City Council Agenda Packet 08-27-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
August 27, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held August 13,
1984, and the Special Meeting Held August 20, 1984.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Public Hearings
4. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone Blocks 50 and
51 from B-4 to R -B - Applicant, City of Monticello.
Old Business
5. Consideration of Selection and Appointment to the Fire Hall
Building Committee.
6. Consideration of Entering a Contract with TKDA.
7. Consideration of Accepting Bid on Sale of Old Fire Truck.
8. Consideration of a Proposal to Resolve the Bill with Owens
Corporation.
Now Business
9. Consideration of Final Plat Approval, Meadow Oak 3rd Addition -
Applicant, Ultra Homos, Inc.
10. Consideration of a Conditional Uao Roquest to Allow Outdoor
Storage in an I-1 Zone - Applicant, Rainbow Enterprises, Inc.
11. Consideration of a Subdivision of a Residential Lot for
Proposed 0 -Unit Townhousas - Applicant, Jay Millar.
12. Considaration of a Conditional Use to Allow Moro than a
12 -unit Apartment Building in an R -B Zone - Applicant, Riverview
Manor Apartments.
13. Consideration of Allowing the Convoyanco of a 1 -Acro Parcel
by Motos and Bounds.
14. Consideration of Issuing 3.2 Door Off -Salo Licenses - Applicant,
Plaza Car Wash.
Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council
August 27, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Page Two
15. Consideration of Fire Alarm System for Library.
16. Consideration of the Appointment of Election Judges for
the 1984 Primary and 1984 General Election.
17. Review of Liquor Store Financial Report.
18. Consideration of Whether or Not to Set a Special Meeting
for the Purpose of Nearing an NSP Presentation on the Transport
of Nuclear Waste.
19. Consideration of Bills for the Month of August.
20. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
August 13, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Fran Fair,
Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
Members Absent: None.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council was duly
held at 7:30 P.M., Monday, August 13, 1984, in the City Council
Chambers.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion by Fair, second by Blonigon, and carried unanimouuly
to approve the minutes of the July 23, 1984, City Council meeting.
3. Citizens Commento/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Ms. MarilynFrio appeared before the Council to present the
fol loving petition:
1
"We live along Golf Course Road (formerly County Road 39
West) and because of the increased auto, bicycle, and pedestrian
traffic along this road, we are asking the following of
the City Council: 1) Reduce the speed limit from 45 mph
to 30 mph along the entire length of the road that is within
the City limits. 2) Enforce the speed limit. 3) Designate
it as a "no panning" area. 4) Level and blacktop the
shoulder or widen the road to form a podontrian/bicycle
lano."
The City Council directed the queotion to Public Works Director
Simols, who stated that all responsibility for County Road 39
lies with the County. Ile noted that the speed limit reduction
would involve the Minnesota Department of Transportation since
they aro the ones who regulate urban opood limits. Maus felt
that this petition should be passed on immodiatoly to the County
Commission and request that they take action on an many of the
four items an possible. Ifo stated that he realized the County
might take some time to blacktop the shoulder or create a podestrion/bicycle
lana; but they could immediately address the speed limit reduction,
the enforcement, and the no passing docignation. Motion by
+' Maus, second by Fair, and carried unanimously directing City
staff to :end a letter to the County Commission addressing the
LCpotitlon a: aubmIttod and endorsing the roquoato of the petitioner.
-1-
O
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
UZI
Mayor Grimsmo made an announcement that Fulfillment Systems,
Inc., would ba holding their groundbreaking ceremony at 9:30 A.M.
Thursday, August 16, 1984. He encouraged as many Council members
as was able to attend.
4. Public Hearing - Cable Communications Franchisinq.
The Mayor convened a public hearing on the proposals submitted
by Rite Cable Company and Dow -Sat of Minnesota. There was no
one present in the audience to speak at the hearing. City Administrator
Eidem, Monticallo's representative to the Sherburne Wright Counties
Cable Communications Commission, gave a brief summary of the
process to data. He noted that Rite Cable Company was unanimously
selected by the 10 -city Commission but that there were soma
reservations by all members with respect to projected household
penetration. He explained that the franchise ordinance was
in the drafting stage and that the concern over penetration
and a possible reduction in services is being addressed in that
ordinance. Eidem also noted that Rite Cable had provided an
excellent proposal and that their references shoved them to
be a reputable firm. There being no other comment or questions
with respect to cable, the Mayor closed the hearing.
5. Public Hearing - Proposed Assessment Roll on the Improvements
of Hart and Cedar Street.
1
City Administrator Eidem provided a brief background on how
the assessment roll was arrived at. lis noted that the total
project cost for the bond issue was $170,000.00, and of that
amount 65.6% ($111,460.00) was attributable to Hart Boulevard
while the balance of $58,532.00 (34.48) was attributable to
Cedar Street. Eidem noted that on Hart Boulevard, since a portion
of the project did not involve the installation of curb and
gutter, the coot of street and the coat of curb and gutter had
to be separated. After making the separation of cost, staff
took 201 of the projected total to determine the amount that
would be assessed, that being $22,294.00. He then stated that
the assessable footage for street construction was 1,947 linear
foot, and the assessable footage for curb and gutter was 1,512
linear foot. He stated that by dividing the total footage into
the respective project costs resulted in the coot par foot.
Those costo he noted to be $10.06 for street construction and
$1.79 for curb and guitar construction. Eidom than proceeded
to explain how the total seasonable footage wan arrived at Indicating
that each property's width or frontage was determined to be
the width at the setback lino as stipulated in the assessment
ordinance. Flo also noted that the property owned by Bondhua
on the south aide of Hart Boulevard, for the purposes of street
1 construction only, was reduced by exactly ono -half since the
eastern and was determined to be unbulldable and, consequently,
_2-
D
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
�— unassessable. Eidcm then addressed the assessment that was
arrived at for the MCConnon, SoItis , and Bondhus property.
Pte indicated that they were somewhat troublesome areas since
they were irregularly shaped lots. He stated that using the
ordinance stipulation that assessment be determined by setback
width, he extended the property lines of the Soltis and MCConnon
properties to generate an assessment of 66 feet for MCConnon
and 198 feet for Soltio. He indicated that the Bondhus assessment
on the north side was accordingly reduced so as to not double
assess for the same frontage. with that, Eidem concluded his
initial presentation. Mr. Soltio addressed the Council stating
that he felt his assessment was unfair due to the configuration
of the Bondhus property and that he was being assessed for 198
feet that did not front on the street. Ito indicated that he
only had approximately 20 feet that fronted on the street.
He questioned whether or not the parcel for which he was being
assessed could be built on to someone else's benefit rather
than his. Eidem explained that that parcel could not be covered
from the other parcel to become an independent building lot.
Eidem stated that in the staff's determination, while preparing
the assessment roll, they had followed the ordinance stipulation
about using setback line and concluded that Mr. Soltio, having
five lots, though not fronting on Hart Boulevard, would derive
F— a property benefit at least equal to or better than the assessment
1 involved. Councilmomber Maus raised a question as to whether
tor not it wouldn't be more sensible or more likely for the parcel
in question to be attached to the Soltio property for the purpose
of subdividing. Eidcm indicated that that would be a more likely
possibility than a simple subdivision by Bondhuo. Mr. MCConnon
raised the issue that the real benefit for the street lion with
the hospital, clinic, and City Sewage Treatment Plant and that
no a result of the increased traffic from that area, they should
be paying for the reconstruction of the street oinco they are
responsible for the dotorioratlon of the street. Eidam responded
that the assessment policy does not call for differentiation
in commercial or industrial uses from residential. He noted
that assessments aro determined by increased value to the property.
Ito stated that driving benefit was not the foundation of assessments,
but rather increased value t.v prupurty, and cunuuquently, no
differentiation need be made for varying land uses. MCConnon
than raised a question that if value increases with the construction
of a now street, wouldn't the reverse be true for the deterioration
of a street. Eidem stated that that vary likely could be true,
but that in this case the project involved a substandard street
that had not previously boon assessed and wan not designed to
withstand urban traffic loads. Eidem stated that this was really
a glorified gravel road that was now being designed to meet
urban standards. Mr. Soltin repeated that he found the assessment
vary unfair in that he wan paying for frontage owned by another
party and had no control ovor the use. Again, Eldom stated
that it wan a problem area and that staff followed the latter
-3- 0
Council Minutes - 8113/84
6. Consideration of a Resolution Adooting the Assessment Roll for
the Improvement of Hart and Cedar.
Motion by Fair, second by 8lonigon, and carried unanimously
that upon review and approval by the City Attorney, the resolution
adopting and setting the assessment roll be adopted. Sao Resolution 1984 035.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the improvement of Hart
Boulevard and Cedar Street.
Councilmombor Maxwell asked if the resolution ordaring the improvement
should also be contingent upon City Attorney review of the pruvious
agenda item. Eldem stated that he saw no reason to make the
following resolutions contingent since the assessment roll would
still be established and a minimum of 20% would need to be aooaoaod.
He noted that individual assessments might change if something
was found to be out of the ordinary but that the total would
not change and, consequently, the project can be ordered. Motion
.—, by Maxwell, second by alonigon, and carried unanimously to adopt
the following resolution ordering the improvement of Hart and
Cedar. Sao Resolution 1984 Y36.
of the assessment ordinance in order to determine how to handle
y the matter. He went on to state that upon completing the roll
and reviewing the assessments against the various properties,
it was staff's position that the assessments for the respective
properties were not out of line and would, in fact, generate
a property value increase that was equitable if not in excess
to the proposed assessment. The Mayor asked if there were other
comments on the Hart Boulevard assessment roll. There were
none. The Mayor then asked Eidem to review the Cedar Street
Improvement and proposed assessment. Eidem noted that the project
cost for Cedar Street was determined to be $58,532.00. He stated
that of that amount, $3,600.00 was for the installation of sever
and water to the Wilbur Eck property and that that amount would
be deferred until development of the property. The required
20% to be assessed of the adjusted total of $54,932.00 came
to 510,986.40. Eidem noted that the assessable footage was
determined to be 1,037 feet and that when the assessable footage
was divided into the assessable cost, the cost per foot came
out to be $10.60. Eidem then reviewed the affected property
owners, there being only three, to -wit, Wilbur Eck, Reinert
Construction, and the City of Monticello. The Mayor asked if
there was anyone present to discuss the assessment on Cedar
Street. Thera were none. The Mayor asked if there were any
further questions with respect to the assessment roll. Fran
" 1 Fair asked if the City staff had reviewed the assessment roll
1 with the City Attorney before presenting it to the Council.
Eidem stated they had not. There being no other comments, the
Mayor Closed the hearing.
6. Consideration of a Resolution Adooting the Assessment Roll for
the Improvement of Hart and Cedar.
Motion by Fair, second by 8lonigon, and carried unanimously
that upon review and approval by the City Attorney, the resolution
adopting and setting the assessment roll be adopted. Sao Resolution 1984 035.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the improvement of Hart
Boulevard and Cedar Street.
Councilmombor Maxwell asked if the resolution ordaring the improvement
should also be contingent upon City Attorney review of the pruvious
agenda item. Eldem stated that he saw no reason to make the
following resolutions contingent since the assessment roll would
still be established and a minimum of 20% would need to be aooaoaod.
He noted that individual assessments might change if something
was found to be out of the ordinary but that the total would
not change and, consequently, the project can be ordered. Motion
.—, by Maxwell, second by alonigon, and carried unanimously to adopt
the following resolution ordering the improvement of Hart and
Cedar. Sao Resolution 1984 Y36.
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
8. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Sale of Public Improvement
Bonds for the Improvement of Hart and Cedar.
Chris Chale, Attorney representing Holmes and Graven, was present
to discuss the bids for the $170,000.00 Public Improvement Bonds.
She noted that the following bide had been received on this
issue:
Mayor Grimsmo stated that this project had been a long time
In developing, that it had come before the City, been referred
to the County, come back to the City for preparations of plane
and apec's and bids, and than finally referred back to the County
fot final review and acceptance. He noted that the decision
now lay with the Council to order the improvement. The Mayor
asked John Badalich of OSM if the project was still feasible
and ready to go. Badalich indicated that it wan and that the
milling and rumoval of the existing surface exceeded the engineer's
estimate, as did the cost of oil. Badolleh noted that this
woo the reason why tho actual bid exceeded the foasihllit.y est.lmnt.a.
Councilmembern raiued thu question as to timing of the job and
would the quality of the road surface ouffer an a result of
cooling wuathur in the fall. Badallch stated that he did not
coo any difficulty with that and that the job could conceivably
be completed in a month's time, although the contract was allowing
seven weeks to account for inclement weather and other unavoidable
delays. Motion by 81onigon, second by Maus, and carried unanimously
adopting the following resolution ordering the improvement of
Councy Road 75. Son Resolution 1964 038.
Dain, Bosworth
8.6937
Piper, Jaffrey
8.84
Alison, Williams
6.85
Moore, Juran
8.95
1st Mpls.
8.96
M. H. Novick
9.02
Juran, Moody
9.06
Ms. Chale presented the resolution authorizing the issuance
of the bonds in its final form.
Mayor Grimsmo asked Eidem if
he recommended the issue. Eidem
stated that based on the recommendation
of Springsted that the issue would be successful and that staff
supported Springoted'a recommendation. Motion by Maus, second
by Fair, and carried unanimously
to adopt the following resolution
awarding the bond sales to Dain,
Bosworth at an interest rate
r,
of 8.6937. See Resolution 1984
037.
9. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the improvement of County
Road 75.
Mayor Grimsmo stated that this project had been a long time
In developing, that it had come before the City, been referred
to the County, come back to the City for preparations of plane
and apec's and bids, and than finally referred back to the County
fot final review and acceptance. He noted that the decision
now lay with the Council to order the improvement. The Mayor
asked John Badalich of OSM if the project was still feasible
and ready to go. Badalich indicated that it wan and that the
milling and rumoval of the existing surface exceeded the engineer's
estimate, as did the cost of oil. Badolleh noted that this
woo the reason why tho actual bid exceeded the foasihllit.y est.lmnt.a.
Councilmembern raiued thu question as to timing of the job and
would the quality of the road surface ouffer an a result of
cooling wuathur in the fall. Badallch stated that he did not
coo any difficulty with that and that the job could conceivably
be completed in a month's time, although the contract was allowing
seven weeks to account for inclement weather and other unavoidable
delays. Motion by 81onigon, second by Maus, and carried unanimously
adopting the following resolution ordering the improvement of
Councy Road 75. Son Resolution 1964 038.
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
10. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding the Contract for the
Improvement of Hart Boulevard, Cedar Street, and County Road 75.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that all other steps being clearly resolved,
it was now essential to formally award the contract to the lowest
bidder. Motion by Maus, second by Fair, and carried unanimously
to adopt the following resolution awarding the contract to Buffalo
Bituminous. See Resolution 1984 #39.
11. Consideration of a Resolution Selling Tax Increment Financing
Bonds - Key Tool 6 Plastic, Inc.
Chris Chalo, of Holmes and Graven, again spoke to the Council
with respect to the bids for the Key Properties Tax Increment
Financing proposal. She noted that Key Properties had run into
some timing conflicts and other difficulties in arranging for
development financing. She noted that since the financing was
somewhat precarious, Key Properties had been reluctant to sign
a Development Agreement or grant any guarantees to assist in
the retirement of the Tax Increment Bonds in the event that
the project should fall through or simply not develop in a timoly
fashion. She noted that, lacking such a guarantee statement,
the obligation of retiring the debt would fall on ad valorem
tax levy. Eidam noted that the Tax Increment District could
remain in place and that the only atop that would require repeating ` )
would be the bids for Tax Increment Bonds. He stated that he
felt the project could still develop in 1984 and hopes to be
able to assist in the preparation of the development and the
final certification of the District. Ms. Chalo noted that Kay
Properties was actively pursuing their financing and had, in
fact, incurred debt to take the project this far. She noted
that the project had not been cancelled, but simply was a victim
of unfortunate timing. Mayor Grimsmo raised a quoation as to
whether or not the City had been over eager and perhaps exceeded
itself with respect to this project. Eidam stated that the
process had not taken any special steps to accommodate Kay Tool,
that no special meetings were hold to speed the process up,
but rather come unfortunate absences had caused a delay in Key
Tool's packaging their private financing. Eidam stated that
the otaff recommended rejection of all bids and that there be
a recall for bids at a later data when all other financing hao
boon firmly established. Motion by Fair, second by Blonigan,
and carried unanimously to reject all bids on the $100,000.00
Tax Increment Financing Bond project.
12. Consideration of Apt)rovinq a Proponod Farmers Home Administration
Elderly Housing Project.
1 Allan Polvit, Executive Secretary of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, presented the Council with a brief review of the
LJ
-6-
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
i
proposed project. He noted that a partnership comprised of
L Metcalf, Larson, and Barthel had proposed a 31 -unit elderly
housing project to be funded through the Farmers Home Administration
515 Project. He stated that Lots 13, 14, and 15 in Block 51
was the subject property of the proposal and that this project
had been in the works for nearly two years, although the developer
had changed. He noted that the partnership had received an
option on the land from the HRA in a non-refundable amount of
$2,400.00 and that the sale price would be $62,000.00. He stated
that the project application, because a Farmers Home Project
receives a reduced assessment, requires a letter of support
from the City Council. He stated that the project had received
the support of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and that
the application was about to be presented to Farmers Home Administration.
Councilmember Fair asked if there was any Tax Increment Financing
involved with the project. Eidem responded that no Tax Increment
was involved with this project, nor was any other kind of municipal
financial assistance. He stated that the only benefit in this
project involved the reduced assessment for Farm Home Projects
as stipulated by the Minnesota Legislature and Department of
Revenue. Motion by Blonigen, second by Maxwell, and carried
unanimously to direct staff to prepare a letter of support for
the elderly housing project proposal to be developed on Lots
^ 13, 14, and 15 of Block 51.
)]U 13 & 14. Consideration of Rankings and Bids from Architectural Firms.
Mayor Crimsmo opened the discussion saying that it van hie understanding
that a publicly owned building requires good design and sound
planning. He stated that he realized there were differing opinions
with respect to utilizing the services of an architect and wished
to open the matter to discussion. Councilmember Maus stated
that he had been one of the proponents of utilising construction
and design facilities of an established contractor but that
he wished to hear what Councilmembere Maxwell and Blonigen had
to say before going further. Councilmombar Maxwell said he
would like to coo an architectural firm brought on board for
the Fire flail design. He stated he felt it was essential that
the City use an architect, but it should be kept in mind that
the City needs a quality, long-laoting and serviceable building
an a Fire flail but that the City does not need a Fire Hall with
the design standards of City Hall and the Public Library. Maxwell
went on to state that in lieu of the very high land costa, it
might be moot advisablu to ro-open discussion and investigation
of remodeling and expanding the existing Piro Hall or oven review
the possibility of demolishing the existing Piro flail and iabuildJng
on the some alto, since the City already owns the property.
Councilmembor Blonigen agreed that remodeling might be the beat
alternative in light of those land costo. Councllmomber Fair
-7-
0
C�:incil Minutes - 8/13/84
raised a question that even if ve investigate remodeling or
rebuilding at the same site, would the City still not require
the services of an architect to make certain determinations.
She indicated that she felt it would be worthwhile even if the
City had to pay an extra fee for a special remodeling and expansion
study. Councilmember Blonigen asked where the urgency with
the Fire Hall lie. It was his opinion that there was no real
need for urgent reaction to Fire Hall construction. He acknowledged
the desirability of conducting a referendum in conjunction with
the November General Election but did not sea that that made
the process absolutely essential. He felt that it would be
best to delay action to perhaps look further at what the City
needed before engaging an architectural firm. Councilmember
Maus suggested that perhaps the City moved too rapidly without
covering all the possible alternatives internally first. Doug
Pitt, representing the Fire Department, stated that oven if
additional land is selected for review, the question will continue
to exist as to what to do with the present site. With respect
to the notion that the existing Fire Hall location cannot accommodate
a major growth of the City, he suggested that a second and additional
site be looked at for satellite stations of the Fire Department.
Mayor Grimsmo said that regardless of the results of a site
selection process, he new no reason to wait. He noted that
the process may not be complete in time for the referendum but
that the site analysis and review can, in fact, begin immediately
U in his estimation. Eidom explained to the Council that the
RFP as submitted had delineated in a general way the extent
of duties required under Phase I and that after a final firm
was selected, the information that the Council would require
of the firm would be est out in detail. Motion by Fair, second
by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to invite TKDA, Inc., Boorman
Architecture, CMA, and the Zack Johnson Group to a special meeting
to be hold at 4:30 P.M. on Monday, August 20, 1984, for the
purpose of interviewing and selection of an architectural firm
to prepare a preliminary atudy on the construction of a Fire
Hall.
15. There being no other business, the Council mooting was adjourned.
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator
_8-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
August 20, 1984 - 4:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Fran Fair,
Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
Members Absent: None.
A special meeting of the City Council was duly hold at 4:30 P.M.
on Monday, August 20, 1984, in the City Council Chnmbers for
the purpose of interviewing four firms as potential architects
for a proposed Fire Hall.
1. The Mayor called the meeting to order and requested that Eidem
explain the process. Eidem indicated that four firms had been
invited by the Council and that he had notified each of them
that they would have approximately 20-30 minutes for their interview
of which the first 10-15 minutes would be available for the
firms presentation, followed by questions. Representing the
firm of Carlson Mjorud Architecture Ltd. were Al Mjorud, Bruce
Carloon, and William Rove. They began their presentation with
a
he:
show introducing their firm and a brief discussion of
C how they would prepare the information requested. As an example,
they discussed a fire hall design for the City of Golden Valley
and when questioned indicated they anticipated current cost
would be in tho range of 560.00 to $65.00 per square foot.
Councilmombor Blonigen asked them to address their experience
with energy conservation and specifically with radiant heat
systems. Mr. Carlson indicated that they were, in fact, familiar
with thoso systems and that they hold energy conservation as
an important factor in any building design. Mayor Grimamo indicated
to the firm that the site selection process had taken a rather
different turn, and the City was now considering the existing
Fire Hall location. The representatives of the firm indicated
that they had assumed that evaluation of the existing site would
be part of the overall process. CMA indicated their pleasure
at being solectud for an interview and stated that they hoped
they would be chocan to do the project. Thera being no further
questions, the CMA was excused.
2. Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates was the next firm
to be Interviewed. Representing TKDA was Duane Kaoma and Was
Hondrickeon. Mr. Kamma and Mr. Hendrickson utilized the first
15-20 minutes to introduce their firm, which they indicate is
a complete shop housing architecture, engineering, land use
planning, etc., and has boon In operations for 75 years. Mr.
11andrickson indicated that he would be the project manager on
the Monticello project and gave a brief presentation on anergy
oystema and conservation. lio indicated that energy conservation
Council Minutes - Special Meeting - 8/20/84
was a crucial aspect to their design. TKDA also presented a
brief slide show. When opened for questions. Councilmember
tiMaus asked the typical cost of the most recent fire station
they had built.. Their response was that it was approximately
$60 per square foot. Eidem asked the question as to what was
the corporate philosophy of the utility of a building versus
the aesthetics of a building. Mr. Hendrickson responded that
there are three aspects to building construction, those being
function, image, and cost. He stated that function is generally
clearly defined and that the imago projected by the City would
have to conform to the cost or the budget stipulated by the
City. He stated that their philosophy of imago or aesthetics
versus functional utility is defined by the City's philosophy
of image and function. Councilmember Bionigen asked what percentage
of total project cost comes in as change orders to the project.
Mr. Kasma responded that their history has indicated that 18
or less is in change order cost. There being no further questions,
Mr. Kasma provided some closing comments and indicated that
TKDA felt competent to address the needs of Monticello and would
very much like to be selected. Eidem asked what percentage of project cost
would be their fee for Phase 2. They stated 65i - 7%.
3. Don Granholm and Jack Bearman of Boatman Architects came before
the Council for the third interview of the evening. Mr. Boorman,
the owner and president of Boorman Architects, indicated that
he would be the project manager on the Monticello job. Ito provided
? 5 approximately 10-15 minutes of introduction to the firm, noting
that the consulting engineer that they would utilize would be
Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin. He stated that their firm had
done substantial research into ouecessful bond incus and had
assimilated that into a formula and process that had boon successful.
Mr. Boorman indicated that they had designed 57 buildings since
1978, and that only one came in over budget. Mr. Boatman volunteered
the information that the average: change orders aro leas than
one-half of 1t of project cost. Mr. Bearman noted that his
standard contract provides that the architect radrawa all plane
and opacifications at his coat if bids come in over the established
budget. Mr. Bearman then provided coma examples of fire halls
that they had designed and built. He spent considerable time
discussing energy conservation methods and why he had adapted
certain methods from hie experience in Alaskan design. Doug
Pitt, representing the Fire Department, noticed that one of
Boorman's designs, the Chanhassen Fire Hail, was built with
a gable roof. Its wanted to know if that was something that
Bearman used in all their designs, or was it unique to Chanhassen.
Mr. Boarman responded that that design was a result of throe
conditions; nomoly, they had to moot a reduced budget, there
were time limitations and winter construction, and the site
location was highly residential and, consequently, logialnted
a building that would blend into the neighborhood. Eidom asked
Mr. Boorman his position with utility versus aesthetics. Mr.
Boarman responded that design talent was the key to the nosthotics `
Council Minutes - Special Meeting - 8/20/84
of a building. fie stated in his opinion that a building does
not have to cost a great deal or be lavishly designed to still
be a source of pride to the community. Councilmember Maus asked
Mr. Boarman to expand on their background in site selection.
Mr. Boarman indicated that he engaged Damon Farber, Land Use
Planner, to assist in the site selection and that Mr. Farber
had established an objective method of determining base criteria
when doing a site evaluation. Councilmember Blonigen, referring
again to the Chanhassen Fire Hall, asked if there was a problem
of building fire halls out of wood, that he had been led to
believe fire halls were always masonry. Mr. Boarman indicated
that wood fire halls were perfectly acceptable and that for
energy reasons, they would sometimes even be preferable. Councilmember
Fair asked if Boarman had an in-house engineer or utilized a
consultant. Mr. Boarman re -affirmed hie earlier comment that
they utilized Bakke Kopp Ballou 6 MCFarlin as a consulting firm,
but that he was the sole individual responsible for design and
follow-up. There being no further questions, the interview
was concluded.
4. The last party to appear for an interview wan Zack Johnson of
the Zack Johnson Group. Mr. Johnson provided approximately
10-15 minutes of introduction to his firm and a discussion of
design principles. He indicated that in various cities he had
C "aaietod with the selling of a referendum and felt that he had
a competent method for selling the Monticello referendum. Mr.
Johnson also noted that he would wish to identify previous architects
for the City and the problems the City may have had with those
architects and buildings no as to avoid them from the very beginning.
At the conclusion of Mr. Johnson's introductory presentation,
Councilmember Fair asked about the amount of time that would
be spent on site inspecting construction. Mr. Johnson indicated
that on a job of this size approximately 20% of their overall
time would be spent or 2-3 times par weak. Again Eidem asked
the question about aesthetics vorsus utility. Mr. Johnson responded
that lie felt that the senthotica and the utility of a building
went hand-in-hand; that there was an obligation on the City
to present both a positive imago but to stay within budget showing
that they both were concerned for the image as wall as the business
aapoctn of the construction. fie wont on to say that in his
estimation, every city construction project makes a statement,
and that lie fools the statement should be positive. Bofors
cloning, Mr. Johnson discussed his strong opinion that life
cyclo costing is far more crucial to design than is up -front
construction coat. After hie closing commonto, the interviews
were concluded.
Discussion was hold amongst the Council membore'relating to
vita proforanco. Councilmombor Fair indicated that her preference
otill line with Block 15 on the north edge of the cemetery.
Her preference for that site, she indicated, had to do with
Council Minutes - Special Meeting - 8/20/84
the possibility of developing both the Fire Hall and perhaps
some open green areas that would front on 25. Other members
k' of the Council acknowledged that that site, while very low,
should be investigated to determine whether or not it is physically
developable without undue expense. Mayor Grimsmo noted that
that was a site that he had also liked from the beginning and
that there were substantial growth limitations to developing
on the existing site. Motion by Fair, second by Maus, and carried
unanimously to direct staff to further investigate the feasibility
of constructing a Fire Hall on Block 15, said investigation
to include soil borings and discussions with Mr. Eck over the
possible acquisition of his property.
Each Council member then ranked the four firms that were interviewed,
with the individual rankings then being tallied up with the
final results as follows: let choice, TKDA; 2nd, Boarman Architecture;
3rd, CMA; and 4th, Zack Johnson Group. Motion by Maus, second
by Maxwell, to engage TKDA as the Architectural Consulting Firm
for the construction of the proposed Monticello Fire Hall.
Voting in favor: Maxwell, Maus, Grimsmo, Fair. Voting in opposition:
Blonigen.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Thomas A. Eid'em
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
4. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone Blocks 50 and 51
from B-4 to R -B - Applicant, City of Monticello. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Almost two years ago, the HRA and the Council were presented
with a proposal to develop elderly housing on the north side
of Block 51. At the last Council meeting you endorsed the project.
During the initial investigation when the first proposal for
that site was made, we realized that rezoning would have to
occur. We tcok that matter to Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates
to review whether or not the zoning change would be applicable.
John Uban responded that rezoning to multiple family would be
appropriate on both the north aides of Blocks 50 and 51. His
rationale was that as multiple housing zone, it would serve
as an excellent buffer between the single family homes that
exist on the north side of River Street and the commercial zone
that exists along the south side of these blocks fronting on
Broadway. He also noted that the site was suitable for multi -family
because it is so close to the essential services of the downtown,
was close to a City park, and that there currently are apartment
houses across the street from this site and across from the
park. The rezoning simply never occurred until the project
was ready to go to completion.
While the developer of the lots in Block 51 has changed, the
nature of the project has not. Because it appeared that the
project would proceed and had received City Council endorsement,
a public hearing was hold before the Planning Commission to
accept comment on the rezoning from 0-4 to R-3. At the hearing,
the question was raised by Jim Ridgeway, Chair of the Planning
Commission, as to why R-3 was being stipulated as opposed to
R -B, residential business. R -B zones allow all of the multiple
dwelling projects that an R-3 Zone allows, but in addition also
permits certain businesses to exist. The question that brought
thin to light was from portico concerned with the Gustafson
property and the Bronny property and whether or not they would
be conforming or non -conforming upon after the rezoning. Making
a quick examination of the Ordinance, we discovered, as Ridgeway
had suggested, that the R -B Zone would allow single family,
multiple family, and certain buoincosos all to be conforming
uses. In order to expodito the matter, the Planning Commission
suggested that the public hearing be continued, ro-advorticod,
and directed to the Clty Council with all procedures remaining
the same except that the rezoning proposal in from B-4 to R -B.
Staff concurred that thio was a perfectly acceptable solution
and would expodito the matter rather than postponing all action
until a now public hearing could be hold at the September Planning
Commission meeting. That, hopefully, oxplaino how a zoning
matter comes before the City Council.
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
The Planning Commission, based on their own suggestion of R -B
zoning, recommended approval of the zoning change. The members
of the audience accepted that particular zoning proposal at
that time, finding that the R -B Zone really provides the most
versatility for the land.
Upon the closing of the public hearing, the Council should simply
take action as to whether or not to approve the zoning amendment
and the rezoning change. I have not listed that as a separate
agenda item in this case.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Agree to hold the hearing and take action to approve the
rezoning - this process will allow both existing uses to
exist as conforming uses as well as open the potential for
multi -family development.
2. Allow the hearing to be held and deny the rezoning change -
this does not seem responsive to the development proposal,
which you have already endorsed. Making no zoning change
whatever will not allow the multiple family elderly project
to proceed. A variation of this alternative would be to
grant the R-3 Zone, not the R -B Zone. This could conceivably
distress the Gustafsons and Bronnys, who are concerned about
their property values in the rezoning.
3. Do not open the hearing and send directly back to the Planning
Commission - this would be a matter of denying the process
that the Planning Commission has sent on to you. It could
be done, but I see it as nerving no real purpose.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommondo that the hearing be hold and the ordinance
be amended to make Lots 11-15 in Block 50 and Lots I1-15 in
Block 51 an R -D residential business zone.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of the transcript of Planning Commission minutes; Copy
of site map; Copy of the R -B provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
4. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from B-4 to R-3 -
Applicant, City of Monticello.
Mr. Tom Eidem, City Administrator, was present to explain the
rezoning request. The basic intent of the rezoning request
is to allow for a proposed development of an elderly housing
project on Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 51. The proposed elderly
housing project would act as a buffer zone between the single
family housing on the north side of River Street and blend in
with the Business District on the north side of East Broadway.
Due to the location of the north S of Blocks 50 and 51, it is
not conducive to be continued as a Business District, as our
business is expanding further southward instead of in a northward
direction, with the actual pedestrian traffic for businesses
in this area being very minimal. Planning Commisaion Chairman,
Jim Ridgeway, opened up the hearing to comments from the public.
Mr. Gustafson, representing his mother, Mario Gustafson, had
questions on the zoning change and wanted an explanation of
B-4 and R-3 Zoning, which was explained to him by the City Administrator.
He also had a question as to the devaluation of the land of
his mother's property once the rezoning would take place from
0-4 to R-3. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, answered that
in his estimation the valuation would increase with the zoning
being changed from B-4 to R-3. Planning Commission Chairman,
Jim Ridgeway, questioned as to whether it shouldn't be zoned
to R -B, which would allow all the residential uses of R-3 allowed
in an R -B Zone. City staff had not considered R -B for zoning
and looked at the R -B zoning aspect of it. It would be very
compatible with this area and would also allow Mr. Gustafson's
mother's property to he developed either so residential or a
residential with a business entity in it. Zoning Administrator,
Gary Anderson, was asked if a public hearing deadline could
be met for a public hearing to be hold at the next City Council
meeting on August 27, 1984; and he answered that we would have
to lot the newspaper know very shortly, and if they had apace
available, it could possibly be done. If there wan apace available
in the Times, a public hearing notice could be published in
time to meat the deadline for the next Council meeting on August 27,
1984. Mr. Brad Larson, representing Riverview Manor Apartments,
expressed desire that the Commission members seriously look
at holding the public hearing at the next Council meeting becauno
further delay with a public hearing hold at the next Planning
Communion mooting could not their project back approximately
6 weeks. Considering the above information, motion was made
by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning
request from B-4 to R -B and further recommend that the Planning
Commission would like the public hearing to be hold at the next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 27, 1984.
Motion carried unanimously.
;V;�•�tjj/�� �`"�+.;� '..,,�t� Rezoning Request to rezone
.J "V :• Y �' �, f' ;� \ the north is of Blocks 50
and 51 from B-6 (Regional
Business) to R -B Residential
f R uelnesa).
10�// ,Ir IjfJ1 J � J 14I �C ty�,t! Monticello.
� Jf•.;J j/'" I/�; r` � 1�!j f.!��J. �"1!(1!(.•q :j J,. 'j \. `\
17
4.
..__1, I � ,gnu w �f• ..�'t i .. ,
�, yt
1.37
10-10-1 10-10-4
CHAPTER 10
"R -B" RESIDENTIAL -BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION,
10-10-1: Purpose
10-10-2: Permitted Uses
10-10-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
10-10-4: Conditional Uses
10-10-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R -B" Residential -Business
District is to provide for high density residential use
and for the transition in land use from residential to
low intensity business alloodng*for the intermixing of
such uses.
10-10-2: PERMITTED USESs The following are permitted uses in an
"R -S" Districtt
(A) All ,permitted uses allowed in an *'R-3" District.
(H) Club or lodge without the serving of food or beverage.
(C) Multiple family dwellings.
f�
10-10-31 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USESs The following are permitted
V
accessory uses in an `R -B" Districti .
(A) All pormitted accessory uses as allowed in an "R-3" District.
10-10-41 CONDITIONAL USESe The following are conditional usos
in an "R -B" Districts (Requires a conditional use per-
mit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by
Chapter 22 of this Ordinance).
(A) All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions, so allowed
in an "R-3" District.
(D) Hospitals, medical offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics,
professional offices and commercial (loaned) offices (limited to
appraisers, architects, attorneys, certified public accountants,
clergymen, dontiato, ongineora, manufacturers, representatives,
physicians, real estate agents, and other similar uses which have
no storage of merchandise, and are service oriented with no retail
oalo of goods on the promises), and funeral homes and mortuaries
provided that:
1. Tho site and related parking and service entrances are served
by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to
accommodate the traffic which will be generated.
'
2. Adequate off-atroot parking -to provided in cospiiance with
Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance.
10-10-4 10-10-4
3. Adequate off-street loading is provided in compliance
with Section 10-3-6 of this Ordinance.
4. Vehicular entrances to parking or service areae shall create
a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement.
S. When abutting an "R-1", "R-2", or "R-3" District, a buffer
area -with screening and landscaping in compliance with Section
10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance and shall be provided.
6. All signing and information or visual communication devices
shall be in compliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance.
7. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance
aro considered and satisfactorily met.
(C) Nursing horns and similar group housing, but not including hos-
pitals, sanitariums or similar institutions, provided that:
1. Side yards are double the minimum requirements established
for this District and aro screened in compliance with Section
10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance.
2. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational
areas. Said areae shall be fenced and controlled and screened in
compliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of the Ordinance.
3. The site shall be nerved by an arterial or collector street
of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated.
4. All oigning and informational or visual communication devices
shall be incompliance with Section 10-3-9 of this Ordinance.
5. All state laws and statutes governing such use aro atrictly
adhered to and all required operating permits are secured.
6. Adequate off-street parking is provided in compliance with
Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance.
7. Ono (1) off-street loading space in compliance with Section
10-3-6 of this Ordinance.
B. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily mot.
(D) Parking Facilities for Adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling
establishments provided t1lati
1. Such parking Is in excess of that required on the lot
upon which the principal use is Located.
2. Applicable conditions of Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance
J
are satisfactorily mot and fully complied with.
3. When parking is the principal use adequate screening 'rom
10-10-4
10-10-4
(� abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in com-
pliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance.
4. The site of the principal use and its related parking is
served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity
to accommodate the traffic which will be generated.
5. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (5) of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
(E) APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS: A maximum of ten (10) percent re-
duction in square feet of lot area per unit for multiple family
dwellings of ten (10) unite or more is required in Section 10-3-4
of this Ordinance based upon the following bonus features and square
foot reduction:
SQUARE FOOT
BONUS FEATURE REDUCTION PER UNIT
1. Type two construction 100 square feet
2. Elevator serving each floor 50 square feet
3. Transit service available within throe
hundred (300) feet of entrance 50 square feet
4. Two-thirds (2/3) of the required fee free
parking underground or within the principal
structure (not including attached or de-
tached garaqos). 150 square feet
5. Indoor recreation and social rooms equal
to twenty-fivo (25) square feet per unit or
seven hundred fifty (750) square feat total,
whichever is greater. 50 square feet
G. major outdoor recreational facilities such
as swimming poolo, tennis courts or similar
facilities requiring a substantial investment
equaling at minimum five (5) percent of the
construction cost of the principal structure. 20 square feet
(F) Retail commercial activities provided chats
1. morchandiso is cold at retail.
2. The retail activity is located within a structure whose
principal use is not commercial sales.
3. The retail activity shall not occupy more than fifteen
(15) percent of the groes floor area of the building.
4. The retail activity is not locatod,within a structure
whose principal use is residential.
5. No directly or indirectly illuminated sign or signs in excess
of ton (10) square feat idontifying the name of the business
shall be visible from the outside of tho building.
G. No signs or posters of any typo advortlaing products for
0
10-10-4 10-10-4
sale shall be visible from the outside of the building.
7. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
(G) Buildings combining residential and non-residential uses allowed
in this District provided that:
1. Residential and non-residential uses shall not be contained
on the same floor.
2. The residential and non-residential uses shall not conflict
in any manner.
3. The residential building standards as outlined in this Sec-
tion are met.
4. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
(II) Elderly (Senior citizen) housing provided that:
1. Not more than ten (10) percent of the occupants may be
persona sixty (60) years of ago or under (spouse of a parson
D
over sixty (60) years of age or caretakers. 'etc.)
2. Except for caretaker unite, occupancy shall be limited to
J
man and wife, blood relatives, or a single man or single woman.
1. To continuo to qualify for the elderly housing classification
the owner or agency shall annually file with the City Clark
and the Municipal Inspector a certified copy of a monthly rosume
of occupants of such a multiple dwelling, listing the number
of tenants by ago and clearly identifying and setting forth the
relationship of all occupants sixty (60) years of age or candor
to qualified tenants, or to the building.
4. There is adequate off-street parking in compliance with
Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance.
5. Ono (1) off-street loading apace in compliance with Section
10-3-6 of this Ordinance.
6. Parking areas are screened and landscaped from view of sur-
rounding and abutting residential districts in compliance with
Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance.
7. The site of the principal use and its related parking is
served by an arterial or collector street.
B. All signing and informational or visual communication devices
shall be in compliance with Section 10-3-9 of thio Ordinanco.
9. The principal use structure is in compliants with the Minn-
'
osota State Uniform Building Code.
10-10-4
L�
10-10-4
10. Elevator service is provided to each floor level.
11. Useable open space as defined in Section 10-2-2 of this
Ordinance at a minimum is equal to twenty (20) percent of
the gross lot area.
12. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is
served or is located within four hundred (400) feet of regular
transit service.
13. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is
within four hundred (400) feet of commercial shopping develop-
ment or adequate provision for access to such facilities is
provided.
14. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
(1) Private clubs and lodges serving food and bev-
erages with use being restricted to members and their guests.
Adequate dining room, kitchen and bar apace must be provided
according to standards imposed upon similar unrestricted cuo-
tomar operations. Tho serving of alcoholic beverages to mem-
bore and their guests shall be allowed, providing
that such service is in compliance with applicable Federal,
State and Municipal regulation. Offices of such use shall be
limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor
area of the building.
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
5. Consideration of Selection and Appointment to the Fire Hall
Building Committee. (T.E. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In order to expedite the site selection process and building
design process, TKDA and staff recommend that the City develop
a Building Committee. This Committee would serve as the intermediary
between the architect and the City Council. They would be largely
serving the role of a planning and review body, Bending recommendations
for final action to the Council. Because the Council meets
only twice a month, and the frequency of meetings very likely
will exceed that, we feel that it is essential to have a Committee
to work with the designer on a day-to-day basis. In discussing
the matter, staff arrived at the following names to be submitted
for the Building Committee: Fran Fair and Dan Blonigen as City
Council representatives, Tom Eidem as Administrator and Planner,
Gary Anderson as Building Official, and Doug Pitt, Fire Department.
Doug Pitt has been working in this capacity on a Fire Department
appointment since the beginning, and Dan and Fran both have
indicated their desire to be involved with the design and planning
process. I think it is important to clearly state that the
role of this Committee is to work on the planning process to
make suggestions of alterations and changes, whether minor or
major, and to make certain decisions that can carry the endorsement
of the Committee to the Council for action. Clearly, this Committee
will not have decision making authority with respect to budgetary
limitation, but rather will assume the responsibility to investigate
the various ramifications of expenoos and make sound recommendations
to the Council.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Appoint the Building Committee as auggastcd by staff.
2. Select and appoint a Building Committee with different personnel
than suggested.
]. Do away with the notion of a Building Committee and have
the Council act as its own committee.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff racommonds that the five people listed above be appointed
to the Building Committee. Surely we will utilise other people
on both staff and Council during the decision making process.
but those individuals would not be obligated to attend ovary
session with the Committee members and the Consultants.
No supporting data for this item.
-3-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
6. Consideration of Entering a Contract with TKDA. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
After notifying the firms that TKDA was selected, I requested
that TKDA submit to us the standard form of contract for the
work to be done. That contract is attached as supporting data.
The contract in form and content shall be reviewed by the City
Attorney prior to the meeting and will have a recommendation.
Having already selected TKDA by official Council action, this
contract is primarily a house cleaning chore. Having submitted
their costs on a bid proposal, and the CounciV a action to accept
that bid. I have not proceeded with any type of negotiation
at this point. Although it would be highly irregular, it is
not inconceivable that you could request negotiation of the
Phase I price. Lastly, of course, if we are to get TKDA on
the job promptly, the contract needs to be signed.
I am not presenting alternative actions or staff recommendations
on this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the contract.
-4-
KDA
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
August 22, 1984
Mr. Arve Grimsmo, Mayor
Mr. Dan 9lonlgen, Councllmember
Mrs. Frances Fair, Counclimember
Mr. Kenneth Maus, Counclimember
W. Jack Maxwell, Counclimember
Mr. Thomas EI dem, City Administrator
Mr. Millard Fern Ick, Firo Chief
Mr. Gary Anderson, 8uiiding Inspector
Re: Monticello Fire Station
Honorable Mayor and City Councllmembors:
T OL T I. KING. DUVALL. ANDERSON
ANDASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
0l00 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OUILDING
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOIA 5i10%
612*92 00
Nes Hendrickson and I rant to thank you for selocting our firm to provide
complete arch Itecturai-ongineering services for your fire station building
program. We took forward to working with you and our staff will do the
very best In representing your community In this work.
As the project proceeds If you have any questions regarding the work please
call Was or myself. Thanks again.
yours very truly,
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
DuWayne I sma, P.E.
Vice President
ORK/oao
9
r -'QIMA
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
August 22, 1984
Mr. Thomas EI dem
City Administrator
250 E. Broadway
P.O. Box 83A
Monticello, MIN 55362
Re: Monticello Fire Station
Dear Mr. Eidem:
TOL TZ. KING. DUV ALL. ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
YM AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA $5101
6121n2—W
In accordance with your request, during a telephone conversation with Dewey
Kasma on August 21st, we are enclosing two copies of a proposed contract
for our services for the Fire Station Building Program.
This Agreement provides a basis for continuing through the entire contract,
but authorizes only Phase I for a lump sum fee of $8,000 at this time. If
you have any questions regarding the contract please give me a calf. If
there are no changes needed, please sign both copies, retain one and send
one to me.
I look forward very such to working with you on this project. Please let
me know when our first Building Committee meeting is scheduled.
Very truly yours,
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
"I11���
Mestly J drickson, RA, AICD
Associate
MJH:mr
Between
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
and
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
for
ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered Into this 22nd day of August,
1"984, by and between THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA, hereinafter
referred to as the OWNER, and TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED, a corporation with a regular place of business at 2500
American National Bank Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, hereinafter
referred to as TKDA.
WITNESSETH:
That the OWNER and TKDA, for the consideration hereinafter named,
agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE.
The OWNER agrees to and hereby does rotaln and employ
TKDA and TKDA agrees to perform Architectural, Engineering and/or Planning
Services In connection with the OWNER'S responsibilities, all as described
by subsequent "Authorization(s) for Professional Services".
Engineering and architectural services rill, In general,
Include studies and reports, design, preparation of working drawings and
spoclflcatlonsl construction observations, checking of shop drawings and
estimates and recommendations regarding acceptance of workl and other
related tasks of a type normally associated with fact IIty planning, design,
construction, operation and/or maintenance.
Planning services will, In general, Include technical
planning, assistance and studios concerned with comprehensive planning,
zoning, platting, park and open space planning, Industrial park planning,
capital Improvement programming, functional planning and similar and
rotated studies.
Individual authorizations for such professional services
shall be duly approved by the OWNER; and all records and documents for
services with rospoct thereto shall be appropriately referenced to each of
the specific authorizations.
ARTICLE 2. PERIOD OF SERVICE.
Unless otherwise specified In the "Author Izatlon(s) for
Professional Services", TKDA Is hereby retained on a continuing basis,
subject, however, to termination by either party In accordance with Article
5.
ARTICLE 3. CDMPENSATION TO TKDA.
A. Except as otherwise specified In the "Authorization(s)
for Professional Services", TKDA shall be paid for services described In
said author Izatlon(s) on an hourly rate basis for the hours actually spent
thereon by TKDA technical personnel on various employee classifications In
accordance with attached EXHIBIT A, entitled "Bllling Rate Schedule", a
part hereof; said billing rates shall Include compensation for all salary
costs, payroll burden, general and administrative overhead and professional
fee. Periodic revisions to the billing rate schedule shall be submitted by
TKDA to Owner for acknowledgement.
B. In addition to the foregoing, TKDA shall be reimbursed at
cost, for the following Direct Expenses when Incurred In the performance of
authorized work:
1. Travel and subsistence.
2. Computer services.
3. Outside professional and technical services, with -
cost defined as the amount billed TKDA plus 5%.
4. Cost of advertising for construction bids In local
newspapers, construction publications, etc., In
those cases where not paid for directly by the
OWNER.
5. Identifiable reproduction costs.
6. Other Direct Expenses, but only when specified In
"Authorization for Professional Services" or other
written authorization.
C. Unless otherwise provldod In the "Authorization for Pro-
fosslonal Services", tho OWNER shall make monthly payments to TKDA within
30 days of date of Invoice based on computations made In accordance with
the above charges for services completed to date, accompanied by supporting
evidence as required. All accounts unpaid after 30 days from the data of
original Invoice shell be subject to a service charge of 1-1/4% per month.
ARTICLE 4. EXTRA WORK.
In the event that a maximum payment amount Is specified
In an "Authorization for Professional Services", and TKOA Is of the opinion
that any work they have been directed to perform Is beyond the Scope of the
authorization, or that the level of effort required significantly exceeds
that estimated duo to changed conditions and thereby constitutes extra
work, thoy shall promptly notify the OWNER of that fact. Extra work,
additional compensation for same, and extension of time for completion
shall be covered by a Supplemental Authorization agreed to In writing by
-2-
both parties prior to proceeding with any extra work or related
expenditures.
ARTICLE 5. ABANDONMENT, CHANGE OF PIAN AND TERMINATION.
Either Party has the right to terminate this Agreement
and/or any "Authorization for Professional Services" upon seven days
written notice. in addition, the OWNER may at any time, reduce the scope
of an "Authorization for Professional Services". Such reduction In scope
of an authorization shall be set forth in a written notice from the OWNER
to TKDA. In the event of unresolved dispute over change In scope or
changed conditions, the authorization may then be terminated.
In the event of termination of an "Authorization for
Professional ServIcos", ell documents finished or unfinished, prepared by
TKDA under the authorization, shall be made available by TKDA to the OWNER
pursuant to Article 6, and there shall be no further obligation of the
OWNER to TKDA under the Authorization, except for payment of amounts duo
and owing for work performed and expenses Incurred to the date and timo of
termination, computed In accordance with Article 3.
In like manner, If the entire Agreement Is terminated,
all remaining documents on file with TKOA shall also, upon request, be made
aval table to the OWNER pursuant to Article 6 upon receipt of payment of
amounts due and owing TKDA for any authorized work.
In the event of a reduction In scope of an "Authorization
for Professional Services", TKDA shall be paid for the work performed and
expenses Incurred on the Authorization thus reduced or on any completed and
abandoned work, computed in accordance with Article 3. Any reduction in
the "not to exceed" payment figure shall be established by a Supplemental
Authorization agreed to In writing by both parties.
ARTICLE 6. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, REPORTS AND OTHER DATA.
At tho time of completion or termination of an "Authorl-
zation for Professional Services", TKDA shall make available to the OWNER,
upon request, all maps, tracings, reports, resource materials and other
documents pertaining to the work or to a Project described in an
authorization. All such documents are not Intended or represented to be
suitable for rouse by the OWNER or others on extensions of the work or
Project or to any other project. Any rause without written verification or
adaptation by TKDA for the specific purposes intended will be at OWNER'S
solo risk and without IlablIIty or legal exposure to TKDA.
ARTICLE 7. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE ODNTRACT.
The contract documents shell be doomed to Include this
Agreement with ail accompanying exhibits a part horoof, and any subsequent
"Authorizatlon(s) for Professional Services" Issued pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 8. OWNERIS RESPONSIBILITIES.
A. To permit TKDA to perform the services required here-
under, the OWNER shot I supply, In proper tIme and sequence, the fo I low Ing
for each "Authorization for Professional Services", at no expense to TKDA.
1. Provide at I necessary Information regarding Its re-
quirements as necessary for orderly progress of the
work.
2. Designate In writing, a person to act as OWNER'S re-
presentatIves with respect to the services to be
rendered under an authorization. Such person shall
have authority to transmit Instructions, receive
Instructions, receive Information, Interpret and
define OWNER'S policies with respect to TKDAIS
services.
3. Furnish, as required for performance of TKDA's ser-
vices (except to the extent provided otherwise In an
authorization), data prepared by or services of
others, Including without limitation, core borIngs,
probings and subsurface explorations, hydrograph1c:
and goohydrologIc surveys, laboratory tests and
Inspections of samples, materials and equipment;
appropriate professional Interpretations of at I of
the foregoing; environmental assessment and Impact
statements; property, boundary, easement, rfght-of-
way, topographic and utl I Ity surveys, property
descriptions; zoning, dead and other land use
restriction; and other special data not covered in
an authorization.
4. Provide access to. and make al I provIslons for TKDA
to enter upon pub I Ic and pr lvato property as
required to perform their work.
5. Act as I lalson with other agencies to carry out noc-
ossary coordination and nogotlatlons.
6. Examine all reports. sketches. drawings, specifice-
tlons and other documents prepared and presented by
TKDA, obtain advice of an attorney, Insurance
counselor or others as OWNER deems necessary for
such examination and randor In writing, decisions
psrtafnIng thereto within a reasonable time so as
not to delay the serv:cos of TKDA.
7. Give prompt written notice to TKOA whenever OWNER
observes or othorw I so becomes aware of any
development that effects the scope of timing of
TKDA19 services or any defect In the work of
Construction Contractor(s) or TKDA.
-4-
B. Provide "record" drawings and specifications for all
existing physical plants or faclI[ties which are
pertinent to an authorization.
9. Provide other services, materials, or data as may be
set forth In an authorization.
B. TIM shell be entitled to rely on the accuracy and com-
pleteness of Information furnished by the OWNER. If TKDA finds that any
Information furnished by the OWNER Is In error or Is Inadequate for Its
purpose, TKDA shall promptly notify the OWNER.
ARTICLE 9. OPINIONS OF COST.
Opinions of probable Project Cost, Construction Cost,
flnanclal evaluations, feaslbIIIty studies, economic analyses of alternate
solutions and utllltarlan considerations of operations and maintenance
costs prepared by TKDA under an "Authorization for Professional Services"
will be made on the basis of TKDA's experience and qualifications and
represent TKDA's best judgment as an experienced and qualified design
professional. It Is recognized, however, that TKDA does not have control
over the cost of labor, material, equipment or services furnished by others
or over market conditions or contractors' methods of determining their
prices, and that any utllltarlan evaluation of any faclllty to be
constructed, or acquired, or work to be performed on the basis of TKDA's
cost opinions, must of necessity, be speculative untlI completion of
construction or acquisition. Accordingly, TKDA does not guarantee that
proposals, bids or actual costs wlII not vary from opinions, evaluations or
studies submitted by TKDA to OWNER under an "Authorization for Professional
Sorvlces."
ARTICLE 10. ASS IGNKNT.
This Agreomont, boing Intended to secure the personal
service of the Individuals employed by and through whom TKDA performs work
hereunder, shell not be assigned, sublet or transferred without the written
consent of the OWNER.
-5- 6)0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
By gy K/ `'''!}''%��,
Westiy J Lr ckson, R
Project
Manager
Attest By7r -
Du a T. Prow, P.E.
Pr Ident
-b-
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS -PLANNERS AUGUST 22, 1984
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
Clasalfleatlon
Senior Engineering and Architectural
1984 Ranee
$42.00
of 81111ng;Rates
to
$65.00
Personnel
Registered Engineer, Archltect or Lend
$33.00
to
$48.00
Surveyor
Graduate Engineer, Architect or Planner
521.00
to
$43.00
Senior Technician, Designer, or Drafter
$28.00
to
$48.00
Technician or Drafter
$11.00
to
$30.00
A-1 v
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
To: Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson Comm. No.
and Associates, Incorporated
2500 American National Bank Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Date: August 22. 1984
Pursuant to our Agreement dated August 22, 1984, you are hereby authorized
to proceed with the professional services described as follows:
A.
The Project, to be accomplished In two phases, consists of a new FI re
Station or the remodeling and expansion of the existing facility.
Specifically, the work under Phase I will Include a needs assessment,
site analysis, conceptual design and assistance with the bond
referendum process.
B. PHASE I S RVI S TOB PROVID D BY MD .
1. Needs Assessment
Meet with designated Fire Department personnel and others as
required to conduct a needs assessment.
- Review existing facilities
Organlzatlon/Personnel
Utilization
Adequacy/Doflcloncles
- Prepare Space Requirements
Review comparable faclIItlos In other munlcIpal ltlos
Consider municipal goals (Imago and Budget)
Identify activities to be accommodated (functions)
Prepare building program
Prepare site requirements
2. Site Analysts
Provide a site analysis of a pre -selected site; In the event
that the site analysis reveals the pre -selected site to be
unfeasible for the development of the Fire Hall, present a
cursory review of other sites that would be appropriate for such
development.
- Review selection requirements and crlter(a
Locatlonal
Physical
Compatibility
cost
Impact
- Conduct analysis of alternative sites (evaluation matrix)
Existing Fire Hall
Other municipally -owned site(s)
Private property
3. Conceptual Design/Cost Estimate
Prepare a conceptual Fire Station design together with a
preliminary conceptual cost estimate for the preferred site.
- Prepare Alternative layouts for review (minimum of three)
Responding to Functional, Image and Budget
requirements
Review construction cost of each alternative
- Select proferred alternative and prepare conceptual design
drawings suitable for use In the Bond referendum process.
Site Plan
Floor Plan(s)
Elevation draw Ings
Image Sketch of the Building
- Prepare conceptual project cost estimate of preferred
alternative
Sita dove Iopment
Building construction
Equipment and furnishings
Foes and Contingencies
—2-
4. Bond Referendum Process
Assist the OWNER with the bond referendum process by preparing
necessary graphics and documents and participating at community
Informational meetings.
Prepare a single page brochure, complete with suitable
graphics, for mass public distribution, explaining the
need, the proposal, the cost of the Pew facility and Its
financial Impact on hone owners.
Attend two public Informational meetings and two City
Council Meetings to assist In explaining the proposed
faclIIty.
r.1J alle n ::,I wl 611wo 1.1.
At such time that the project Is ordered, the OWNER may execute the
option to authorize TKDA to prepare Plans and Specifications.
Subsequent to completion and approval of such, and again at the
OWNER'S option, the OWNER may also request TKDA to perform
construction phase services as determined appropriate and necessary
prior to the project being bid for construction.
These subsequent services will be described In further detail and
Included as part of a subsequent authorization following a successful
bond referendum.
If authorized by OWNER, TKDA shell furnish or obtain from others,
Additional Services of the types listed below which are not considered
as normal or customary services. Additional Services shall be
billable pursuant to Agreement Article S, a part hereof, and such
billings shell be over and above any maximums or lump sum amounts sot
forth In the Agreement.
1. Registered land or right-of-way surveys, right-of-way mappings
plats; legal descriptions; land appraisals, negotiations and/or
related services.
2. Topographic field or aerial surveys for design purposes and
engineering surveys and staking to enable Contractor(s) to
proceed with their work.
1. Soil borings and laboratory tests for design purpososl field
and/or laboratory tests taken during construction to determine
compliance with the Contract Documents.
4. Services resulting from significant changes In extent of the
Project or Its design Including, but not limited to, changes In
size, complexity, OWNER'S schedule, or character of construction
or methods of financing; and revising previously accepted co
-y_
studies, reports, design documents or Contract Documents when
such revisions are due to causes beyond TKDAIS control.
5. Providing a bullding model and special graphic presentation
materiel for OWNER'S use.
6. Furnishing the services of special consultants for other than
the normal cIv11, structural, mechanical and electrical
engineering and normal architectural design Incidental thereto,
such as specialized consultants for Interior design, furniture,
furnishings, communications, acoustics, kitchen and landscaping;
and providing data or services of the types descr!bed In
Agreement Article BA(3) when OWNER authorizes TKDA to provide
such data or services In Ileu of furnishing the same In
accordance with Agreement Article BA(3).
7. Preparation for and attendance at more than two Public
Informational Meetings and two City CounclI Meetings by a TKDA
representative during Part 1 services.
E. COMPENSATION_
Compensation for the services described herein shell be computed In
accordance with Article 3 of the Basic Agreement, subject to the
following additional conditions:
Payment for Part I services shall be a lump sum of $8.000.
Monthly payments shall be made, based on porcont completion.
The lump sum payment figure has been established In anticipation
of an orderly and continuous progress of the doscribod services
through the bond referendum on November 6, 1984.
Approved at a mooting of the Clty Council on 19 _
By Attest
Arvo Grlmsmo, Mayor Tom Eldem, City Administrator
TKDA Acceptance by 19 _
Authorized TKDA Representative
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
7. Consideration of Accepting Bid on Sale of Old Fire Truck. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Previously, the City Council authorized the Fire Department
to advertise that they would be accepting bids on the 1946 Chevrolet
Fire Truck. The Department advertised primarily locally in
the newspaper and received only one bid from a gentleman in
Blaine, Minnesota, in the amount of 51,000.00.
Although the Fire Department originally had expected to get
more than this for the truck, the Fire Department recommended
that the City accept this offer so that they can use the money for
additional equipment items.
Public Works Director, John Simola, recently checked the vehicle
over and feels that the City can use the fire truck during summer
months for watering, trees, shrubs, etc., but the only problem
is that he is uncertain as to whether the City currently would
always have sufficient indoor storage apace for the truck.
It was his opinion that sometimes the truck may have to sit
outside but fools that the $1,000.00 offer received is inadequate
and that the City could use the vehicle for watering during
the summer months for a few years and still be able to got approximately
$1,000.00 later. In checking our insurance coverage, I'm sure
the City could insure this vehicle for approximately 5125.00
for half a year while it's being used.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept the only bid received from the gentleman from Blaine,
Minnesota, for $1,000.00.
2. Roject the bid received and advortiso again in ouch magazines
as The League of Citioa, etc.
3. Keep the vehicle within the City Public Works Department
for use during the summer as recommended by the Public Works
Director.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommonds that the City Public Works Department keep
the vehicle for ito own use rather than aolling for the low
prico of $1,000.00. If the primary concern of the Fire Department
would bo that they would not have use of the $1,000.00 for other
equipment purchases if the City koopo the vehicle, thorn would
bo sufficient funda from either the Capital Outlay Improvement
Fund or the Rovanue Sharing Fund that could be transferred to
the Gonoral Fund no that it would still look like the vehicle
wan sold.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Nona.
-5-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
8. Consideration of a Proposal to Resolve the Bill with Owens Corporation. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last winter when the City Hall furnace went down, we were utilizing
Owens Corporation out of the Twin Cities to make the repairs.
After a number of incidents that left us somewhat dissatisfied
with their service and a price quote for a repair, we elected
to transfer the completion of the job to a St. Cloud firm.
In closing out with Owens Corporation, they submitted a bill
to us of which an amount of $215.25 was challenged by the City
and payment was withheld. As the Owens Corporation continued
to bill us for that amount, I sent a letter to them highlighting
our dissatisfaction with their service and why we did not feel
we owed them the 5215.25. They responded in writing to my letter,
and I in turn responded to that statement. On Wednesday, August 15,
John Owens of Owens Corporation called me to discuss the matter
and attempt to resolve it at that time over the phone. We discussed
the discrepancies involved and the conversation has degenerated
into a situation where I accused them of inefficiency, and they
had a list of explanations that should justify the problem.
Mr. Owens finally said in order to get this bill off the books
would we be willing to split the difference and simply pay out
$107.65. I indicated to Mr. Owens that I would be willing to
make that particular expenditure, but that in this particular
matter, having boon brought to the Council's attention at an
earlier time, I would like to return to the Council before accepting
his offer.
The reason I think it would be acceptable to cattle in this
fashion is that the largo part of our complaint had to do with
the charging of overtime, for one of their technicians sarvicas
for the installation of a space hooter. By reducing the bill
to one-half, we have effectively cut the overtime proviolon
totally out of the service rendered. I also recommended settling
this matter in order to simply clear it from the booko and be
done with it. Owens Corporation than will simply be put In
our "do not contact in the future,, file.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Accept Mr. Owens offer to split the difference of the outstanding
balance - this would allow us to clear the matter from the
books and while it will save us a minimal amount of monoy
will effectively eliminate the ovortimo provision that we,
had questioned at the outset.
2. Deny the offer and the bill - very likely Owens would filo
a Conciliation Court request against the City and we would
and up spending time and travel in resolving the matter
-6-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
at Buffalo. If we elect to go to court, we will be needing
to utilize John Simola, Gary Anderson, and myself to respond
to the claim. In the long run, we could conceivably win
the case, but would very likely come out financially behind
due to man hours and mileage. There is also the possibility
that we would lose, thus compounding the amount that we
would have to pay.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on my judgement, I am recommending that the Council authorize
payment of exactly one-half of the outstanding balance. As
noted, my preference here is to clear the matter from our books
and to end the issue once and for all.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of the complete correspondence between myself and Ovens.
-7-
r _ City
01 Monticello
l,I Oe¢e of me
Phone: 16121 295-2711
C,fy nnmsuafa
Maim 49121 CJS S7J9
21
February, 1984
Ovens Services Corporation
930 East Both Straet
Minneapolin, MN 55420
Roo * Invoices for Services - City of Monticello
#74462 and #74788
Dear Sir or Madan,
In reviewing your invoices for services rendered, I have
come across some problems. In the labor breakdown you
provided us for invoice 174788, you show 4 hours overtime.
Mr. Gary Anderson, City Zoning Administrator, advisee me
that this time was for the delivery and installation of a
space heater which was supposed to be delivered when your
service technicians originally reported to the aite. Further,
the delivery person apparently was not sufficiently qualified
to do the installation, and thus, he took substantially caro time
than would have boon necessary had we hired a local electrician
to do the installation.
it strikes me as unreasonable that the City should be billed
at all for the delivery of an item that was forgotten by
the workers originally reporting to the site, let alone to
be charged at an overtime rate. I think it is also unreasonable
that the City should be billed an overtime rate for installation
of the unit by an individual who could not expedite the install-
ation.
I also wish to nota our dissatisfaction with the level of
service provided in general. Based upon the observations of
myaolf. Mr. Anderson, and the other City staff, there was
considerable down -limo (visiting, telephone usage, etc.) that
we are being charged for, but which produced no concrete results.
�1
250 East Broadway
0 At, 4, Box 83A a Monticello, MN 55382 �—
TO: Owens Services Corporation
REz Invoices 674462 and @74788
DATE: 21 February, 1984
PAGE: Two
With respect'to the invoices proper, this is to advise you
that I will be eubmitting them at the February 27, 1984,
,Council meting for City Council review and action, and
further, will recoem:and non-payment of the sum of $284.00,
said sum being the amount charged for overtime labor included
in invoice /74788. Please address any comments to me.
Vo==�ou =
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
TAE/kad
ccs A. Grimsmo, Mayor
K. Maus, City Council
F. Fair, City Council
J. Maxwell, City Council
D. Blonigon, City Council
A. wolfstallor, Finance Director
G. Anderson, Zoning c Building
G. Pringle, City Attorney
Correa. File v
(,,,.iftd of Monticello
Phe,- (6121 295 271 1
Metro 1612) 333-5739
17 May, 1984
Owens Services Corporation
930 East 80th Street _
Minneapolis, MN 55410
Re: Invoice 74788
Your Statement of 7 May, 1984
Door Sir or Madams
Enclosed is a copy of my letter dated February 21, 1984, questioning
the validity of your claim for $284.00 for overtime. To date I have
received no response from your firm justifying this charge.
In reviewing our records I see that the City made payment in the
amount of $1,177.11 on March 1, 1984, said sum reflecting the
original invoice amount less the unjustified overtime. Further,
in looking over your May 7, 1984, statement wherein you claim there
is a balance duo of $215.25, I find that the City made payment upon
the original balance not taking into consideration the credit for
$68.75. lienee, the City actually paid $68.75 more than has been
satisfactorily justified to us.
While I must perhaps accept our overpayment as our error, I cannot
approve payment for the remaining $215.25 without a satisfactory
explanation showing cause why tho City should assume financial
reoponsibility for the oversight of your technicians. Further,
considering the fact that the City engaged another qualified firm
to complete tho job for approximately $800.00 while your technicians
estimated the same work would cost approximately 32,000.00, makes
me suspect of the accuracy of the charges. Ploaso submit any
explanation or other commento to mo.
r }�V
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
TAElkad
Enclosure
cel Corree. File ✓
Gary Pringle
1 J
250 East Broadway a Rt. 4, Box 83A a Monticoito, MN 65382
OWEns
Owens Servkes Corporation
830 East Wh snal
Minmaaohs. tAN 55420
G12t854.3W8
June 12, 1984
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Route 4, Box 83A
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
SUBJECT: INVOICE NO. 74788
YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 21 AND MAY 17, 1984
Dear Mr. Eidem:
To begin with, 1 must sincerely apologize for not responding earlier to your
letter of February 21, 1984, Further, 1 am sorry for the confusion in this
matter.
You indicated concern with having to pay for four hours of overtime for the
( delivery and installation of the supplemental heating unit on January 9, 1984,
When it was decided that the building would need some type of temporary heat,
we first had to send a man to the job to find out the pertinent information
regarding the proper sizing and connection of the supplemental heating unit.
At the same time, we were in the process of trying to get one of our units.
The one needed for your building was being used by one of our customers, one of
the largest retailers in downtown Minneapolis. This, in it self, was one of
the most difficult and delicate problems of the entire project.
Regarding the amount of time spent. it appears that it was not excessive based
on the circumstances. in fact. I sincerely doubt there is another company in
this part of the country that could have gotten heat back in your building at
such short notice and as quickly.
in your second letter, dated May 17, 1984. you indicated concern for our
charges. Specifically, the repair we quoted at approximately $2.000.00 was
completed for $800.00. The fact that the $2,000.00 was an estimate in addition
to the fact that OSC completed half of the work (removing the old heat ex-
changers) should be evidence that our pricing was not out of line.
Due to the nature of our business, it is not unusual to have questions and
confusion in these areas. One of the reasons Owens Services Corporation has
grown to be the leader in this industry in this part of the country is because
C we have worked hard over the last 27 years to bring some professionalism to our
industry to avoid such confusion.
fnorgy,Maintenance a Construction Sarvicas 0\
S
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem
Page 2
June 12, 1984
What concerns me the most of your letters was the dissatisfaction with our
services. From our servicemen to our supervisors, to our dispatchers, service
manager and Vice President and Engineer, every level of our company was involved
In trying to help you. I do not know how we could have provided more or per—
formed better.
i would hope that this letter, along with a closer analysis of all the apparent
age-old problems uncovered by our people in these systems. will shed a better
light on Owens Services Corporation.
I will be more than happy to meet with you and the City Council to discuss this
in more detail if you so desire. We remain ready to help the City of Monticello
meet any of their mechanical maintenance requirements.
Very truly yours,
OMENS\SERVIC S CORPORAT1
John J. Owens
Sales Manager, Building Services Division
cc: A. Grimsmo, Mayor
K. Maus. City Council
F. Fair. City Council
J. Maxwell. City Council
D. Blonigen, City Council
R. Wolfsteller, Finance Director
G. Anderson, Zoning 8 Building
G. Pringle, City Attorney
Oc¢e 01 mn
Caw Allo, sW W
(.,.ify o1 Mnficefo
19 June, 1984
Mr. John J. Owens
Sales tanager, Building Services Division
Owens Services Corporation
930 East 80th Street
Minneapolis, M14 55420
Subject: Invoice No. 74788
Dear Mr. Owens:
Phone: (0121 295.2711
Metro: 1012! 333.5739
Thank you for responding to my inquiry on the above referenced
Invoice. I appreciato the fact that the nature of the business
is somewhat open-ended and can create confusion. I do, however.
still have come difficulty with the overtime billing. Mr.
Anderson, our Building Official, has explained to me that
your service technician was at our City Hall working on the
system when he placed the tail to your dispatcher for the
supplemental heating unit. The unit was requested to be
delivered to our site the following morning. Thus, ao I
understand it, no special employee was sent to gather information,
but rather, the information was gathered by the technician
already on the job. further, for some reason, the supplemental
unit was not delivered and your technician had to go got
it, and consequently, the final installation did not occur
until overtime pay provisions wore in affect.
it is perhaps the ease that the delay resulted from a missed
message or a gap in communicationo, and I very wall understand
that these events do occur. what I find difficult to accept
In that the City should be financially responsible when we
did not contribute to the delay. '
with respect to some of the other issues I raised in my earlier
letters and to which you responded, I will be happy to visit
with you on those. while they are issues I thought should
be mentioned, they do seem extraneous to the issue of the
Invoice. Perhaps, if we can rectify thio particular problem,
we can discuss the other matters at your convenience. Please
don't hesitate to call if I can provide you with any additional
information.
ve y truly oar
r
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator
y�Ci
TAE/k.ad V
250 East Broadway a At. 4, Box 83A a Monlicouo, MN 55362
Owens Senkes Corporation
930 Eas, Ban Soret
kla avoks. W455420
612185A 3%8
August 17, 1984
Mr. Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Route 4, Box 83A
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
SUBJECT: INVOICE NUMBER 74788
YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 19, 1984
Dear Mr. Eidem:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm and clarify the telephone conversation
we had on Tuesday, August 14, 1984.
As we discussed, the information regarding the specific temporary heating unit
(1 needed was relayed to our office by a technician that was already on the job.
The reason we did not get the unit to the job until after regular hours was due
to the fact that it took essentially the entire day to negotiate removing it
from the building it was in.
i would hope this will clear the air on this matter once and for all. if you
have any further questions or require additional Information, please call me.
As I am sure you can understand, my offer to split the outstanding balance with
you was made with the intent of finalizing the matter that day to that we might
get on with business. However, although I feel our full charges are in line,
I will still honor this offer.
very truly yours.
OWENS SERVICES CORPORATION
"--3C
John J. Owens
Sales Manager
Building Services Uivision
JJO:bjb
Enorgy."aintansnco a COASUL41 n Serwcas
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
Consideration of Final Plat Approval, Meadow Oak 3rd Addition -
Applicant, Ultra Homes, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Ultra Homes, Inc., is requesting final plat approval of the
3rd Subdivision to be called Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. Everything
on the final plat seems to be in order, meeting all the requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance. As you may recall, a new Environmental
Assessment Worksheat had been done by private engineering firm,
Barr Engineering, and had addressed the whole Meadow Oak Development
and has recommended to the Council to declare the EAW to be
adequate and to find that an Environmental Impact Statement
not be required. One point we would like to bring out is that
one of the findings of the Barr Engineering report was that
at some point in time before full development takes place that
an outlet would have to be constructed from the Subdivision to
either a ditch or directly to the river. At this time we would
suggest that a time table be set up between the City and the
developer as to when an outlet would be constructed from the
ponding areas. Also at this time it has been brought to our
attention that we have not fully accepted the underground utilities,
streets, curb and gutter for the Meadow Oak lot and 2nd Additions.
We would like the question answered from the developer as to
when the fully completed underground utilities, curb and gutter, and
streets will be ready for our approval. Also, we would like
the question asked as to how they intend to address, on the
oast aide of the currently platted project, the storm water
on the rear of the lots in Meadow Oak 2nd Addition, Block 5,
Lots 1-5 and Block 2, Lots G-11. Also, we would like the question
asked as to how they are going to address some of the problems
we're experiencing with the bicycle path running through the
project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final plat request for tho Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
2. Deny the final plat request for the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
3. Approve the final plat request for the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition
subject to possible conditions listed below:
a. That this be the final approved subdivision plat until
ouch time an agreement is reached by the City and the
developer as to when an outlet from the holding ponds
will be constructed.
b. when a time table in oat for completion of the underground
utilities, curb and gutter, and streets for the Meadow
Oak 2nd Addition and the Meadow Oak Estates.
-B-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
C. The storm water be addressed on the rear lots of Block 2,
Lots 6-11 and Block 5, Lots 1-5.
d. That the problems with the bicycle path in the project
be addressed and satisfactorily completed according
to City specifications.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the final plat for the Meadow Oak
3rd Addition with the above noted conditions attached (a -d).
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the proposed Meadow Oak 3rd
Addition; Copy of the final plat. of the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition;
Copy of the Consulting Engineering Firm's comments; Copy of
the Consulting Planning Firm's comments.
-9-
Subdivision requctt for final approv 1 of t
subdivision plat Nnown as Meadow pak,3rd Add ion.
Ultra Homes, Inc.
AC
06
i d
r j
4 N t i
� r
I •
rl �
• r• A r'1 IH i
}} 4:"1.137' 11
f7• 671 •Ifs••' J
!•."! i al.•• ti•'!
''.! • nsmiSipn /ilv 1
/ 11'/t A6Ii9G26
'o tosantn Pt 11-f-- -•r-- -'
OG --1--1-1 r--- r.---- 1 �'1---�q I
�•—-Qp 4) � 1� I 01 1 I I fr „ I
CCif 5f i el i� '•
.il.oa J tr, • I I 1 1 , I 1 1
•�; v 4. �� vi*,'izzsa
r••' r� e ✓ s �' 7o.m. J c. ace ••a•sa m• 1 Y•foemi i
1 C .+b . �• •!` L„1o•�•��0.7 c.,o.•• , c.ls.r! I;1
,., se.�e: ti.ls,.a hl "1•...�' ED
OAK ••loaf.•• �..
oLANE�j
1 Y 7
C+•0� I 11• \!•ia.r :' as ea r{:
` •.! ' of 18 •"'••'or • x g � -anui - -- � '1
� � �1 li 8 .g ••••'•'as'
2 8
'• ` 1 IY 1 8 V• C it
tPcL
F � ��i � ei.•w� aaelb
Q7 1
>�I
_ - ,� ,: r f— Ali) li ppFt et�.Si• $!`k ` 1
I ( _ .. ``y � •' j' `alb •4' � � ,
.I �►• : :4-- .14 ea.«
0 e0 Vo
SCOLE�Er6T
II : V0 i
1 . .
U/ill/l and Drainage eosernenl shown%bus,
The nerlh /,ne of Ou//t/ G,
So Meedew Oef 4 assumed
Salla ' 5e alta
to hove o beormg, of
• DMoles See MCA ity n togQnu�M/
,',Ing /I.Oleel In wid/h andod1l ihAvl90// Sei• n•lord't/ Dy RP
"117,&
,',In
morou9hlore /4es o17d 50 fielin Ne. /ol3e IA+/es e//NtrW" shown.
W;dlm o?dod/anJng o//tide andrtor/o1/yxs
as 3ndcoledlun/ess ol4irayl.See/i WW* /9 Mccot
L
I,—
' ORB -SCHELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors November 14, 1983
Mr. Gary Anderson
Building Official
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Meadow Oak 3rd Addition
Dear Gary:
The preliminary plat of Meadow Oak 3rd Addition was received by our
office on November 10, 1983. My staff has reviewed the plat as to its
conformance with Section 10-20-1 of Monticello City Ordinance, Chapter
20 relating to Planned Unit Developments.
This is a replat of Outlet G, Meadow Oak, to Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
All requirements for general development, grading, utilities, land-
scape and building setback have already been reviewed and approved
under the Meadow Oak Plat. This review, therefore, deals basically
with dimensions and required easements. Our comments are as follows.
1. The boundary agrees with the dimensions of Outlot G, Meadow
Oak.
2. The mathematics of the plat, as to closure, will be chocked
by the County Surveyors Office.
3. The lot dimensions agree as nearly as possible with the pre-
liminary plat of Meadow Oak which showed this area and the
lots for manufactured homes.
4. The utility easements have been provided and shown on the plat
as required.
Therefore, based on our review, we recommend approval of the plat as
submitted.
Yours vary truly,
ORR-SCHFLEN-MAYERON
ASSOCIATES, INC.
John P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB3nlb
Enclosure
ccl Thomas Eidem, City Administrator
McCombe -Knutson Associates, Inc. 9
2021 Cost HennepinAvenuo • Sulto 238 • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413 . Sf7l.4.Qf.RRRn
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
10. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor
Storage in an 1-1 Zone - Applicant, Rainbow Enterprises, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Rainbow Enterprises, Inc., most recently purchased the former
Reskins Electric building. Rainbow Enterprises is a metal parts
manufacturing firm and is requesting a conditional use to allow
them outdoor storage of miscellaneous small aluminum and metal
pieces and also metal and aluminum filings from the machines.
The storage would take place to the rear of the building and
would have a screening fence around the containers which hold
the above-mentioned materials. The containers at this time
would be barrels, and at sometime in the future he would like
to go to dumpsters rather than the metal barrel containers.
Planning Commission members approved Rainbow Enterprises' request
with the condition that a screening fence be installed around
the perimeter of the outdoor storage containers.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor storage
in an I-1 Zone.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor storage
in an I-1 Zone.
3. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor storage
in an I-1 Zone with the condition that a screening fence
be installed around the outside perimeter of the metal storage
barrels.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of tho Conditional Use Request to
allow outdoor storage in an 1-1 Zone with the condition that
a screening fence be installed around the outside perimeter
of the metal storage barrels.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tho proposed location of the outdoor storage alto; Copy
of the Planning Commission minutes.
-10-
ZN
1 '(V1
• �����,- .r` A • t•::; c ��)� : ,n • J. 1. .r'� _>
�•t'x�"et�l, �• t.r,�''9}�1. ,;.'„ '� +�,c�"•,v,• p Vit. _(`1{,`.•r.J�1`;0 ��� �1Mh+ =E;,.�.•�.
`' !r'it, t• ""` Irt. lw!' J .`,. t•�l 'r�p• �' �"�rj G•�
•'i' � ;ALJ � r � ' ('•-,, -.. 'G: i t : . r, '�. '1 ,� � « t
R. 7
' I�y. l l� 1 , "`r-�.:T t t. w.: - ' .,•„ 1' j '� � ;tel"( ±o, F
HIGHWAY " ,r
NO. 94 t -• �
xr-
` a. • c �`w" a '` q�,.�l „, �.i u�
'tj � ;..r `FSO ` � ,,'�o�, ;• },` ...
10
i
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
10. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Storage
In an I-1 Zone - Applicant, Rainbow Enterprises, Inc.
Mr. Darrell Anderson, partner in Rainbow Enterprises, Inc.,
is requesting to be allowed Outdoor storage in the rear of his
lot. The material to be stored la metal filings, small pieces
of metal shavings, currently to be stored in barrels. If it
becomes more feasible, they would be stored in dumpstere with
a screening fence around the entire outdoor storage area. Motion
by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the conditional
use request to allow outdoor storage in an I-1 Lone, with the
condition that the entire area around the outdoor storage containers
have a screening fence around them. Motion carried unanimously.
/ O
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
11. Consideration of a Subdivision of a Residential Lot for Proposed
8 -unit Townhouses - Applicant, Jay Miller. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jay Miller is proposing to build eight townhouse units on an
R-2 lot, with the building portions of each townhouse unit individually
owned by the tenant and the area surrounding the townhouse units
to be owned by an Incorporated Townhouse Association. In looking
over the subdivision plat, the 8 -unit townhouse does meet the
required setbacks, except in the west sideyard setback area,
that being 8.48 feet away from the lot line where 10 feet is
required. Mr. Miller indicated the reason for the sideyard
setback being short on the west side was that the rear yard
setback pins given to him by Meyer-Rohlin 6 Associates were
incorrect from the ones which are currently used now as the
rear yard lot pine. The next affected lot 1s under the ownership
of the developer, John Sandberg, in which Jay Miller has an
option to buy that lot. Mr. Sandberg has no problem with Jay
Miller applying for a variance on the sideyard setback for this
lot, but he does have objection to the taking of additional
footage from the next adjoining lot, Lot 8, to be annexed to
this lot in question to meet the minimum sidoyard setback requirements.
We are currently waiting for a revised copy of the Townhouse
Association Contract before giving recommendation to you one
way or another on it. we would, at come time before the next
lot is replatted for townhouses, seriously look at adding as
a condition to the Conditional Uaa to subdivide that lot more
sidoyard setback than the currently allowed sidoyard ootback
requirements in R-2, that being a 10 -foot sidoyard setback.
We would like to see the sidoyard setback increased to 20 foot,
the same as required in R-3 Zoning to accommodate more room
between townhouse unit buildings.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary roqucat to cubdivido on oxiating
lot into eight separate Iota for townhouacs with the common
area around the eight townhoucos proposed to be owned jointly
by an Incorporated Townhouse Association.
2. Deny the preliminary subdivision request to subdivide an
existing lot into eight separate Iota for eight townhouaca
with the common area around the eight townhouaca proposed
to be owned jointly by an Incorporated Townhouse Association.
3. Approve the preliminary subdivision request to subdivide
an existing lot into eight separate Iota for townhouaca
with the common area around the eight tovnhousea proposed
to be owned jointly by an Incorporated Townhouse Association
with the following conditions:
!M
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
a. The subdivision be granted conditionally until approval
of a sideyard variance is approved by Planning Commission
at their next regularly scheduled meeting, September 11,
1984.
b. That the Townhouse Association Agreement be reviewed by
City staff and City Attorney and be approved by their
recommendations.
c. That the sideyard setbacks in future subdivided lot
plata be increased to 20 -foot sideyard setbacks, the
same as required in R-3, instead of the currently required
setbacks in R-2 of 10 feet.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision request
to subdivide an existing lot into eight separate lots for townhouses
with the common area around the eight townhouses proposed to
be owned jointly by Incorporated Townhouse Association with
the conditions as attached in 03, a -c, under Alternative Actions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed preliminary plat of the Colony by the Greens;
( Copy of the Doclaratlon of the Covenants, Conditions 6 Restrictions;
Copy of tho proposed eight townhouse units; Copy of the minutes
of the Monticello Planning Commission.
-12-
I'�1ni
I-IEFERT DRIVE
•4awrfar-,r! J
.e to
wfr..nwr.ff•w.a 4-.wi.J .Y t. Tae iw �� ,, - secant teat rcty
— --- 21Zf.Od--.. � •'" � — <, . • ♦wa.. lo, 1491
ZONING R-2
6900 -.• .94,00. ►� a. .-it,00V..- .-c/,00•,FOR
{ toe.1 •'f V-dO.- _ . sl.Pd'.,'." t++.tt ,r!• io.09 _ Ll do • bN. YICCER
t a }} •I'r •�•w 0•.•»tl MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 35382
PREPARED BY
sit s- • • J .+ MEYER-ROHUH //VC
...,.... -t.,; .
- raaraal$• '
• ._........._. _ .....;..... .. � rinla9nN.�iaa�iuwia$an
1 .
t6 se Baia 1 f 240. ss.wa'+ y ✓` j Description _
�7 i g` / 2 s 4 S 6 1 r $, ;• ; j ;IFAR WEST
YIIICNT CgUNTT• MIRYCSQTA
O!W Qe.r IYa.1s 1 �..•i OKr �uf w' S
�" • iiliir •''J'd s 1•
Notal
T
i .
or To-naousot
6r10ft 000 , r.. ._�� $4.00•'•'•1{AO ' i, '.-e.. 1
{ 01sonsions to foundation
' $1.00 ••• Z400 ey tEs aF00•�` 4600 I (
are actual measured tlUtrnen
'09."
i
• Individual sot widtaa are approsinate
u COMM -ells have not been ostobl Lined
Typical #&rages &to 11 feet by 21 foot
G { v Typical deers A" /J for, by 10 toot 0
O •of rwwoe.4,w,+\OF Gcn tot Ls served W �-t
indldu&1
b l-sv.T+ed . 4fh ti L«af 2 arwr and -&tar services
- r .1 : PLAT DATA
7C'T&1 'a. aQ, 210 $0. R.
_i LOT i J.J96 0C• rt.
ryI,�, , IAT 1 1 1,069 "IN i0. t0. Rrt.
J(k•-•IM+: • l••+wr• , LCT .
LCT f 1.969 5
0. pR.
Lot f Lvesfts g0. rt.
• •a1 J 1.7 7 1.1to wT.
4T s J1,olt, s�. R.
COLONY BY THE GREEN
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATION, made on the dato hereinafter sot forth, by J.
W. MILLER and vivrAN MILLER, husband and wife, hereinafter collectively
referred to an "Declarants'.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Doclaranta are the owners of certain property in the County
of Wright, Stato of Minnesota, which is more particularly described
as:
_ NOW, THEREFORE, Doclarants hereby declare that all of the properties
described above shall be hold, sold and conveyed subject to the following
casements, restrictions, covenants and conditions, which aro for the
purpose of protecting the value and desirability of and which shell
run with the roal property and bo binding on all portion having any
right, titla, or interact In the described promisee or any part thereof,
their hoiro, ouccacoorc and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit
of each owner thereof. I
ARTICLE I.
Definitions
Osction 1. 'Association• shall moan and refer to COLONY ev TOB
GREEN HOKE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, its successors and assigns.
Section 2. ,'Owner' shall mean ane refer to the record owner Whether
one or more parsons or entitles,' but not in excess of two (2) nuclear
f families or entities or family partnerships containing more than two 121
families or entities or family partnerships containinq more than two
(2) families, of a fee simple title to any lot which is a part of the
properties, including contract sellers, but excluding those having such
interest merely a■ security for the performance of an obligation.
Section ]. 'Properties' shall mean and refer to that certain real
property hereinabove described, and such additions thereto as hereafter
be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association.
Section 6. 'Common Area' shall mean all real property owned by
the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the owners. The
Common Area to be owned by the Association at the time of the conveyance
I
of the first lot is described as follows:
Section S. 'Lot' shall mean and refer to any plat of land shown
upon any recorded subdivision map of the properties with the exception
of the common area.
Section 6. 'Declarant' shell mean and refer to J. W. MILLER and
VIVIAN MILLER, husband and wife, their successors and assigns.
ARTICLE II.
Property Rights
section 1. owners' Easements of Enjoyment. Every owner shall
have a right and casement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area which
I
shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every lot,
subject to the following provielonst
a. The right of the Association to suspend the voting rights and
right to use of the recreational facilities by an owner for
any period of time during which any assessment againnt his
Lot remains unpaidt and for a period not to exceed sixty (601
days for any infraction of its published rules and regulationat
i
PAGE -2-
b. The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or
y' an art of the Common Area to an blit agency, y p y pu q y, authority
or utility for such purposes and subject to ouch conditions
as may be agreed to by the members. No such dedication or
transfer shall be effective unless an instrument signed by
two-thirds of the members agreeing to ouch dedication or transfer
has been recorded.
C. The right of individual owners to the exclusive use of parking
spaces as provided in this Article.
Section 2. Delegation of Use. Any owner may delegate in accordance
with the By -Laws, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area and facilities
to the members of his family, his tenants, his guests or contract purchasers
who reside on the property.
Section 3. Parking Rights. ownership of each lot shall entitle
L
the owner or ownora thereof to the use of not more than two (2) automobile
parking spaces, which shall be as near and convenient to said Lot as
reasonably possible, together with the right of ingress and ogress in
and upon said parking aroa. The Association may provide for additional
vehicle parking.
Section 1. Rome Owners Association's Easement on Lots. Ownership
of each lot shall be subject to the Rome owner Association's right to
maintain and replace overhead and underground utilities such as telephone,
gas, electric, waterlines, sowar lines, roads, parking and walkways,
which may become necessary in the establishment of utilities and eaoementa
for the successful operation of COLONY BY THE GREEN,
ARTICLE I11.
Mombarohlp and voting Rights.
Section 1. Every owner of a lot which is oubject to assessment
PAGE -3-
C�
shall be a member of the Association. Membership shall be appurtenant
and may not be separated from owernship of any lot which is subject
to assessment.
Section 2. The owner of each lot shall be entitlod to one vote
for each lot owned. when more than one person holds an interest in
a Lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such Lot shall
be exercised as they among themselves determine, but in no event shall
more than Ono (1) vote be cast with respect to any Lot.
ARTICLE IV.
Covenant for Maintenance Assessments
Section 1. Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments.
The Doclarant, for each Lot owned within the Properties, hereby covenants
and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed 'therefor, whether
or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant 1
and agree to pay to the Associations (1) annual sosossmonts or charges,
end (2)) special assessments for captial improvement. Such ae0000ments
to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual
and spacial fees shall be a charge on the land, and shall be a continuing
lion upon the property against which each ouch assessment is made. Each
ouch assessment, together with interest, coats and roenonnble attorneys'
food, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the
Owner of such property at the time the assessment toll duo.
Section 2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by
the Association shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation,
health, safety end welfare of the resident@ in the properties and for
the improvements and maintenance of the Common Area and of the homes
situated upon the properties.
PAGE -4-
I�
Section 3. Minimum Annual Assessment.
The minimum annual assessment shall be S per Lot.
i
From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the.
conveyance of the first Lot to an owner, the minimum annual assessment
may only be increased after a vote of two-thirds of the members at a
meeting duly called for that purpose.
I
Section 4. Special Assessments for Capital Improvements. In addition
to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy,
in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to the year
only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the coot of
any construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital
improvement upon the Common Area, including fixtures and personal property
related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent
of a majority of the votes of members present at a meeting duly celled
for this purpose.
Section 5. Notice and Quorum for any Action Authorized Under Section
3 and 4. written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking
any action authorized under Section 3 or 4 shall be sent to all members
not lose than 30 days nor more than 60 days inadvanceof the meeting.
At the first such meeting celled, the presence of members at of proxies
constituting fifty (501) per cant of all the votes of the membership
i I
shall constitute a quorum., If the required quorum is not present, another
PACs -5- 1
0/
E
t
meeting may be called subject to the sale notice requirement, and the
1
required quorum at the subsequent mcetiag shall be one-half of the required
quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be
hold more than sixty 160) days following the preceding meeting.
Soction 6. Uniform Rate of Assessmcnt. Both annual and special
assassmcnts must be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots and may be
collected on a monthly basis.
Section 7. Data of Commencement of .Annual Assessments.- Due Date.
The monthly assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all
Lots on the First (let) day of the month -following the conveyance of
the Common Area. The first monthly assessments shall be adjusted according
I.
to the number of months remaining in the calender year. The Board of
Directors shall fix the amount of the monthly asnesoment against each
Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each monthly assessment
period. Written notice of the monthlyeI ameat shill be sent to every
1`
Owner subject thereto. The due dates shall ba cotablished by the Board
of Directors. The Association -shall, upon demand, acid for a reasonable
charSo, furnish a certificate signed by an officer oIf the association
I
setting forth whether the assessments on a specified Lot have boon paid.
Section 0. effect of Non -Payment of Assessments - Remedies of
the Association. Any Assessment not paid within thirty (10) days after
the due date shall, bear interest from the due date at the rate of twelve
(12%) per cant per annum. The Association may bring an action at lav
against the Owner personally obligated, to pay the came or foreclose
the lien aga#nat the property and interest, costs and roaannable attorneys*
Coco of any such action shall be added to the amount of assessments. r ��
Vic owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments
PACE ,
provided for herein by non-uso of the Common Area or abandonment of
hie Lot.
Section 9. Subordination of the Lion of Mortgages. The lien of
Assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of
any First Mortgage. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the
asr,essment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant
to mortgage Foreclosure or any proceeding,in lieu thereof, shall extinguish
the lien of such assessments as to payments which became due prior to
such sale transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve cath Lot from
liability for any assessments thereaf tar bocoming,due or from the lien
thoreof
ARTICLR V.
Architectural Control
Section 1. No building, fence, wall, tank or other accessory structure
above or underground shall be commenced, erected or maintained upon
the properties, nor shall any exterior addition to or change or alteration .
th erain be made until the plane and specifications shoving architecture.
kind, ,shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have been
cu bnitted to and approved In writing as to harmony of external design
and location in relation to eurrouding structures and topography by
the Board of Directors of the Assocla tion who shall constitute an architectural
committee. in the event that said Board fails to approve or disapprove
ouch design and location within sixty (60) days after said plan9"itnd
specifications have been submitted to it, approval w111 not be required
and this Article will be doomed to have boon duly complied with. Provided,
i
hawover, that the location end.r_onitracticn eomplioa with applicable
City and state Law.
PAGE —7- U�
ARTICLE VI.
� I
Uee Restrictions
Section 1.- Land Use and Building Type. �No Lot shall be used except
• I
for racreational and residential purposes. No building shall be erected,
altered, placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere
with the installation and maintenance of utilities, or which may change
the direction or flow of drainage channels in the easements or which
may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in ,
the easements. .The easement arca of each Lot and all improvements in
name shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the Lot, except
for those improvements fpr which a public authority, utility company
or Home Owners' Association is responsible.
Section 4. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall JJ
be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which
may be or may become an annoyance, nuisance or eyesore to the neighborhood.
Section S. Temporary Structures. No temporary structures, excavation,
basement, car bodies, trailers, campers, tensa ori elf -contained unite
shall be permitted in the subdivision except las may be stored in a garage
or shall be specifically authorized in writing bytheBoard of Birectora.
There shall novas be camping. cimpars or tenting allowed at any time.
Section 6. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayod to
I
the public view on any Lot except one name identification sign of not
more than one square foot, and one sign of not more than five 151 square
'feet advertising the property for sale or signs used by a builder or
roaltor to ,advertise the property during the sales period.
Section 7. Landscaping. All surface areas disturbed by construction
v
shall be returned promptly to their natural condition and replanted
in native grasses; but the Board of Directors may approve construction
of gardens and lawns. Living treeainaturally existing, except to the
extent necessary for construction purposes, shall not be cut or removed
from the properties, except that the Board of Directors may approve
some thinning or trimming of mature tress.
section S. Livestock and Poultry. No animals, livestock or poultry,
of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot except that dogs,
cats or other.. household pets may be kept provided that they are kept
inside and are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purposes.
Also provided that they are not allowed to annoy by odor or actions,
unnecessarily, the neighbors. All household pots shall always be under
control of their owners by leash. The Board of Directors may restrict
thio provision to the extent of forbidding all animals if at a future
time it shall become necessary.
Saction 9. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. No garbage, trash or
ashes or other refuse shall be thrown or dumped on any land within the
subdivision. Each property owner shall use the present receptacle for
the temporary storage and collection of refuse and all such receptacles
are to be provided and maintained by the Association.
section 14. Bight Preservation. No fence, wall, hedge, tree or
shrub which obstructs sight lines will be allowed except when expressly
waived or altered by the Board of Directors.
Section 11. Common Areas. All restrictions in this article shall
govern common areas except as followat (1) Buildings located within
common areas may not be used as dwelling units. (2) No commercial activities
shell be allowed. Lot owners shell have the right to use the common
areas in conformance with these covenants and according to the rules
PAGE -9-
and regulations not forth from time to time by the Board of Directors.
Section 12. Outside Storage. There shall be no outside storage
by any Lot owner, and outside storage shall be prohibited in general,
I
except where designated specifically by the Board of Directors.
Section 13. Clotheslines. There shall be no permanent clotheslines
erected within the subdivision.
Section 14. Utilities. All electrical,, sewer and water shall
be on private, individual meter basis and paid for individually by the
Lot owner.
Section 15. Plowing. The Association shall not be responsible
for any plowing expenses in the wintertime, and if any member of the
Association wishes access to his Townhouse, he shell have to make his
own arrangements for plowing and be responsible for the expense.
Section 16. Firearms. There shall be no discharging or carrying
of firearms within the common area, including BB guns, archery equipment - L
or slingshots.
Section 17. Rental. Rental of any Lot by an owner will be subject
to prior approval by the Board of Directors who shall be responsible
for setting any terms, policies or conditions to be imposed.
ARTICLE VII. i
Exterior Maintenance
The Common Areas shall be maintained by the Association and the
cost of such exterior maintenance shall be added to I and become a part
of an assessment to which the Lot may be subject. In the event an owner
of any Lot in the Properties shall fail to maintain the promises and
the improvements situated thereon in a manner Satisfactory to the Board
of Directors, the Association, after approval of majority veto of the
PAGE -10-
Board of Directors, shall have the right, through its agents and employees,
l
to enter upon said parcel and to repair, maintain and rector the Lot
and the exterior of the buildings and any other improvements erected
thereon. The cost of such exterior maintenance shall be added to and
become part of an assessment to which such Lot may be subject.
Section 1. Enforcement. The Association, or any Owner, shall
have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all
restrictions, conditions end covenants, reservations, liens and charges
now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. Failure
by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction
herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to
do so thereafter.
Section 2. Real Estate Taxes. All real estate taxes attributed
�l to the Common Areae shall be paid by and be the responsibility of the
Association. Amounto paid for real estate taxes by the Association
shall be passed on to the owners through their aooesomenta.
Section. 1. Saverability. Invalidation of any ono of these covenants
or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any
other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 4. Amendment. Any covenants and restriction. of this
I
I
Declaration shall run with and bind the land, for a term of twenty (20)
years from the date this! Declaration is recorded, after which time the
same shall be automatically extended for successive period of ten '1101
years.
This Declaration may be amended during the firet.twenty (201 year
period by an instrument signed by not loss than fifty-one (511) per
Ctent of the Lot owners and thereafter by an instrument signed by not
PAOQ -11- 0//
lose than Lilly -one (51%) per cent of the Lot o.me e.� Any Amendment Imo,
I I I I
must be recorded.
I
IN -WITNESS WHEREOF,1 the undersigned, being the IDeclaranto heroin,
1
have horeunto not their hands and veal this _day of ,
19_
I �
J. W. MILLER, Declarant
1
VIVIAN MILLER; Declarant
• I
I �I
i
II
I
I I
1 �i
I
1 i 1
PAGE -17
II
*A 0.,.Jf A P!q, 6
tno 24.00 WK
ZCoo
bi
Fl—
lot
240o Z4.00
c a, L4 co ca 0.00 Z,4 VA,
cr
24.00 -
fr40"C00k.00
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
S. Public Hearing - Subdivision of a Residential Got for Proposed
8 -unit Townhouses - Applicant, Jay Millar.
Jay Miller was present with his proposal to subdivide existing
Lot U. Block 4, into eight separate lots with a common area
around the eight townhouses to be owned jointly by an Incorporated
Townhouse Association. Jay indicated he would be short on the
south sideyard approximately 1-2 feet and that before the final
plat would be recorded he would make up the difference by expanding
the overall lot sire 1-2 feet to accommodate the shortage in
the south sideyard setback area. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded
by Richard Carlson, to approve the subdivision request to subdivide
an existing lot into eight separate lots for eight townhouses
with the common area around the eight townhouses to be owned
jointly by an Incorporated Townhouse Association, with the condition
being that the lot width be increased so that the south sideyard
setback area be a minimum of 10 fact as required by the City
Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
C
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
12. Consideration of a Conditional Use to Allow More than a 12 -unit
Apartment Building in an R -B Zone - Applicant, Riverview Manor
Apartments. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Brad Larson, Partner in the proposed Riverview Manor Apartment
building, is proposing to be allowed to build more than a 12 -unit
apartment building in an R -B Zone. Mr. Larson's partnership
is proposing to build a 31 -unit elderly housing project. The
building would be 25 stories in height, being strictly rented
to elderly only. The building would meet the current setbacks
required on the side and front yard setbacks, except in the
southwest corner of the proposed elderly building, where they
needed a variance request for a 20 -foot rear yard setback instead
of the required 30 -foot rear yard setback. The variance request
was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting on 8/14/84.
The building will accommodate 18 off-street parking spaces,
where 17 spaces are required, with one of those spaces required
for handicapped parking. One item in our parking ordinance
under the elderly housing requires that the developer have at
least one space per unit plus be able to show where additional
parking could be provided if the City Council, at some future
date, determines that the elderly housing project would need
additional parking. The proposed elderly housing apartment
building also meats the minimum square footage required for
lot size. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional
Use Request to allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building
in an R -B Zone.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Conditional Use, Request to allow more than a
12 -unit apartment building in an R -B Zone.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Request to allow more than a 12 -unit
apartment building in an R -B Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Request to
allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building, in this taco a
31 -unit apartment building with 18 off-street parking spaces
and one of those spaces for the handicapped. Also, the developer
must chow on his site plan whore additional parking spaces could
be put in if so needed at some point in time in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the proposed 31 -unit apartment
building; Copy of the site plan; Copy of the minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting.
-13-
use
1t �u�it� �t ildin
�ooj do p A 2�xlo
moY 8e ZO �o% RPat ss+tn
__.-.__.-_•--"•"` vet°i0 Na
1.� .,�' �i'tYI7 °R?t,;. .,-..F�Y%i"dn. fy1f' , 1�`�.� ``,+-•__'..,�_
f ti� i t j; i:« � ,i�r ' ' l f r •f`! j . ^) l : l .• v.,�
: r?�/` r� .� •fr/i r'17it1� ,• ! •t It+ r%.
;Jd. r J 1 / +
�+• r >Jt �A, 1 ft�� 7 6• tll�;� ,�l%i• 'ttw• 4?!/ •fr +d �•(• •fl t '" % �i •/
`f� l i i , p , r c'/ r''ar'' :1"rljllft 1,, �1;�;•. . �' J f
t i• •N �, "''-=•LJ �7^ • a.! `/ �: f% "I
� i r f 1 t rid �• •tit }' ! /f . •i o�'j � tc'Z', i"+�_ �•��-' ..-1 ���.�p
jj+/)yj:�•'f• t' �.��� ii r� rJ» r•
�=•��
11
t/' ��+�"1�1, �'`1.. ~yl�Ef/_!J1�• 'y:�j)j'r_.•*r'rl^i' Ysr�'r•"f',. " •y.+ , .. , y;� ~�' r;l� ' 'j!j�("[f,r'nur�ftt v. �r f./:(;.+`tS(•-�-y,+.•
�-•'�J.
_
1
� + � i r +..t r' � t .r } " , .,. `"�.( _� a• + t �f f-:-.-, .f JJ
��,ij„�'� ,P--^ � %�(1�.�lp+. � •'s+ry�'PF`\ � �A7 ih���•T+s.;,Jrti�+�•�.j�'�j'`
\, � .•-t,� "r + '+. : ,+W + ' a. J +Z't.,,, t, 'tit.. s�f - ::�.- —•.
IPI
HIGHWAY
NlGHWAY �••%••�•+�•
N0. 9 4 t
' "' ; z ..`,.. ••.rte ..j,.T.-.�.,. •`"^"""•°:L:!,•�+,
04,
P ' � -.tf1` +1 . 'i1L.. s' �� j `.•...
Ile
ff
\�+ • `t d •� \ a •` M
,,.'FROHT � -- •STREET
Rte/ ISA;?7
WRQ GuT
(, iib o� I
1zr .4��tr•�:��� �• •Q
t F r
110
UA
19
1:°.•j''r. \ \\ »I UNIT FM FIA \\\\t,•��.\���
r --
I ttr
L
fag
tn
.ni. tia .°. 4--J
N�[s�_.�.��ii
� r:r,`�••'t�...
avz PCs
iildC"'iLd
��.+'.'
.. :::fief
.�'�'�-. r'r-_'�--.moi. �-�
MISG»
�ia
I
_
�
'
F,cHTwt,
ry��INb
� rawylN�
Mt�� NA4
i
r --
I ttr
L
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
6. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow More than
a 12 -unit Apartment Building in an R -J Zone - Applicant, Riverview
Manor Apartments.
Mr. Brad Larson, partner in the proposed Riverview Manor Apartment
Building, is requesting to be allowed to build a 11 -unit elderly
housing apartment building in an R-1 Zone. Chairman Jim Ridgeway
asked Mr. Laraon if he was aware of the R -B Zoning proposed
in an earlier public hearing for the property; and he said he
was already aware of it. He had discussed with Zoning Administrator,
Gary Anderson, the possibility of R -B Zoning for their project
also. With no input from the public, motion vas made by Don
Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the conditional
use request to allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building,
a 11 -unit apartment building, with the condition that the rezoning
be approved by the City Council for the rezoning of the affected
property from B-4 to R -B Zoning. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
13. Consideration of Allowing the Conveyance of a 1 -Acro Parcel
by Metes and Bounds. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Several weeks ago, Jim Powers and Kent Kjollberg approached
City staff with a proposal to develop the 12 acres lying west
of the Ford Dealership. They planned to develop a Wendy's fastfood
stand, a sit-down restaurant, a motel, and the health club that
Powers had proposed a little over a year ago. Their inquiry
was centered around the sale of land to Wendy's so that they
could commence construction immediately. We indicated to them
that they would be unable to convey a 1 -acre parcel by metes
and bounds due to the provision of the Subdivision Ordinance
that requires any said conveyance to be a minimum of 5 acres.
We informed them that in order to convey parcels less than 5
acres they would be required to go through the subdivision process
and create lots and blocks. They indicated they were not very
willing to incur the type of expense that's involved with developing
a full subdivision proposal. Staff consequently recommended
they consider a Planned Unit Development for the site. We did
indicate that it was not necessarily a cheaper way to go but
could conceivably move faster than a subdivision since the concept
stage and preliminary stage could be presented at the same time
with the final phase taking place shortly thereafter. At the
Ce same time, I checked with John Uban at Howard Dahlgran to got
his opinion on allowing the conveyance of 1 acre by motes and
bounds. Uban indicated that he did not see that as a major
problem provided that some typo of contract was entered into
between the developers and the City that would guarantee the
completion of the Planned Unit Development and that the 1 acre
conveyed by mates and bounds have a statement at the and of
its description similar to "to be known as Lot 1 of XYZ Planned
Unit Development". In order to expedite the building process
for Wandy'o, we felt that it would be acceptable to allow the
conveyance by motes and bounds as long as a "to be known as"
description was attached.
After my discussions with Uban, we relayed that information
to Poware and Kjellborg, indicating that we could support the
conveyance of 1 acro by metas and bounds provided that we had
good proliminary plans for the PUD and that the 1 acro in question
clearly was shown to be a lot in the PUD. This is whore some
of Cho difficulty eventually arose. The concept plan and design
plan were not done by professional planners and, consequently,
were presantod in an incomplete fashion. In reviewing their
proposals, the major quaotion that ar000 had to do with the
dedication of public streets versus private drivowaya, private
sower, private water. Still attempting to expodito the process,
we agreed to lot Poware and Kjollborg have their public hearing
on tho concept stage of the PUD in front of the Planning Commission,
while in the moan time working with them to davolop the plan
-14-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
to an acceptable standard. The plan was undergoing revisions
on a daily basis during this period. Copies were submitted
both to the Engineer and the Planner for their review and comments
were received.
At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, there
was consensus amongst the members of the Commission that the
notion of a commercial PUD in this area was acceptable and perhaps
even desirable. Jim Ridgeway, however, indicated some serious
concern over a major outlet that had been designed into the
PUD. He indicated that the Planning Commission had been very
detailed in their review in past PUD's in order to look at a
PUD concept as an overall single development. He felt that
the existence of an outlet with no plans whatsoever for development
was totally inconsistent with the notion of a Planned Unit Development.
One suggestion was that the 12 -acre parcel be divided into 5-6
acres on the north side which would be the Planned Unit Development
and the remaining acreage on the south side which would simply
be excluded from the development to be reviewed at a later time.
Staff and Commission members pretty much agreed that there were
several questions to be answered, but at this time the sale
of the I -acre parcel was still imminent. After considerable
discussion and negotiation with the developers and their
attorney, Brad Larson, it woo agreed that the 1 -acre parcel
be allowed to be convoyed provided that a detailed development
contract be entered into between the City and the developers
and other associate parties that will guarantee the timely completion
of the PUD. Part of that agreement will contain a provision
that the Wondy'o developers can receive a building permit and
begin construction, but they will not receive a Certificate
of Occupancy until the Planned Unit Development has boon completed
through the design stage with full approval. Construction,
in fact, may occur over a much longer period, but the recording
of the PUD must be complete before wendy'a can occupy their
building and open for business. We feel this adequately protects
the City from an occurrence that once the 1 acre has been cold
to Wendy's the developers coy, "well, wo'ro not particularly
interested in developing anymore, so we'll just lot it stand".
What we have attempted to do in grant a temporary variance to
the Ordinance or basically atop outside of the restrictions
of the Ordinance but guarantee full compliance within a specified
period of time.
The only question before you at this mooting is whether or not
to allow the conveyance of a 1 -acre parcel by motes and bounds.
The PUD as presented has pretty much boon rejected at the Planning
Commission level because of design inequities. The idea of
a commercial PUD in the area is acceptable, and the developers
have boon sent back to refine their proposal. When and if that
comes to complete design standard, then the PUD will come to
you. Although you aro not addressing the actual PUD at this
_15_
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
time, but rather only the conveyance of a 1 -acre parcel, I realize
you must be aware of the overall plan. The article in the newspaper
was as illuminating as any material we could present to you
at this time. The development does not have a complete drainage
and erosion plan, does not have a street system designed and
laid out, has not resolved the issues of public versus private
utilities. Staff feels these are all details that need to be
resolved between the developers, staff, and the appropriate
consultants so that when the concept plan comes back before
the Planning Commission and eventually the Council there is
full agreement in design standards.
The development contract that is being prepared has not yet
reached its final form. It is hoped that this contract will
be complete and have been reviewed by the City Attorney for
City protection by Monday night. If the contract is complete,
the motion would be to authorize the Mayor and Administrator
to execute that contract and to allow the conveyance by metes
and bounds of a I -acre parcel. If the contract is not yet complete,
your motion could read that the Mayor and Administrator be directed
to execute a completed contract upon approval by the City Attorney
and that the conveyance by motes and bounds of the 1 -acre parcel
be allowed but contingent upon the execution of said agreement.
/l B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
` 1. Allow the conveyance of the 1 -acro parcel to expedite, the
construction of Wendy's - I think it is absolutely essential
for City protection that the contract be a part of any allowance
to convoy. You, of course, have the option to allow the
conveyance oven without the contract, but I don't consider
that a real alternative. This alternative is meant to encompass
both possibilities that either the contract is ready at
the time of the meeting or will coon be ready shortly thereafter.
2. Deny the conveyance by motes and bounds of the 1 -acro parcel -
your rationale would have to depend upon the strict enforcement
of the letter of the Ordinance whore it states that ouch
a conveyance cannot occur. This alternative would atop
the 1984 construction, since in my estimation the PUD in
not close enough to final form to receive Planning Commission
and Council action within the next month.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Both Planning Commission and staff recommend that the conveyance
be allowed but only if a development contract has boon approved
by the City and executed by all affected parties. We think
that allowing the conveyance and granting of the building permit
will allow 1984 construction, which is what Wandy'o desires,
but by withholding the Certificate of Occupancy. Wandy'o will
bring prosouro to boar on the developer's to complete their
and of the proposal.
-1G-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the map indicating the site to be conveyed; Copy of
the proposal for the PUD which has, at this point, been rejected;
Copy of the Ordinance regulation; Copies of correspondence regarding
this matter; Copy of the Planning Commission minutes; (if available)
Copy of the development contract to be executed to allow the
conveyance.
-17-
5.2
Ob
lie
1-94
Powers Strength
ficalth Club
r
t,, J*kkWt
CON= r
For
1-94 PLAZA
A Planned Unit Development
Monticello, Minnesota
August, 1984
Preparod by:
Kent K,jellberg and Jamas Powors
Introduction
'Ihe proposee project for City review includes an approximately 12J acre parcel
of unimproved, open, untreed land bounded on the North by the frontage road, on the
Fast. by Monticello Ford,.on the South by Sandberg South and on the West by Marvin
Road.
Project Development
Ibis planned unit development is intended to be a practically aesthetic blend
of co®ercial enterprises. It is anticipated that the ccumercial enterprises will
include, but not be limited to,.a fast-food sit-down restaurant located on Lot 1,
(tentatively' Wendy' s), a sit-down restaurant located on lnt.2 (anticipated to be
Pannekoeken Huis), a proposed Health Club with some professional office space within
it on Lot 3, and on Lot 4 a 38 .unit Hotel. The Wendy's Restauront.is projected
to contain 2,300 square feet, Pannekoeken Huis Restaurant 5,240 square feet, the
Health Club and sales and office area 23,815 square feet and the proposed Motel 5,734
square feet. As you will notice on the Concept Plan which is attached to this report,
lots 1, 2, 3 and 4•are 'somewhat larger than the buildings located on than, and
this oversizing is to anticipate and plan for future expansion of these facilities.
The four proposed improvements all lie on the Northerly approximately six acres of
this parcel. the projected Concept Plan complies with the City's Ordinance and
contains 323 parking spaces, as well as expansion room for more. A topographic
,water drainage plan has been attached to this report and it's perusal will reveal
that the Northwest portion of the promises that will be inproved, a large'najority
being roofed and covered with bituminous paving, will flow towards Marvin Road and
to the South. On the Northwesterly two lots of Sandberg South there is a storm
pond created, and it is anticipated by the Developers that this pond will have to' J
be expandod.unto their own property to acoommdato adequate storm water run off and
possibly seek an easement under Marvin Road to the West, for excess drainage from
the pond to handle storm water.
The sewer and water stubs are in the Northerly end of Sandberg South and since
this a P.U.D. Development, the sewer and water would be installed according to state
specifications of being privately owned and maintained and a restrictive covenant
recorded against the land, which would give the City of Monticello the right to
install water meters and the right of shut-off for non-payment. The Southerly six
acres of the parcel would be unplatted and retained for future expansion and develop-
ment, at this time.
Site Analysis
Ttue site consists of rolling hills that are open without woods and sone
wet land, due to ponding on the Southwest corner. This site is surnwnded by
carmercially developed or platted land, except West of Marvin Road, South of the
parcel owned by Olson & Sons Electric, Inc.
Circulation
The circulation of traffic is proposed by a frontage road, Marvin Road and
through driveways puovided'within the P.U.D. The object of private non -dedicated
roadways within the P.U.D. is to cut down on the amount and speed of through traffic,
although the public will have the right of ingress and egress throughout the parcel.
DATA SHEET
Land Owners James Powers
Route 1, Box 3718
Partnership Monticello, MN. 55362
Powers Strength Kent Kjellberg
Kjellberg Park
Monticello, MN. 55362
APPLICANT: Same
Professionals to Consultante:
Surveyor:
Taylor Land Surveyors
Monticello, MN.
Attorney:
Larson 6 Metcalf
Attorneys -at -Law
Monticello, MN.
Engineer:
Winkleman Enterprises, Inc.
P. O. Box 1144
St. Cloud, MN. 56301
Existing Zoning:
Construction Steges:
B-3 Property and all adjoining.
Lot 1 ---
Wendy's would be started September, 1984:
complotod in 90 days.
Lot 3 and Lot 4 ---
Health Club (Lot 3) Motel (Lot 4) started in
September, 1984; completed in 120 days.
Lot 2 --
Family restaurant to start in spring of 1985;
completed in 90 days.
I . ,
REGISTERED LAND SURVETS AND CONVEYANCE BY METSS AND BOUNDS
SECTION:
11-8-1+ Registered Land Surveys
11-8-2t Conveyance by Metes and Bounds
11-8-1: REGISTERED SAND SURVEYS: It is the intention of this Or-
dinance that all registered land surveys in the City of
Monticello should be presented to the Planning Commission in the form
of a preliminary plat in accordance with the standards set forth in this
Ordinance for preliminary plats and that the Planning Commission shall
first approve the arrangement, sizes, and relationship of proposed tracts
in such registered land surveys, and that tracts to be used as casements
or roads should be so dedicated. Unless a recommendation and approval
have been obtained from the Planning Commission and City Council re-
spectively, in accordance with the standards sot forth in this Ordinance,
building permits will be withheld for buildings on tracts which have been
so subdivided by registered land surveys and the City may refuse to take
over tracts as streets or roads or to improve, repair or maintain any such
tracts unless so approved.
11-8-2: CONVEYANCE BY METES AND SOUNDS: No conveyance in which the
land conveyed is described by mates and bounds shall be made
or recorded if the parcels described in the conveyance aro five (5) acres
or leas, in area and three hundred (100) feet in width unless ouch parcel
was a separate parcel of record at the effective data of this ordinance.
building permits will be withheld for buildings or tracts which have been
subdivided and conveyed by this method and the City may refuse to take
over tracts as streets or roads or to improve, repair of maintain any suc'
tracts.
' 0/3
Consulonq Planners One Groveland Terrace 1`61211U.M6
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55403
Howard Dahlgren A-wodates / Incorporated
DATE: ' 13 August 1984
TO: Gary Anderson, Planning Coordinator
Members of the Planning Commission
CITY OF MONTICELLO
FROMi C. John Uban
RE e I-94 Plaza A Commercial Planned Unit Development Proposed by Kent
Kjollberg and James Powers
The Comprehensive plan calls for commercial in the area proposed as the
commercial P.U.D. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
In the preparation of the 1-94 Plaza concept the proponents should have used
professionals who were experienced in the area of land planning. Under
Chapter 20 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-20-1 (D) "Higher standards of
site planning and building design aro encouraged through the use of trained
and experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects." The
present site plan has many problems listed below.
1. The concept submitted does not show the proposed land uses on the
total of the property. A full concept plan must be submitted for
approval at thia stage.
2. Sandbargs Road, a public street, must be completed and linked either to
frontage road Oakwood Drive, or to Marvin Road just wast of the property.
Switching suddenly from a public road to a private road as proposed in
the submitted. plan will of meet circulation and safety requirements
of the city. Enclosed you will find a cross section of a typical
private street which will function much as a public &treat will. The
streets proposed within this dovelopment do not moot this minimum standard.
3. The proposed parking pattern is under designed having only a 55 foot
parking bay. The ordinance calls for parking stalls to be 20 fact in
depth with a 24 foot aisle. Thio standard must be mot in all cocoa.
The small islands left within the parking lot provide no recognized
function. Once care aro parked against these narrow islands there will
bo no room for people to walk along them plus they will inhibit the
efficient removal of anow within the property. They aro not wide
enough for plantings as onow and care will be bumping into constantly.
Islands within parking area should have a minimum of ten foot in width
as that they can accomodate the necessary plantings and/or sidewalk system.
/3
V,
Page 2
The Parking circulation to the north stops in many dead end aisles which
are highly cumbersome when it comes to searching for parking stalls. This
parking pattern should be revised having a circular access system totally
throughout the parking lots.
4.i The proposed access point to Oakwood Drive meets at an accute angle
and does not accomodate good sightlines and entrance geometry. This
road should be aligned perpendicular to Oakwood Drive.
5. The incomplete plan points out many other problems left on the site. The
80 foot strip directly west of lot 3 is not of sufficient size to accomo-
date anything except parking. The only parking that this would serve
would be the health club itself or the motel and this should have been
included then in the P.U.D. concept plan.
Other areas of the site are also left in what I believe to be a poor de-
velopable condition. On the cast perimeter of the property is a narrow
area caught between the private road and the property line. This
narrow strip is about 115 feet at its widest point and only 70 feet
in its narrowest point. This is not a piece of land that can be easily
developed in a manner pleasing to the overall concept.
Additionally there is a narrow strip of land approximately 35 feat in
width that adjoins the property to the right of way of State Highway 25.
From the plan submitted the best location evident for the road extension
from Sandberg Road would be along the eastern property line leaving a
largo outlot without separating small strips to the cast.
G. Also proposed within this development is parking directly off the right
of way of Marvin Road. This is adjacent to the proposed motel. Public
roads should not be used for the circulation of parking lots. Although
an island is shown out on the right of way, the actual access and
circulation for this parking lot is within the right of way of the road.
7. The following items were not completed in the general concept stage.
Thera was no exhibit showing zoning classification and present land use
of all property within 1000 feat; thero was no exhibit showing precioe
location of existing streets, property linea easements, water mains,
ootrm and sanitary sawars, invert elevations within 100 feet of the
property; the written statement did not cover the intention of the
control of the common area in which many mnintenance items must be
addressed; the analysis of the site was very poor and did not completely
address the neccosnry items; there was not a comploto drawing showing
the total concept pinn; there was no staging of the development plant the
utilities and storm drainage system ahould have adequately covered the
entiro site.
0. SUMMARY STATEMENT
I believe the proposed uses would work wall on the site, however I be-
liovo much has to be done with site planning to create a package ra-
sponoible to the concerns of the city and addressing the needs of all
the.future development within the area.
1
'loft
IU
C i
s.
r
Q7
Q
O
1
l4ft 14ft.
501t Road Easement
10 �
Proposed Road Easement Section P\ -e. !-- I*,
In response to John Urbans comments on I-94 Plaza:
Item 1. If truth and honesty have a place left in our society a full concept
plan cannot be submitted at this time, "For we know not what tomorrow
brings".
There are roughly 5 acres to the south of the Health club that can be
developed in a number of ways. Present intent is to use it for a
number of outdoor recreational activities. In the future we hope to
construct for indoor ten -Us.
The property could be sold for other business interests.
Certainly we can be deceptive and depict some dream for the property
that may never come to reality. Therefore we left this area as a
vacant lot.
Item 2. Sandburr Road and Oakwood drive can be linked with a street through
the property.
This should be done by keeping the street on the oastern boundry of
the property for the following reasons:
Answers Item 5, para 2. It lays waste to as small amount of property
as possible.
It follows the route of and covers the %,star and sewer.
We prefer to keep it private rather than public but we will bow to
the wishes of the city if they so desire.
We wish to build the road ourselves because of the coot and not have
to complete it for at least a year. We did not have the funds and
did not attempt to finance for this additionnl expense.
We do believe that keeping it private will exceed the citios safety
requirement. It is a long etreatch and will invite speed thus a
curve in it will tend to slow traffic and if need be ripple strips
can be placed in a private road.
Also by allowing it to sit for a period of time vill allow for the
earth to settle over the area dug for water and sewer.
Item 3. The parking plan will be adjusted to meet the city ordinance, out
contractor used the State standard.
Some islands can be eliminated and others enlarged.
Item 4. Will change as proposed by the planner.
Itam 5. Para I. This 801 strip is to hn added to lot 3
Para 2. See Item 2
Parra 3. At this point' in time wo have no idea what to do with this
strip of land.
Item 6. This is probably a misunderstanding by the planner. The parking
is to accomodate the lower "walkout" portion of the motel. Access
is not from Marvin Road but from the parking lot.
Item 7. Zoning is all 8-3 .dthin 10001
The adjoining streets are shot7n--Sandburg Rd.--Oakwood Drive--Marvin Rd.
The property lines are shown. There are no easements.
Water and serer lines are sho,m.
J
ORR•SCHELEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors August 13, 1984
Mr. Gary Anderson, Building Official
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello. MN 55362
Re: Planned Unit Development - I-94 Plaza
Dear Gary:
On Friday, August 10, 1984, Jim Powers of Monticello delivered to try office a
concept report for 1-94 Plaza, a planned unit development in Monticello west of
Monticello Ford. Attached to the report was a topographical map and a general
plan showing the building and parking lot layout by the contractor.
Reference is made in the concept plan report that a topgraphic water drainage
plan was attached to this report. Other than the map indicating existing con-
tours, no drainage plan which would show finished contours, building elevations,
parking lot elevations, etc., was transmitted. Also attached to the report that
indicated an agreement was 'reached with Milt Olson. owner of the property west of
Marvin Road, that the planned unit development would drain into his property
behind his office. The concept plan report also states that the drainage will
flow towards Marvin Road to the south, and the drainage pond in Sandberg South
Subdivision will be enlarged.
All this information is not supported by anything, so I cannot review or
recommend how the drainage from this development may or may not affect the area.
it is known that certain low areas exist west of this property and Marvin Road
that could be utilized for ponding on a temporary basis. The ultimate drainage
for this entire area, including the Sandberg South Pond, is in the so-called
'wetlands' area west of Highway 25 and southwesterly of Marvin Road. At one
time, I indicated that the City should acquire this low area for future ponding.
Until more information is available regarding the finished drainage plan. I
cannot act upon this planned unit development.
If you have any questions in this regard, please call me.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
P ASSOCIATES, !NC.
JohnP.BBaaddalich P.E.
ity Engineer
JPB:nlb
i
cc: Thomas Eidem, City Administrator i 13
2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 • 6121337 - 8660
POWERS PROPERTY
COMMENTS
1. Sever & Water Lines:
A. Who will maintain and/or own.
B. If City owned & maintained:
1. Construction plans & specs to PCA & MN Health Dept?
2. What about access?
3. What about repairs especially restoration? Could
be costly.
C. If development owned & maintained:
1. Access to shut offs.
2. Hook-up chargee?
3. Schedule or maint. by developer or pay City for
contracted services.
4. Construction still must meet City Standards.
2. Street:
A. Where? Large area for no streets.
D. Right angle driveways t0 streets.
C. Snowplowing at Sandberg South (turn -a -round).
3. Drainage:
A. Drainage to west will incroaso water level in low area to
a height as to make Olson's sever system unusable.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
7. Public Hearinq - Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for Planned
Unit Development - Applicants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg.
Mr. Brad Larson, representing Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg,
the applicants, presented a proposal for a Planned Unit Development
on approximately 12.48 acres of land previously owned by Mr.
Larry Flake adjacent to Monticello Ford property. Mr. Larson
indicated that the plans weren't as elaborate as what would
be done by profesaional planners, but they were adequate to
meet the needs of the City and conditions that have been addressed
by the Consulting Planner's comments have all been addressed
by the applicants. They are willing to abide by whatever the
City wishes to expedite the project. Mr. Larson indicated the
urgency being that one phase of the project would be a Wendy's
Restaurant, and they are anxiously awaiting to commence with
construction. From the City's standpoint, we sea no problem
with them getting started with their project, as the Wendy's
project could be built on one corner of the site but would be
the only allowable building to be built on the 12.48 acro site
until the P.U.D. is approved by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Much discussion centered on the proposed roadway
through the P.U.D., whether it be a public or private roadway,
and also the water and sever lines, whether they be private
or public linos. The applicants agreed that they intend to
put in whatever the City wishes. The City has very strong feelings
that the public utilities, the underground water and sewer lines,
be public linea am we could monitor the lines when they are
installed and also take care of the lines once they aro installed.
We had no problem with a private street being run through the
property, but we did have a problem with the public street,
Sandberg Road, dead -ending at their property and a private road
starting from there. We wanted a continuation of the public
road, Sandberg Road, directly through to Oakwood Drive or go
westward and hook up with Marvin Road. Mr. Larson indicated
that it the City wishes, it would be a public through roadway
to Oakwood Drive. Chairman Jim Ridgeway asked if there were
any commonto from the public. Mr. Dan Gooman questioned if
there would be any affect on any development of Sandberg South
Addition from this proposed P.U.D. Zoning Administrator Anderson
countered that there would be no effect on Sandberg South Addition.
Motion by Don Cochran, ascended by Joyce Dowling, to recommend
to the City Council that it approve the conveyance by a mscto
and bounds of a parcel not more than 1 acre legal description
attached so Exhibit A provided that: 1) said parcel contain
access to a public street; 2) the appropriate utility casement
ahall be retained around its parimatere; 31 said parcel ahall
be given a future designation by lot number as part of a proposed
P.U.D. to be developed and recorded; 41 prior to the conveyance
there be drafted, given approval by the City Attorney, and signed
by the City Administrator of the City (and Jim Powers, Kent
Kjollborg, the owners/dovolopors of the proposed Wendy's and
all owners of record as dovolomant parties) a• development
contract to be recorded an a dead restriction over and on the
remaining acreage which will guarantee the timely completion
of the propound D.U.O. Motion carried unanimously.
9
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
14. Consideration of Issuing 3.2 Beer Off -Sale License - Applicant.
Plaza Car Wash. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Gary and Diane Yonak of Buffalo, Minnesota, recently applied
for an off -sale 3.2 beer license for the new Plaza Car Wash
and Food Mart that will be opening within the next few weeks.
The Yonak's will be purchasing the property from Sam Peraro,
who is currently building the facility on South Highway 25.
All new off -sale beer licenses must be approved by the City
Council before issuance and thereafter would be renewed annually
on July 1 with the rest of the City liquor licenses. The annual
fee of $50.00 would be pro -rated the first year.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the license be issued.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-18-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
15. Consideration of Fire Alarm System for Library. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 1984, Ms. JoAnn Langley, a technical specialist in
industrial hygiene, made a routine inspection of all of the
City of Monticello facilities for the Loss Control Division
of the Home Insurance Company. The Home Insurance Company insures
the City of Monticello through the Foster -Franzen Agency. After
the completion of the routine inspection, the Home Insurance
Company forwarded a letter to the City of Monticello on June 22,
1984. That letter contained three recommendations or suggestions
for the City of Monticello. Our compliance with these recommendations
and/or suggestions is necessary to continue the insurability
of City property and/or activities.
Two of the suggestions or recommendations were easy to comply
with. One of the recommendations was that the City of Monticello
review annually all of the motor vehicle records for all City
employees and take action against those employees with serious
violations. In addition, we were requested to investigate the
driving records of all new employees. The City of Monticello
is currently doing this.
The second recommendation involves completion of an OSHA 200
�( accident log. The City of Monticello has completed these in
i the past, and we have now brought our records up to date.
The third suggestion or recommendation involves the installation
of a life safety, early detection, automatic fire alarm system
in the Library, a system that would be monitored by an approved
central station such as the Wright County Sheriff's Department.
I discussed the system with Mr. Harvey A. Burne of the Homo
Insurance Company in July. We discussed the need for a supervised
24-hour monitored alarm system. With ouch a system, a signal
is automatically sent to the Sheriff's Department indicating
a fire, or in the case of a problem with the alarm system, a
signal is also sent to the Wright County Sheriff's Department.
I contacted two companies to obtain prices for the installation
of such a system. The first firm I contacted was Sentry Systems,
Inc., of Blaine, Minnesota. This firm currently provides the
burglary protection system for the water reservoir. The second
firm I contacted wan Armour Alarm Systems from Minneapolis.
Representatives of both firma conducted an on-aito inspection
of the Monticello Public Library.
The fire alarm system itself would consist of approximately
nix smoke detectors placed throughout tho Library, the office
area, and hallway areas. in the conference room and utility
room, host detectors would be placed rather than smoke detectors.
Thar. would be an emergency pull station which would sand an
automatic signal to the Shoriff'o Department at each
-19-
[1
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
front entrance and north entrance. There would be one bell
inside the building and one bell outside the building to indicate
activation of the alarm system. The quote from Sentry Systems
includes a main panel control unit in the entry way to the Library.
Upon entering this area, the firemen could tell the exact location
of the fire within the building.
We have obtained bide not only for the purchase but also for
the leasing of the equipment. In either case, whether leased
or owned, there would be an additional line rental or access
rental to the Sheriff's Department of approximately $15.00 per
month.
BIDS
Sentry Systema - purchase $ 1,845.00
lease per month S 73.18
Armour Alarms - purchase 52,156.78 (not including
lease per month module)
Either one of the above companies could install a system within
the next few weeks.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
We are not presenting alternative actions for this item, as
the insurance company has recommended this alarm system and
have indicated that this can affect our insurance rates as wall
as overall insurability of the City of Monticello.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that we accept the bid of
$1,845.00 from Santry and have the equipment installed
as soon as possible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Home Insurance Company dated June 22, 1984; Letter
to Homo Insurance Company dated August 17, 1984; Bids from Santry
Systems and Armour.
-Note: The bid from Armour is in the mail and will arrive Monday.
-20-
LOSS�C �e�'�±nrJr ' Mr5 bn^' J �MPAM1isuggestions and Recommendations
F (— -1
City of Monticello Foster -Franzen Agency, Inc.
Highway 75 -Broadway 200 West Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362 Monticello, MN 55362
L --I L
June 22, 1984
Gentlemen:
RE: Policy Number: IST 6 17 96, PWC 7 39 68, BA 7 45 50
As theresult of an June 6, 1984 inspection by Joanne Laney of
the location in caption, we have the following recommendations
to call to your attention:
84-6-1. Due to the combustability of the contents and life
safety considerations, an early detection/automatic
fire alarm system should be installed in the library.
�. This system should be monitored by a approved "central
station" alarm company.
84-6-2. An annual review of motor vehicle records should be
conducted on all city employees required to drive vehicles.
Action should be taken against those employees with
serious violations. All new employees should not be
permitted to drive vehicles until motor vehicle
records are varified.
84-6-3. An OSHA 200 log (previously forwarded) should be
completed on an annual basis as required by OSHA
standards.
Please indicate the corrective action taken with regard to all
items on the carbon copy of this letter. It should be returned
to us within 30 days in the enclosed envelope in order that we
may arrange for a reinspection.
Very truly yours,
/7Q/ll/p'j�J� G 13e. s
Harvey A. Borns
Loss Control Manager
Minneapolis, Minnesota
(612) 921-1117
HAD:crk
SEE IMPORTANT NOTICE ON REVERSE SIUE C/5)_
Y_L3
olel_ _IMPORTANT NOTICE_ y
3�cause it is sy your responsibility to make safety and health inspections and take whatever action may
o necessary to prevent losses, enforce safety procedures, detect and eliminate hazardous conditions,andcomply
.Alh any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation concerning safety or health, wo must advise you as follows:
(1) By conducting inspections and issuing recommendations or reports, 1he•Company does not
undertake to render services to you or for your benefit or to any third person or for that per-
son's benefit and does not assume any duty to you or any duty owed by you to any third per-
son.
(2) Inspections and recommendations are made solely for the purpose of aiding us in determining
the insurability of your property and/or activities: they, are not intended to detect or to point out
hazardous -conditions on your'property.
(5) There may be hazardous eondiliohs on your,properly whieh.have not been either detected or
pointed out to you. You must not rely on the (nspectiun, rocommondations or reports to discover
any hazardous conditions on your property..
(4) You must not rely on Iho Company to remedy any- hazardous conditions on your property.
Phone(612)295-2711
Morro Ie, 2) 333-5739
MOyw:
ANO Grimsmo
City Council;
Don Blonigen
Fran Foo
Kenneth Maua
Jack MM 011
Administrator.
Tom Eidom
Finance Otroctw:
Rick Woeatee[r
Public Works:
John Simla
Planning 8 Zoning:
Dory Anderson
C,il y o/ Monticello
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
August 17, 1984
The Home Insurance Company
7600 France Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Attn: Mr. Harvey A. Berns, Loss Control Manager
Re: Policy Number IST61796, PWC73968, BA74550, City
of Monticello
Gentlemen:
This letter In in regard to that received from your company
on June 22, 1984. In your letter you requested that the
City consider following throe recommendations ae to loan
control suggestions.
1. The City of Monticello has obtained a quota for the
Installation of an automatic fire alarm system for
the Monticello Public Library. This item will be brought
before the Monticello City Council on August 27, 1984.
2. The City of Monticello has collected driver license
numbers from all City employees who are required to
drive vehicles. These individuals' driving records
are now being chocked. We shall make It a City policy
that all now employees will not be permitted to drive
until motor vehicle records are verified.
3. An OSHA 200 Log hos boon completed for the City of
Monticello. We will continuo to complete this form
on an annual basis as required by OSHA otandardo.
If you have any questions or if we may be of any further
assistance in regard
to this matter, please contact us.
X7Zfully ,I//J`r`.
1.h. 1. Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
J6S/kad
cc: Poster Franzen Agency, Inc.
Tom Bidem, CA
Insurance me
Cut Bre
Ra 833
Hours 4, Bas 533
Monticsso. MN 55382 015-
SE
ISNCC. �
Monticello Public Library
Monticello,
MN
612/426-4627
1873 EAST MAIN ST. HUGO, MINNESOTA 55038
August 14, 1984
Subjects Proposal for fire alarm system
(1)
Main control unit -4 sone
695.00
(2)
Pull stations (1)front entry (1) side 'entry
160.00
(6)
Smoke detectors main library
1 east office
14�
1 hallway
750.00
(2)
Fixed temp (rate of rise "hent" detoctors)
(1) utility room
(1) conference room
150.00
/ (2)
Bolls (1) outside (1) inoido
90.00
(1)
Siron (exterior)
—84.A9-
Total
81930.00
ar
Id
Subjects Burglar alarm system
1945-00
(1)
Main control unit
465.00
(5)
Door to secure (2) front (1) aide (2) inner leading
from conference
room
200.00
(2)
Interior movement sensors (infra -red)
(1) each and of main library room
450.00
(1)
Digital on a off pad wlannuciator
95.00
Total
81210.00
.�
85.00
�s
1295.00
Sold • Alarm Protection Equipment 0 Leased �.
SENTRY
S YS TENS
jr / I NC.
LEASE AGREEMENT
Lessee:
Route /2 Hugo, Minn. 55038
Phone (612) 426-4627
110n+4-11^ Pnhlin Library Flro Ge Burrinry Protectinn
Address: City Man•4 —11 State Mu_
Location of Equipment: Public Library
The undeReigned, heaeina6tea. called the Lessee, agaees to tease 11100SENTRY SYSTEMS Ino.,heaeina6teA Catted the Leesoa, the equipment de-
eeaibed below, undea the teams and conditions set 6oath.
r Per Month
Fire p-otectiod equipment as described on proposal 1910 00
installation coe6 Win nn
I Lease cant nl+a mo itorinv n — mn. 7! +Q
Burrrla � alarm c ratom as deaaribod on nroeoanl 1 oln nn
installntion ngat 91§ ^
!,ease cost oar. mo. +i
Both a-stons - [nntnllntion 4975 n3 T.nann
Base Period of Leaset months, beginninq 19_
and ending 19
The lessee agaees to pay the Lesso+t as aentat theRe601 as 6olt004:
$ on 19 and equal
successive payments, beginKinq It
Aft r the bene neriod of this lease, the lease may to renewed automatically
from ,year to year unless terminated by either party by written notice to
the other narty, given not less than thirty days immediatly prior to any
onnivernary date there of.
the 3Freor in not an ineurer and does not undertake to guarantee against
anyoT ne or damage to the Subscriber by rearon of any burglary, theft, fire o'
any other cause, nor shall the lessor in any wise be liable in any such event
by reneon of any neglifence or oversight on the part of any of its emoloyeee.
{'either party shall ch anae the terms of this contract except by mutual
coneent in writinp.
Executed by the lessee tUA day od to
Accepted$ MIMI STOTEMSO Inc. LUMs
Date 10
Vats,* `/ s�
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
16. Consideration of the Appointment of Election Judges for the
1984 Primary Election and 1984 General Election. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statute requires the City Council to appoint election
judges to serve at both elections. Each election year requires
new appointments even though persons may be repeating their
duties. In the past, we have appointed nearly 30 judges to
serve on our election nights, but we have reduced that number
to 16. The following 16 persons are willing to serve as judges:
Jeannette Host
Anne Voll
JoAnne Link
Leona Kline
Carolyn Phillipe
JoAnne Becker
Bette Grossnicklo
Rita Brouillard
Bob Jameson
Ruth Harstad
Lucille Clemson
Mary Trunnoll
4- Don Nagel
Fern Anderson
Marie Toonjoa
Yvonne Smith
Becaueo this is our first year with the punch card voting system,
the establishment of the judges list is somewhat guesswork.
We anticipate the came number of judges to be required for registration
throughout the day as well am about the name number of judges
passing out ballots and collecting ballots. The reduction in
judges comoo in the counting process at the and of the voting
day. Anticipating voter turnout to be lighter in the Primary
than in the General, we fool we can accurately judge the domande
of timo through the Primary. If we discover that loss judgoo
will be needed, we can accommodate that by a cut back. Likowiao,
if we discover that the General will probably place a greater
demand on judges services, we still would have timo to appoint
and train any extra judges we fool would be required.
All that is required hero is a aimplo motion making the appointment
of election judges.
Thorn aro no alternative actions, staff recommendations, or
supporting data for this mutter.
-21-
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
�_- 17. Review of Liquor Store Financial Report. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed with the agenda you will find a copy of the 6 -month
Financial Report for the Liquor Store operations. Mark Irmiter
will be present at the Council meeting to answer any questions
you may have.
To briefly summarize, the sales and groes profit for period
ending 6/30/84 were up 78 and 126 respectively. General operating
expenses were approximately $1,700.00 lower than previous years;
but after the 1983 audit fee of approximately $1,600.00 is added,
expenses will be approximately the same as the first 6 months
of 1983.
The increase in groes profit of $9,800.00 with expenses being
kept at 198; levels resulted in the operating income increase.
The bottom line net income of $45,000.00 through 6/30/84 makes
for the possibility of the net income for the year exceeding
$100,000.00 for the first time ever, as traditionally less than
401 of the yearly not income comes during the first 6 months
operations.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
No action is necessary other than review.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 6 -month Comparative Financial Statement.
-22-
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
JUNE 30) 1984 AND 1983
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
CASH IN BANK - CHECKING t 73.942.98
CHANGE FUND 1.000.00
CASH IN BANK - RESTRICTED ( 201540.20)
INVESTMENTS 221.743.36
INVESTMENTS - RESTRICTED 47x540.20
NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE 31.85
INVENTORIES 87.814.06
PREPAID INSURANCE 7x942.98
UNAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT 444.79
-------------
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 4 419.920.02
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
LAND t 6.839.95
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS 151.671.04
PARKING LOT 8,515.50
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES 58x480.31
ACCUM. DEPR. - BUILDINGS t 31.251.98)
ACCUM DEPR-FURNITURE 2 FIXTURE ( 299763.17)
ACCUM. DEPR. - PARKING LOT ( 5.528.48)
-------------
TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMLNT f 158x963.17
-------------
TOTAL ASSETS f :.8.883.19
4 57.261.48
1.000.00
( 20r540.20)
151.354.73
471540.20
78.19
103x116.83
79842.04
855.31
6 348.508.58
$ 6.839.95
151.671.04
8.515.50
42x481.69
( 27.203.00)
( 249207.24)
(4.695.00)
-----
t 153.402.94
--------------
S 501.911.52
CURRENT LIABILITIES
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PAYROLL Y/H — PERA
SALES TAY. PAYABLE
PAYROLL Y/H — FEDERAL
SALARIES PAYABLE
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE I VACATIONS
PAYROLL Y/H — STATE
PAYROLL Y/H — FICA
BOND INTEREST PAYABLE
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
LONG—TERN LIABILITIES
BONDS PAYABLE
TOTAL LONG—TERM LIABILITIES
TOTAL LIABILITIES
EQUITY
RETAINED EARNINGS
REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES
TOTAL EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
JUNE 30, 1984 AND 1983
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
t 45,058.66
.00
4s426.59
.00
707.81
1,274.38
.00
.00
1,787.50
4 53,254.94
t 65,000.00
-------------
6 65000.00
-------------
6 118.254.94
t 49,023.79
230.82
2,912.33
612.90
405.08
952.81
320.00
643.76
2,926.00
---------------
t 58,027.49
4 85,000.00
-------------
$ 85,000.00
-------------
t 143.027.49
t 415,621.19 $ 330,071.63
45,007.06 28,812.40
— -------------
------------
t 460,628.25 t 358,884.03
-------------
t 578,883.19 4 501,911.52
1 / `
SALES
LIQUOR
BEER
MINE
OTHER MDSE
MISC. NON-TAXABLE SALES
DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS
BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC
DISCOUNTS
TOTAL SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD
GROSS PROFIT
GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES
PERSONAL SERVICES
�..LARIES. REGULAR
PERA
INSURANCE. MEDICAL AND LIFE
SOCIAL SECURITY
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GENERAL OPERATING SUPPLIES
MAINTENANCE OF BLDG. SUPPLIES
SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP.
TOTAL SUPPLIES
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LICUOR STORE
FOR THE SIX. MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1984 AND 1983
CURRENT -PERIOD
CUR -PD
YEAR-TO-DATE
Y -T -D
SAME -PD -LST -YR
PD-LYR
Y -T -D -LST -YR
YTD -LY
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATIO
t
67,813.51
27.69 t
124.999.93
29.66
6
69.419.72
29.69 t
124.388.53
31.60
142,307.5',
18.11
2349873.38
:15.73
130,682.12
55.89
211,026.29
53.61
24r3:i8.61
9.95
45#463.55
10.79
24.194.70
10.35
44,066.76
11.19
6,619.21
2.70
11.420.17
2.71
10,049.42
4.30
15,782.49
4.01
3,749.35
1.53
59260.44
1.25
.CO
.00
.00
.00
<
126.77)
( .05) (
765.32)
( .18)
(
506.01)
< .22) (
1#617.50)
( .41)
189.24
.08
189.24
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
(
19.90)
( .01) (
19.98)
( .00)
.00
--------------
.00
.00
.00
6
244.890.72
100.00 6
4219421.41
100.00
t
233,839.95
--- --
100.01 t
-------------
393,646.57
------
100.00
6(
193.929.45)
( 79.19)6(
332,520.00)
( 78.91)
t(
185.144.70)
( 79.16)6(
314.574.70)
( 79.91)
$
:10,961.27
20.81 6
88#893.41
21.09
f
48r695.25
20.83 t
79,071.87
20.09
t
15,077.36
6.16 t
29,864.27
7.09
6
14,678.22
6.28 6
29.082.52
7.39
629.08
.26
1,298.59
.31
657.34
.28
1.374.19
.35
1.083.78
.44
2,167.r,6
.51
1,106.32
.47
1,659.48
.42
865.27
-------------
.35
--- ----------------
1x652.81
.39
------
863.56
------------
.37
--- ---
19568.77
-------------
.40
6
17r655.49
7.21 t
34x983.23
8.30
6
179305.44
7.40 S
339684.96
8.56
f
30.77
.01 1
89.01
.02
b
53.97
.02 S
279.69
.07
807.00
.33
1.730.17
.41
714.39
.31
1,117.31
.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
145.52
.06
512.92
.13
.00
-------------
.00
.00
.00
75.00
.03
75.00
.02
f
837.77
------ -------------
.34 $
19819.18
------
.13
4
-------------
988.88
-- --...
.42 S
-------------
1x984.92
------
.50
xcvcnuc AND cx,cvsco
xux,nzpvL uuuux ommc
FOR
THE sm Moxrxs cxocu Juxc
sv, 1984
AND
1983
cunxcw,-,cx,uo
cux-ro
,c«x-ro-o^rc
,-T-o
o^nc-pu'Ls,-rx
ro-L,x
,-,-u-Ln,-,x
,`u -u
^wouw,
xorzu
^xnvxr
x«,,n
^wouwr
xo,,o
^wuuv`
n^r,o
orxcn scnvxcco AND cooxncx
pnuFcssxow^L ocxvzccu 'xooz// w
zso'ov
'13 *
^*o.00
'16
*
2,095.00
.vo *
2,115.00
'5"
cowwv.xc*rxuw
140.97
,ox
271.83
.oa
162,10
.or
322.82
.00
rnAusL-cowpcmcwcc-ocxgnLs
,00
.00
,00
.00
,00
,00
102.83
.oa
wovsmrxoxwm
49^.60
.uo
713.91
.17
o^o,ns
.zz
I.17*.70
.zo
xwsuammcs. scwswAL
c,r^^.x^
1.:1
o,°u.a°
1.40
3.124'23
1.34
*,zzr.°^
1'58
urILxrxcs. cLacrmzcoL
1,:16.95
.az
2.876.14
.^o
1.530.7*
,65
o.vvo'oz
,ra
urxLxrxes. xE»rxwm
202'559
'oo
1.113.91
.z^
282.76
.12
1.138,76
'zp
urxLxrxEo. s u w
16*'38
'or
301.59
.or
94'41
.ov
137.75
.va
wwxw`cw*wcs Of couxpwcN,
srs'vv
'15
sra'op
.op
252.00
.11
25:.00
'06
uurs, ncnacwsoxp, suaacnzr,zo,
10.00
.00
°o,00
^01
,00
^»»
`»»
^»»
roXcy AND Lxccwsss
rr'zc
'oa
n*.on
'oo
r°.zn
'ox
,"'oo
'vc
sAnomsc
247.50
.10
495.00
.12
165,00
,or
*12,50
.m
ocpp' - ocpuxnco ^uscrs
z,o°.^*
1'12
5,*68.78
1'30
2,277'84
.vr
*,555,67
1'16
orecm
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
90.00
,oz
ruRwxronc AND covz,wcw,
'vv
'ov
'ov
'vv
300.00
.13
300.00
.00
TOTAL o,xcn scxv,cEs & c*vxoco*
______
9,260'13
--------------------------------------------______
n'rz *
__
1e,321'84
�'a^
*
`o.vva'^u
------
*.a^ "
-------------
1r,vv^.z^
___
5. 0!-.
pco` scxvxcc
Tsucyr *
1,175 .13
°u *
'ou
2,460 .26
su
'oo
*
1,509 .63
'oo
65 *
^o»
3,700.26
94
'»»
�A,xws mncwr pcco
'oo
1o'oo
1»«»
TOTAL ucor ucovIucn ^
_______
1,175.13.^o
°
--------------___
2.*70.26
.nu
^
_______
1.sov,6s
------
,an *
-------------
srlo.u^
___
.°^
roroL ocwcnoL u *ozn' c,rcxocx^
_______
28,928.52
_______
------_______
11'80 ^
57,58*.51
�^'^s
v
______ _
ao,ror.^z
�z'�z *
______ _
59,28*.*0
___
15'05
`o,vL OPERATING INCOME "
zc,osz'rs
------_______
9.01 *
31,308'90
------
/.^"
*
-------------
17,987.62
------
7.70 ^
-------------
19,785.475'o*
___
orxcn ,wcowc ,cx,cwscu,
,w,swcsr `wcu°c ^
,.vvz',z
o.n» *
13.649.78
x.c^
^
^.r^o.xv
z.o° *
,,ouo.ro
2.29
o`xcn zwconc
45.00
.vz
45.00
.m
3.00
,00
z".00
.01
c^y* Loxo'oxou/
116.03
_______
'05
------
3.38
.00
38.99
'uc '
17.85)
' 'oo`
ro,oL o,xcx ,wconc 'cz,cwsco/ ^
7.163.80
--------------
z'vx *
____
-----------
13.698.16
_______
____
3.25
___ _
^
_______
",uoz.xo
_ ______
------
o.v^ ^
___
-----------
r,vu^.vz
_______
____
2.30
------
MET zxcnwc v
cv.Iv^.ou
11'94 *
�
*5^oo7.06
`o.m
^
uz,/vv.00
9.76 *
26,812.40
r.z*
LIQUOR SALES
DISCOUNTS
COST OF SALES - LIOUOR
GROSS PROFIT
BEER SALES
DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS
COST OF SALES - BEER
GROSS PROFIT
DINE SALES
COST OF SALES - MINE
CROSS PROFIT
OTHER SALES
MISC. NON-TAXABLE SALES
BOTTLE DEPOSIT - MISC
COST OF SALES - OTHER
COST OF SALES - FREIGI(T
GROSS PROFIT
TOTAL SALES
TOTAL COST OF SALES
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
MONTICELLO HUNICIPA;L LICUOR Pace 1
GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT SOLD
For the Period 04/01/84 to 06/30/84
Current - Period Year' - to - Date Same -Period -Last -Yr Year -to -Date -Last -Yr
Amount X Amount X Amount X Amount X
s 67,813.51
100.03 $
124,999.93
100.02 S
69x419.72
100.00 s
124x388.53
100.00
l 19.98)
( .03) l
19.98)
( .02)
.00
.00
.00
.00
53,484.23
78.89
98,304.17
78.66
----------------
54,994.30
79.22
-------
98,863.51
-------------
79.48
-------------
6 14,309.30
------------------
21.11 s
-
6,675.78
^
21.34 s
14.425.42
20.78 s
25,525.02
20.52
1429307.55
100.09
234x873.38
100.33
130x682.12
100.39
211x026.29
100.77
< 126.77)
( .09) (
765.32)
( .33) (
506.01)
< .39) (
1,617.50)
( .77)
114,999.22
80.88
189,416,54
80.91
-------------------
106082.02
82.03
------ -
171,755.12
---- ------
82.02
------
-------------
t 27.181.56
-------------------
19.12 s
44.691.52
19.09 S
23.394.09
17.97 $
37.653.67
17.98
249358.61
100.00
45x463.55
100.00
249194.70
100.00
44,066.76
100.00
16.546.21
67.93
30,007.59
66.00
--•---- -------------
14,607.13
60.37
-'------------------
29,620.87
67.22
------
-------------
s 7.812.40
------ -------------
32.07 s
15,455.96
34.00 s
9,587.57
39.63 s
14,445.89
32.78
6,619.21
62.69
IIr420.17
67.70
10x049.42
100.00
15,782.49
100.00
3,749.35
35.51
5,260.44
31.18
.00
.00
.00
.00
109.24
1.79
189.24
1.12
.00
.00
.00
.00
7,943.44
75.24
12,962.23
76.84
7,560.91
75.24
12,247.82
77.60
956.35
9.06
1,837.47
10.89
19200.34
11.94
-------------------
2,067.30.
13.23
------
-------------
6 11658.01
-------------------
15.70 6
2x070.15
-------------------
12.27 s
1,288.17
12.82 s
19447.29
9.17
244.721.46
100.00
421,252.15
100.00
233.839.95
100.00
393.646.57
100.00
193.929.45
79.24
352,528.00
78.94
185.144.70
79.18
-------------------
314,574.70
79.91
------
-------------
s 50092.01
- ----------------
20.76 s
88,724,15
-------------------
21.06 s
48,695.25
20.82 s
79,071.87
20.09
Council Agenda - 8/27/84
18. Consideration of Whether or Not to Set a Special Meeting for
the Purpose of Hearing an NSP Presentation on the Transport
of Nuclear Waste. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Norm Ecklund called me recently stating that NSP has prepared
a presentation and time to answer questions for every city government
and township government along the transport route from Monticello
to Illinois. He indicated that 8111 Frederick would be making
this presentation and wondered whether or not the City Council
would be interested in having the presentation done before them.
The presentation rune approximately 30 minutes and then the
time is opened up for public questions. Arve and I have, of
course, sat through the formal presentation in St. Paul. Perhaps
he could more adequately address the question of whether such
a presentation is valuable to the Council as a whole. The one
thought that occurred to me was that while these presentations
are designed to lesson public alarm and concern over the transport
of waste, Monticello has grown comfortable living with a nuclear
plant on a day-to-day basis. Other than to acquire information
which we could assist in disseminating, I'm not sure that the
transport of the waste is of cataclysmic proportion to those
of us who live here. We in Monticello, of all the people who
aro along the transport route, are probably the least likely
to become alarmed. Since this presentation will be made at
several stops along the route, it is also possible that any
one individual who is interested could simply attend a meeting
at any other community that is holding one of th000 in lieu
of holding a Monticello session. The question before you fut
this mooting is whether or not you wish to have one of these
presentations in Monticello and then to act some tentative dates
so that we may schedule it with NSP.
There aro no alternative actions, staff recommendations, or
oupporting data for this Stem.
-24-
Y
GENERAL FUND -- AUGUST
AMOUNT CHECK NO
C orrow Sanitation - Contract payment
4,595.50
19233
Northern States Power - utilities
625.66
19234
Buffalo Bituminous - Class 5
73.29
19235
Equitable Life Assurance - Ins. premium (reimb.)
40.00
19236
Barr Engineering - Meadow Oaks professional fees
797.00
19237
Moore Excavating - Reimb. for sewer rodding on Broadway
50.00
19238
MP1. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
115.00
19239
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg.. fees
19.50
19240
VOID
0
19241
VOID
0
19242
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services
137.50
19243
Frank Cocchiarella - Travel expense for intern
300.00
19244
MN. Wastewater Operator's Assoc. - Reg. fee - Meyer 6 Strande
110.00
19245
State Capitol Credit Union - W/H
125.04
19246
I nternal Revenue Service - Levy proceeds
119.85
19247
MN. State Treasurer - Para W/H
1,345.39
19248
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT
2,364.00
19249
Wright County State Bank - FWT
4,207.10
19250
State Treasurer - Social Security Div. - FICA
2,440.91
19251
A.rve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
19252
Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
19253
nxe. Fran Fair - Council salary
125.00
19254
Ken Maus - Council salary
125.00
19255
Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
19256
YMCA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment
312.50
19257
James Preusse - Cleaning city hall
275.00
19258
Ms. Gar Holley - Black dirt from Country Club
388.00
19259
Citizens State Bank of Big Lake - Int. on Tax Inc. - Met./Lars
1,440.00
19260
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
138.00
19261
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Rey. fees
105.50
19262
Mrs. Janotto Loerosen - Inf. Center salary
103.50
19263
Mrs. Lucy Andrews - Inf. Center salary
130.50
19264
M N. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
27.00
19265
Gwen Bateman - Animal contract - July
665.00
19266
E. L. Marketing - 220 ballot cards for voting
251.68
19267
Batzer Construction - Sea) coat project - partial payment
14,204.00
19268
North Central Section AWWA - Reg. fee - Seminar ^Theiuen
35.00
19269
Frank Cocchiarella - Intern final paymenL
100.00
19270
Phomas Eidem - Car allowance - August
300.00
19271
N. S. Power - utilities
12,177.04
19272
North Central Public Service - Gas
458.23
14273
J arry Hermes - Janitorial services OL Library
137.50
19.174
S tato Capitol Credit Union - Payroll W/H
125.04
19275
S t:atc Treasurer - Social Security Div. - PICA
2,420.09
19276
MN. State Trroaourer - P177RA W/H
11336.51
19277
NN. Susie Treasurer - Dep. Rey. fees
72.00
19278
M N. State Treasurer - Dep. Rug. fees
15.00
19279
Mrs. Lucy Andrews - Inf. Center salary
117.OU
19280
Mee. Janette Luorsson - Inf. Canter salary
103.50
19281
u. S. Pootmauter - Stamps
200.00
19282
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll dad. foe
132.00
19203
tIn nker's Life Ins. - Group Ina.
3,687.76
19264
Hatt Company - Bushing, sprocket, bolt for pump houso
340.01
19265
Ritchie Engineering - Part for pump house
74.64
19266
Shorbunra County Equip. - Materials for pump house
405.21
19287
Glaxo Ilut - Clear plexi
5.52
19260
St:ato Trans. - Surplus Property Fund - Pipe, hose, hammer
39.60
19269
}
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT CHECK N
The Plumbery - Parts for pump house
73.13
19290
Harry's Auto Supply - Jack, bar, pliers, carb., grease, etc.
190.27
1929
Allen Pelvit - Misc. mileage
55.25
19291
Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies
142.81
19293
First Bank Mpls. - Public fund charge
12.00
19294
Monticello Times - Publichearings, Fin. State., etc.
702.40
19295
Our Own Hardware - Paint, carb., bulbs, etc.
672. 3B
19296
Buffalo, Bituminous - Gravel
72.00
19297
Hayden -Murphy - Asphalt cutter
107.09
19298
Bryan Rock Products - 25 tons of limestone
231.24
19299
Broadway Rental Equip. - Sandblaster rental
111.30
19300
Big Lake Machine - Shaft
54.00
19301
Norwest Bank Mpls. - Prine. 6 int. on 73 G. O. Bonds
6,145.20
19302
Marco Business Products - Service agreement on Panasonic Type.
87.50
19303
Persian Office Products - Dictaphone repair 6 foot pedal
201.00
19304
Marco Business Products - Office supplies 6 paper
751.20
19305
Flumes 6 Graven - Professional fees - Ixl 2nd phase
829.76
1930b
Smith, Pringle s Hayes - Legal fees - May thru July
918.00
19307
Campbell Abstract - Judgement searches - Oakwood Ind. Park
120.50
19306
Monticello Fire Dept. - Reimb.for mist. supplies
346.57
19309
Davies Water Equip. - 2_plug valves and wrench - WWfP
799.00
19310
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies - (calculator)
175.10
19311
11oward Dahlgren Assoc. - Professional fees for July
60.30
19312
Great River Regional library - Telephone reimb. (S of cost)
145.85
19313
League of MN. Cities - Dues - 84 to 85
1,195.00
19314
Jac Precast, Inc. - Par West manhole
160.00
19315
water Products - Meter - lst National Bank (reimb.)
133.76
1931f -
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage -June thru August
55.50
1931"
1'oola Unlimited - Dial indicator for MLCC. Bldg.
48.00
19318
Roadway Express - Freight for sandblaster delivery
41.78
19319
P. K. Lindsay Co. - Sandblaster and helmet
966.00
19320
Century Laboratories - S L Squirt s smoke bomb - WWPP
143.56
19321
Ranger Products - Screws, bolts, nuts, washers, etc.
454.23
19322
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Towels for dispensers
73.95
19323
Stark Electronics - Oscilloscope, tes W r for WWPP
1,101.79
19324
Russell Johnson 6 Assoc. - Louver for pump house M2
165.92
19325
Karen Doty - Mileage - May to August
53.00
19326
S 6 1. Inns - Room for A. Meyer at seminar
86.92
19327
Olsen Chain 6 Cable - Stool cable for WWPP
124.52
19320
Orkin Exterminating Co. - Contract payment at WWTP
106.00
19329
Phillips Potroloum - Gas and tire repair
20.20
19330
Al 6 Julio Nelson - Sub.
11.70
19331
North Star Waterworks - Water plug, DIP, freight.
518.10
19332
Mobil Oil - Fire Dept. 6 Water Dept. gas
129.72
19333
Midwest Siren Service - Repair Civil Defense sirens
222.06
19334
Mid -Central Fire Inc. - Skull saver for Fire Dept.
55.00
19335
MN, fire Inc. - Air tanks, disk.for Piro Dept.
118.00
19336
Medical Oxygen 6 Equip. - Cyl 6 test charge
25.00
19337
Tom Eidem - Computer seminar expense
26.49
19338
National Bushing - Parte
6.29
19339
Morrell Transfer - Freight for parts to pump house
28.00
19340
Maus Foods - Paper towels, dog food, cups, filters, etc.
179.95
19341
Federal lixpress - Freight charges - Inf. to HUD
26.50
1934:
Narlrue llullman - Mileage - Jan. thru August
56.50
10343
Crane Packing - Graphite packing - k'WTP
93.21
19344
I.1aetrunie Center - Part for WWPP
9.13
19345
Goodin Co. - Parte for well house 02
26.14
19346
GENERAL FUND
AAlOUNT
CHECK N1
Independent Lumber - Silica sand, door stop, plywood, etc.
89.65
19347
Klatt Electric - Electrical work at Pump House #2
1,135.33
19348
Feed Rite Controls - Hydro. acid, feed rite, sample, etc.
1,135.05
19349
Monticello Printing - Printing forms for Fire Dept.
23.05
19350
Little Mountain Flowers - Flower arrangement for E. Powderly
30.95
19351
Local #49 - Union dues - Sept.
126.00
19352
Fair's Garden Center - Grass seed, sod, tree
438.20
19353
Hamele Recreation - Cupola for'shelter at Park
680.00
19354
Fyle Backhoe - Rental of 2 latrines for NSP ball park
250.00
19355
Geyer Rental Service - Rental of sandblaster
40.00
19356
Gould Bros. - Loader stuck in sand - pulled out
25.00
19357
Bergstrom's Lawn 6 Garden - Mower parts
224.96
19358
Garelick Steel - Steel
219.00
19359
Lynnea Cillham - Mileage to seminar
25.00
19360
Northwestern Bell Telephone - Fire phone charges
38.97
19361
Foster Franzen Agency - Add'l. premium due after audit
49.00
19362
Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Contract for July
9,494.38
19363
Gruys, Johnson - Computer services - June
290.00
19364
R. L. Gould - Turf box and cover
29.19
19365
Central McGowan - Cyl. rental and oxygen
25.74
19366
Berg's Office Supply - Pens, binders, etc. for office
149.13
19367
A T 6 T Information System - Fire phone charges
3.59
19368
Construction Bargainaer - Sub.
11.00
19369
MN. Wastewater Operators - WWCP duos
10.00
19370
Notional Life Ins. - T. Eidem's life ins.
100.00
19371
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
928.17
19372
Conway Fire 6 Safety - Pails, flashlights, etc. - Fire Dept.
771.50
19373
American Scientific Products - WWTP supplies
30.58
19374
Springsted Inc. - Professional fees - 170,000 G. O. Bonds
6.437.49
19375
Wright County Highway Dept. - Culvert, band, hot mix
664.74
19376
zop Mfg. Co. - Brushes - WWfP
107.74
19377
Burner Service 6 Combustion Controls - Burner repairs - WWI'P
153.75
19378
National Chemsearch - 1 cane of Aloodorm - WWFP
71.05
19379
Davis Electronic Service - Pager repairs - Fire Dept.
107.10
193H0
Jim Schlief Const. - Pump house additions 1 6 2
1,832.45
19361
Leef Bros. - Uniforms
72.50
19382
Unitog Rental Services - Uniforms
115.50
19383
Earl F. Anderson - Hanidcapped utickers s traffic cones
201.45
19384
Assoc. Equipment Dist. - Rental rates for conn[. equip.
27.55
19385
Waldor Pump - Sleeve for WvrP
281.58
19306
Gary Anderson - Mileage expense
114.92
19387
010011 s Sons lileccric - Misc. wiring, repaira, etc.
2,692.54
19368
Equitable Lifo Assurance - Ins. premium (raimb.)
40.00
19389
Payroll for July 26,652.46
$134,164.92
LIQUOR FUND
/9
AMOUNT
CHECK
LIQUOR DISBURSEMENTS -- AUGUST
NO.
Century Laboratories - Cleaning supplies
84.66
11327
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
4,382.13
11320
Lovegren Ice - Purchase of ice
297.45
11329
Twin City Wine - Liquor
1,805.73
11330
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,112.41
11331
State Capitol Credit Union - W/8
20.00
1133:'
MN. State Treasurer - Pera W/N
162.49
11333
commissioner of Revenue - SWT
238.00
11334
Wright County State Bank - FWT
453.00
11335
State Treasurer - Social Security Div. - FICA
269.83
11336
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
3,297.12
11337
Twin O:ity Wine - Liquor
502.92
11336
Ed Phillips s Sons - Liquor
5,849.61
1133:?
Win City Wine - Liquor
641.40
11340
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,391.99
11341
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
614.29
11342
Ed Phillips s Sons - Liquor
7,946.33
11343
N. 'S. Power _ Utilities
743.17
11344
North Central Public Service - Gas
8.04
11345
State Capitol Credit Union - W/11
20.00
11346
State Treasurer - Social Sec. Div. - FICA
257.97
11347
MN. State Treasurer - VERA W/II
155.35
11348
Dahihaimer Dist. CO. - Beer
22,313.27
11349
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - July
8,178.01
11350
Commissioner of Revenue - Balance of sales tax - June
4,426.59
11351
Greys, Johnson - Audit charges s computer fees
1,745.00
11352
Yonak Sanitation - Contract
$2.50
11353
Monticello Times - Adv. - July
212.00
11354
City of Monticello - Sewer/water charge
164.38
11355
Day Dist. Co. - Beer, otc.
2,160.68
11356
Grosalcin Beverage - Boer
14,631.60
11357
Schabol Beverage Co. - Bear
2.570.20
11358
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer, otc.
7,108.15
11359
Judo Candy s Tobacco - Misc. mdoo.
769.35
11360
Dick Beverage - near
6.031.50
11361
Slifka Sales - Misc. mdse.
78.00
11362
Viking Coca Cola - Mise. mdoo.
708.45
11363
Bernick's Pepsl-Cola - Misc. mdoo.
910.20
11364
Liefert Trucking - Freight
470.45
11365
Lovcgrcn Ice - Ice purchases
457.20
11366
Sovon-Up nettling - Misc. mdoo.
395.30
11367
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdeo.
173.42
11368
Maus foods - Cups
3.06
11369
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone
48.15
11370
Banker's life - Group Ins.
361.26
'11371
Griggs, Cooper S Co. - Liquor
2,919.10
11372
Payroll for July
3,861.63
/
1 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - AUGUST
$113,033.34
/9
i
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
MONTH OF JULY , 1984
MIT
LEER
DESCRIPTION
i
P I NAME/LOCATION
(VALUATION
d
PERMIT
SURCHARGEcPLUMBING
SURCHARG
84-659
Screened Porch
ADIJim Maurice/1304 West River Street
$ 1,430.00
$ 14.30
5 .70
$
$
84-660
Reside Exterior Business
Bldg.
ACI Investments/354 W. Broadway
3,100.00
'39.10
1.55
Single Family Dwelling
SP1Ultra Homes, Inc./905 Meadow Oak Circe
40,300.00
239.35
20.15
23.00
.50
I84-661
84-662
8 -Unit Townhouse
MFjJay Miller/116-130 Jerry Liefert Dr.
280,900.00
885.25
140.45
160.00
.50
Single Family Dwelling
SF John Devine/105 Oakview Circle
55,800.00
300.40
27.90
26.00
.50
I84-663
84-664
Screen Porch 6 Residing
AD Edward Reilly/612 East River Street
12,000.00
92.50
6.00
!
84-665
Reside House 6 Garage
ADIBill Ross/1508 West River Street
11500.00
17.50
.75
84-666
Single Family Dwelling
SF,Steven Holthaus/1606 West River Street
50,500.00
284.50
25.25
! 23.00
84-667
Office Addition
AI{Wrightco Products, Inc./206 W. 4th StJ
8,000.00
1 68.50
4.00
'
.50
84-668
Deck
AD:Robert Lagergren i
850.00
I 10.00
.50
TOTALS
$454,330.00
P1,951.40
5227.25
,$232.00
$2.00
PLAN CHECKIrm
84-662
8 -Unit Townhouse
I
MF Jay Hiller/116-130 Jerry,Liefert Dr. i
I
$ 575.41
!
I
�
1
Ii.
TOTAL REVENUE I
$ 2,988.06
C CITY OF M01MCELLO
Monthly Building Department Report
PERMITS and USES Month of • .1uiy 19-"
OTHERS
Number
Valuation
Fees
Surcharges
TOTAL N0. FERmTSl
Last
This
'Same Month
Last Year
This Year 1
PERMITS ISSUES
Month June
Month 'July
Last Year
To Date
To Date
RESIDENTIAL
Duplex
Pu.1t1-fami- y
t
Commercial
Number
12
8
5
35
62
Valuation
E 190,238.00
$ 443,230.00
$ 166,420.00
$1,621,397.90
$2,248,668.00 '
Face
1,204.22
2,419.21
926.84
7,382.94
12,259.19
Surcharges
95.44
221.70
83.22
811.80
1,114.64 ;
COMMERCIAL
Docko
I TEMPORARY PERMIT
DEMOLITION
Number
5
1
1
12
22
Valuation
60,200.00
3,100.00
5.000.00
1,078,525.00
782,495.00
Fees
535.28
39.10
50.50
5,005.11
5,283.97
Surcharges
30.35
1.55
2.50
539.15
391.35
TT��T
blUJSTRIAL
Number
2
1
1
5
Valuation
1,035,000.00
8,000.00
500,000.00
1,776,500.00
Foes
4,676.58
68.50
1,197.45
8,318.53
Surcharges
517.90
4.00
250.00
888.65
P w MBING
Number
7
4
3
18
35
Fees
194.00
232.00
80.00
599.00
1,303.00
Surcharges
3.50
2.00
1.50
10.50
17.50
OTHERS
Number
Valuation
Fees
Surcharges
TOTAL N0. FERmTSl
26
TOTAL VAMATION 1,285,438.00
TOTAL FEW I
6,810.08
TOTAL SURCHARGES I
--
647.19
CURRENT MONTH
8,000.00 1
PFRMIT NATURE
Number
Single Family
3
Duplex
Pu.1t1-fami- y
t
Commercial
Industrial
Res, Garages
Signs
Public Buildingo
ALTERAIION OR RFFAIR
Dwellings
4
Commercial
1
Industrial
1
I
I PLUMBING
All types
i
4
i AccrssoRY STRUCTUPM
SvlmmIng Poole
Docko
I TEMPORARY PERMIT
DEMOLITION
2 8 1
15,800.00 32,220.00 10.00
135.80 470.30
7.90 13.90
14 11 74 125
454,330.00 187,220.00 3,232,152.90 4,807,663.00
2,758.81 _ 1,193.14 14,654.60 27,175.29
229.25 95.12-- 1,625.35 2,412.14 1I
v Number to Dnte
Valuation
_PERMIT_-„�S�j$U(�gRUg, -- - T}lisycer Inst year.
$ 624.25 $ 73.30 $146.600.00 20 14 1
1 1
1,460.66 140.45 280,900.00 2 3
6 9
4 1
13 5
0 2
2 0
134.30
1 7.95
15,730.00 26
39.10
1.55
3,100.00 14
68.50
4.00
8,000.00 1
232.00
2.00
35
0
0
0
1
9
3
0
18
3
3
2
1 I
TOTAL) 14 2,758.01 229.25 454,330.00 125 74