red Owl C� -18- Council Agenda - 6/24/85 4. Maus Foods 5. River Terrace 6. Tom Thumb 7. Charlie's West B. Holiday 9. Plaza Car Wash Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (Fee $400) Renewal 1. Dino • a Deli Set-up Liccnse (Fee $250) 1. Country Club 2. Rod 6 Gun Club Licensee (Fee - set by Statute) 1. V.F.W. - $500 (membership 268) 2. Am. Legion - $650 (membership 580) Bingo, Temporary (Fee 520) l 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival Gambling, Temporary ($20 per device) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival - S60 A single motion approving these licenses should road similar to, "I move that the following liconsoe be approved affective July 1, 1985." There is no supporting data for thio item. C _19- LIQUOR FUND AMOUNT CHECK LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR JUNE NO. Banker's Life Ins. - Croup Ins, 364.91 11792 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 758.96 11793 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 20.00 11794 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 281.75 11795 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H 263.00 11796 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 162.02 11797 Twin City Wine - Liquor 1,693.01 11798 Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor 2,518.54 11799 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 172.03 11800 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1.168.12 11801 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor 7,714.01 11802 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 20.00 11803 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 65.21 11804 North Central Public Service - Utilities 30.69 11805 Northern States Power - Electricity 553.21 11806 Wright County State Bank - FWT W/H 417.00 11807 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 165.24 11808 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 282.42 11809 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 4,201.98 11810 Griggs, Cooper - Liquor 2,765.23 11811 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1.694.33 11812 Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor 486.59 11813 Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase 50,000.00 11814 Foster Franzen Agency - Add'1. premiums on ins. 11,811.00 11815 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. 364.91 11816 Lovegren Ice Co. - Purchase of ice 180.00 11817 Dohlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer 18,087.76 11818 Bernick's Coca Cola - Mise. mdse. 1.556.85 11819 Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 802.85 11820 Frito Lay - Misc. mdse. 135.98 11821 State Treasurer - Retail food handler's license 25.25 11822 Yonak Sanitation - Monthly eontrsct payment 91.50 11823 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 488.10 11824 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 5,531.35 11825 Coast to Coast - Store supplies 30.99 11826 Seven Up Bottling - Misc, mdse. 145.00 11827 Monticello Times - Adv. 264.00 11828 Grosslein Beverage Co. - Beer 15.967.40 11829 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 587.50 11830 Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse. 156.83 11831 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer 4.772.10 11832 Liefert Trucking - Freight 366.15 11833 Gruys, Johnson - Computer for May 110.00 11834 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 49.28 11835 Commissioner of Revenue - ; of June estimated sales tax 3,803.00 11836 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for May - 1985 7,604.71 11837 Payroll for May 4,821,02 TOTAL LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS - JUNE 1153,551.78 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO. National Bushing Co. - Supplies for Mtce. 186.96 20758 Rick Wolfstelier - Misc. mileage 54.85 20759 Monticello Office Products - Supplies 46.53 20760 Century Laboratories - Deod for WWTP 1,084.12 20761 Ranger Products - WWTP supplies 117.98 20762 Seelye Plastica - WWTP supplies 115.34 20763 Chemsearch - WWTP supplies 17.40 20764 Goodin Co. - WWTP supplies 291.85 20765 Waldor Pump - Seal for WWTP 110.09 20766 P b A Co. of Duluth - Sealing of sever line thru Bondhus' 2,455.00 20767 SMA Construction - Copies 3.00 20768 J. M. Oil Co. - Gas and oil - St. and WWTP 724.95 20769 Lubrication Engineers - Oil WWTP 140.62 20770 Olson b Sons Electric - Misc. repairs 447.61 20771 Allen Pelvic - Travel expense 78.28 20772 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 921.09 20773 Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental 169.35 20774 Motorola, Inc. - Fire Dept. radios 1,309.00 20775 Gary Anderson - Mileage 42.50 20776 Anoka Social Services - Payroll withholding 176.00 20777 Robert Krautbauer - C revel 133.00 20778 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 190.00 20779 MN, State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 18.00 20780 Payroll for May 33.013.80 P ~ TOTAL GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS - JUNE $392,097.51 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK NO Ruff Auto Parts - Lifting loader 30.00 20703 Sherburne County Equipment - Equip. repair for parks 286.39 20704 TKDA - Architect fees for new Fire Hall 1,963.28 20705 Phillips Petro. Corp. - Gas - WAter Dept. 98.03 20706 Stokes Marine - Mower belt 14.55 20707 State Treasurer - Surplus Prop. Fund - Soap, wrench, lights 36.80 20708 Banker's Life Ins. - Group ins. 4,226.12 20709 Safety Kleen Corp. - Inspection fee on equip. - Mtce. Bldg. 34.00 20710 Lindberg Paints - Paint for parks 89.59 2071, Bergstrom Bros. - Park equip. repair 293.29 20712 Marco Business Products - Copy machine, supplies 10,544.39 20713 Mobil Oil Corp. - Cas - Fire, St. and Water Depts. 104.91 20714 Monticello 0. K. Hardware - Misc. supplies - Mtce. 94.35 20715 Tom Eidem - Travel expense - League of Cities conference 30.83 20716 Maus Foods - Misc. supplies 245.53 20717 Moores Excavating - Fire hall expense 150.00 20718 Maus Tire Service - Repair tire 16.00 20719 M. Berger Co. - Air hose - St. Dept. 139.40 20720 Moon Motors - Blade and spring 19.17 20721 Gordon Link - Gas 515.68 20722 McDowall, Inc. - Compressor at City Hall 2,903.38 20723 Seitz Hardware - Supplies for all Depts. 228.43 20724 Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies for all Depts. 106.30 20725 Monticello Printing - Copies 6 supplies 33.80 20726 North Star Waterworks - Water Dept. supplies 120.48 20727 Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Contract payment - June 9,782.08 20728 Feed Rite Controls - Feed rite 6 potable 941.31 20729 Monticello Times - Printing and publishing 1,229.19 20730 Wright County Journal Press - Adv. for roof repair 65.10 20731 LaTour Construction - Const. on 075 4,936.00 20732 Local 049 - Union dues 147.00 20733 League of MN. Cities - Building ahare of LMC building 138.00 20734 Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - May planning expense 2,577.86 20735 Harry's Auto Supply - Supplies 64.38 20736 Arne.-Icon Cast Iron Pipe Co. - Materials for sewer project 5,193.51 20737 LeRoy Engstrom - OAA meetings 6 mileage 138.00 20738 Paul McAlpine - OAA meeting 21.30 20739 Arve Crimomo - OAA meetings 75.00 20740 Mrs. Marjorie Goatzko - OAA meetings clerking 147.50 20741 Thomas Salkoweki - OAA meetings 100.00 20742 Franklin Denn - OAA meetings 90.00 20743 Cruys, Johnson 6 Assoc. - 1984 audit and computer fees 10,265.00 20744 A T 6 T Systems - Fire phone charges 3.61 20745 Adams Past Control - Library pest control contract 39.70 - 20746 National Life Ins. - Ins. for T. Eidem 100.00 20747 Commissioner of Revenue - Assessor license fee - G. Anderson 6.00 20748 Orkin Exterminating Co. - Monthly contract payment - WWTP 106.00 20749 Al 6 Julie Nelson - Sub. 11.72 20750 Davis Electronic Service - Pager repairs for Fire Dept. 62.73 20751 General Safety Equipment Corp. - Rescue unit parts - Fire 1,129.70 20752 Conway Fire 6 Safety - Bracket for Fire Dept. 112.50 20753 Willard Farnick - Mileage to North Branch. Delano 6 Anoka 48.50 20754 Office of State Auditor - Reg. fee for Tax Exempt Bonds som. 40.00 20755 Midwest Computer Services - Programming fees for WWTP 145.00 20756 Curtin Matheson Scientific - Supplies for WWTP 261.97 20757 23 GENERAL FUND -- JUNE -- 1985 AMOUNT CHECK NO. Olson 6 Sons Electric - Sen. Cit. bldg. repair 127.54 20647 Hazel Lewis - Reimb. for fan purchase at Library 24.37 2064t J Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense 212.50 20649 League of MN. Cities - LMC annual conference fees 357.00 20650 Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment for May 5,821.00 20651 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial at Library 172.92 20652 Mrs. Joseph Johnson - Animal control for May 250.00 20653 Internal Revenue Service - Payroll withholding 150.00 20654 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 160.04 20655 State of MN. - 1 set of MN. Statutes - 1984 138.24 20656 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. reg. fees 349.00 20657 Mr. Arve Crimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 20658 Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 20659 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 20660 Mr. William Fair - Council salary 125.00 20661 Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 20662 YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 458.33 20663 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 308.35 20664 PERA - Ins. prem. - reimb. 18.00 20665 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H taxes - May 3,101.00 20666 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,591.76. 20667 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,709.39 20668 Mr. Roger Belsaas - Refund on conditional use application 75.00 20669 Jerry Hermes - Cleaning at library 172.92 20670 Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense 212.50 20671 MN. State Treasurer - Dep, reg. fees 44.00 20672 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. reg. fees 418.00 2067" ) Thomas Eidem - Car allowance 300.00 2067, Internal Revenue Service - Payroll withholding 150.00 20675 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 160.04 20676 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 445.51 20677 North Central Public Service - Gas 892.31 20678 Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages through 6/15/85 238.00 20679 Northern States Power - Electricity 8,047.06 20680 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 4,610.00 20681 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,536.52 20682 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2.854.20 20683 Braun Engineering - Hwy. 25 borings 799.50 20684 -VOID- -0- 20685 Fisco - Rain clothes for Public Works Dept. 248.18 20686 Gills Auto Service - Pick up and deliver A C tractor 40.00 20687 Monticello Rotary Club - Annual dues 148.50 20688 Water Products - Water Dept. supplies 1,972.94 20689 OSM - Engineering fees for interceptor sewer 6.215.12 20690 liumnne Society of Wright County - Animal control expense 92.00 2069 1 Monticello Pot Hospital - Animal control expense 484.00 20692 Buffalo Bituminous - 05 payment on St. project 235,599.50 20693 Public Employees Retirement Assoc. - PERA 10.00 20694 Smith. Pringle 6 Hayes - Legal through 6/6/85 1,152.00 20695 MN. Planning Assoc. - Membership dues 50.00 20696 Foster Franzen Agency - Add'l. premiums on ins. 5.487.00 20697 Biff's Inc. - Latrine rental 90.63 2069 Davis Water Equipment - Gate valves for 075 project 439.90 206 Laifort Trucking - Freight for Fire Hall mdeo. 18.00 20700 Central McGowan - Cylinders 21.18 20701 D. H. Repair - Repair of park equipment 297.88 20702 INDIVIDUAL PEFA IT ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF MAY 1985 �ERMIT I FF UMBER DESCRIPTION I o NAME/LOCATION (VALUATION PERMIT RGE SURCHARGE�PLUMBING--WREKA4Sf'._. _ 85=753 Health ClubI Jia Powers/133 Sandberg Road $717,800.00 51,977.50 $358.90 S 85.00 =" "5 �0 85-754 Oetached Garage IC RGIRick-& LouAnn Cole/213 E. 3rd St. 3,500.00 41.50 1.75 %- - `-: ." ' -7 8555 Single Dwelling SP HQn Aite/17 Riverside Circle 80,100.00 373.30 40.05 24.00":-p'i"!�' 85-756 Detached Garage RG Churcl of St. Henry/525 K. 4th St. 5,000.00 50.50 2.50 85-757 New Roof I AC Jaaesliiolff/108 North Cedar St. 7,000.00 69.50 3.50 .:lu+: ze�cLl7ki • 85-758 fldw 6 Door Replaceaeat 1l ACIMetcallf 6 Larson/313 West Broadway 4,000.00 -44.50 2.00 =`-eco"';�j.I '. =•=soc: ' 85=759' Beside House 6 Garage AD, Alan Daus/305 Vine St. 1,430.00 14.30 ..70 - -i-1! .•e-�'0r•'?6:67 83=760' Single.Panily Dwelling I SFI�1arvi nl Builders/9 Sanderap Cir.l 44,500.00 258.25 22.25 24.00-"''-=` V6:'O 3 '; AS=761' Attached, Garage lGeorge RG:Danny Koch//375 Prairie Road 6,200.00 57.70 3.10 I "Oc) D`: 85=762 Attacbed.Garage I IRGIBruce �Tvedt/124 Marvin Elwood Road I 6,800.00 61.30 3.40 '`�' = .,°;�F• = 85=763 ''Detached. Garage ARG; Red Michaelis/124 East 4th St. i 6,200.00 I 57.70 3.10•-• -= '-- 85-764 Detached. Garage 1 Nesiand/330 East 3rd St. i 5,300.00 52.30 2.65 ='=I'•:'f ! IIOc.I� ' IRGIMerrllJo I TOTS I I ($887,830.00 $3,058.35 I 1 $443.90 15133.00 � 51.50. 1 SPLAX RSVIEw I I I I 1 85-75] 'Health Club j C ,Jin Powers/133 Sandberg Road S 1,285.38 1 I � I I TOTAL PLAN REVIEW I I 1,285.38 S ' I f 1 1 TOTAL REVENUE I S 4,922.13 I � TOTTW 1S 4,476.73 445.40 887,030.00 63 87 CITY OF MMICELL0 Monthly Building Department Report. PERE4T3 and USES Month of -KAY 1985 Leet This Same Month Last Year This Year PFIt?4TS ISSUED Month APRIL Month MAY Last Year To Date To Date RFSIDMIAL Number • 11 9 14 43 32 Valuation = 959,050.00 =159,030.00 1147,000.00 21,657,500.00 $1,743,200.00 Foes 4,511:44 966.85 1,017.70 8,884.71 8,816.79 Surcharges 479.50 79.50 73.50 818.65 871.40 COMMCIAL Number 6 3 5 16 13 Valuation 255,930.00 728,800.00 58,295.00 719,195.00 1 094, 160.00 Fees 1,380.75 3,376.88 504.33 4,709.59 5,606.88 C Surcharges 127:95 364.40 29.15 359.45 547.05 i ItiLUSTRIAL Number 1 2 Valuation 13,500.00 733,500.00 Fees 101.50 3,373.45 Surcharges 6.75 366.75 11MBIMO Number 7 3 3 25 18 Fees 309.00 133.00 67.00 900.00 745.00 Surcharges 4.00 1.50 1.50 12.50 12.00 OTN EAS Humber i 1 Valuation 10.00 10.00 Fees Surcharges TOTAL NO. PFRNST9 24 15 24 87 63 TOTAL VALUATION ' 1. 214,980.00 887,630.00 218,795.00 3,108,195.00 2,837,360.00 TOTAL, FEES 6,201.19 4,476.73 1,700.53 17,879.25 15,168.67 '!'OTAL SURCIIARCES ( 611.45 445.40 110.90 1,557.35 1,430.45 G17RRW MONTH vw�t Number to Date PE7ltiIT NATURE Number p!_liiiGBARCiE Valuation This year Last year Single Family 2 S 631.55 S 62.30 S 124,600.00 8 1s Duplex 2 1 Milti-family 2 1 Commercial 1 3,262.68 358.90 717,800.00 5 5 Industrial 0 2 Ree, Garage, 6 321.0 O 16.50 33,000.00 7 11 Signe 0 O Public Buildings 0 1 ALTERATION OR REPAIR Dwellings 1 14.30 .70 1,430.001 13 15 Commercial 2 114.00 5.5u 11,000.00 a 10 Industrial 0 d ' 10 t ! rwEa�Il�a 1 Ail types 3 133.00 1.50 18 � 25 ACCESSdpt STRUCTURES swimmy Poole 0 O back@ 0 O I TEMPORARY P6RKIT 0 0 DEMOLITION 0 1 TOTTW 1S 4,476.73 445.40 887,030.00 63 87