City Council Agenda Packet 09-09-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 9 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members- Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen, Jack
Maxwell.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held August 26, 1985.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of Granting a Conditional Use for Outdoor
Auto Sales in a B-4 Zone - Applicant, Clarence McCarty,
DBA Monti Motors.
5. Consideration of Adopting Amendments to Title 11 of the
City Code Relating to Subdivisions.
6. Consideration of Design Criteria and Financial Participation
in Wright County Plane to Improve Co. Rd. 39.
Now Business
7. Consideration of a Proposed Extension of Public Services -
Petitioner, B. Ruff.
6. Consideration of a Resolution Requesting MN/DOT to Establish
Recognized RR Crossings at Cedar Street and at Jerry
Liofort Drive.
9. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of a Utility
Tractor.
10. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of a Snow Plow.
11. Consideration of Making Final Appointment to the Position
of Liquor Storo Manager.
12. Discussion Item - Zoning Map.
13. Adjourn.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
August 26, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan
Blonigen, Jack Maxwell.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the August 12, 1985, meeting
as presented.
3. Citizens Comments'.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that Economic Development Director Allen
Pelvit has resigned effective August 31, 1985, to accept a
position of Chamber of Commerce Director in Cloquet, MN.
The Mayor also noted that the City was recently informed it
will be receiving $27,000 in LAWCON Grant funds for softball/baseball
field improvements.
A request was recently made by the Charitable Gambling Board
requesting that the City Council formally waive the 30 day
notice of appeal, in regard to the St. Henry's Catholic Church
Fall Festival gambling license application. Because of the
30 day waiting period, the Gambling Board could not issue
the permit for the September 17 and 18 unless the City Council
waived a 30 day waiting period.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to write a latter to the State Gambling Board
notifying them that the City waives its 30 day waiting period
for the St. Henry's fall festival gambling permit.
4. Consideration of Reimbursement to Mol Woltera for a Part of
the Meadows Pond Construction.
At the previous Council mooting Mol Woltaro, developer of
the Meadows subdivision, appeared before the Council requesting
roimburaoment from the City for the storm drainage face charged
to the Par Want development in the amount of $1,935.84. Mr.
Wolters felt that since the City collected the above amount
and allowed drainage from other subdivisions to drain into
the Meadows Pond which he constructed, he felt the City should
refund the entire amount to him.
A
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
The City initially, out of good faith, offered to refund to
Mr. Wolters approximately $1,363 of the amount collected with
the balance being used to repair the Meadows Pond inlet.
Mr. Wolters initially refused to settle for the $1,363 and
requested the City pay the entire amount it received from
Mr. Sandberg.
Mayor Grimsmo briefly summarized how the Pond was required
by the Meadows development in lieu of underground storm sewer
pipe and noted that the pond was constructed on park dedication
land. The Mayor noted that the City upon acceptance of the
Meadows subdivision actually owns the pond and has a right
to allow other areas to drain into it if the pond is determined
to be large enough to hold additional run off. Mr. Wolters
engineer who designed the pond indicated to the City that
additional drainage from Par West would be acceptable without
causing flooding problems. It was noted that after Mr. Wolters
refused the initial offer of $1,363, it became the City -s
position that a refund should not have initially been made
to Mr. Wolters as the City is the owner of the pond. Councilman
Blonigen agreed with the notion that no refund should have
been made at all and along with Councilman Fair, both members
felt this would set a precedent for future developers to continually
ask the City for reimbursement from possible future connections
to utilities paid by previous developers.
As a result, motion wan made by Blonigan, seconded by Fair,
to void the initial check offering 81,363.04 to Mr. Wolters
and to deny his request for any reimbursement. Voting in
favor was Blonigen and Fair, opposed Maxwell, Bill Fair, and
Arve Grimamo.
Councilman Bill Fair noted that all though possibly the procedures
and policy regarding any future reimbursements for utility
construction should be considered , ho felt the City initially
,,..c.S made a good =1Wi offer and should honor its original offer
of 81,363.04 which includes doduetions for maintenance improvements
that were necessary at the pond. A motion was made by Bill
Fair, seconded by Jack Maxwell, to roisaus the check to Mr.
Wolters reimbursing 81,363.04 as initially offered, voting
in favor Bill Fair, Maxwell, Grimamo; opposed, Blonigon and
Fair.
5. Conaidoration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Miner Auto
Repair and Outdoor Sales in a I3-4 Zone - Applicant, Monticello
Auto Sala&.
Dr. Clarence McCarty requested a Conditional Use Permit to
allow for a used car sales facility at the former K & H Auto
building which he intends to leaso from owner Kenny Stolp.
City ordinances do allow as a conditional use outdoor sales
in a B-4 zona, but it is limited to five separate Conditions
being attached to the conditional use.
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
The primary condition limits the outdoor sales area for the
used cars to 308 of the gross floor area of the principal
building which would only allow Mr. McCarty to sell two cars
at one time. In addition, a Screened fencing would have to
be erected on the property line abutting a residential district
and sufficient parking spaces consisting of seven stalls are
required.
Because of the limited space available according to the ordinance
and because of the possible redevelopment of this property
along with an adjacent vacant lot, the Planning Commission
recommended% denial of the conditional use request.
For the same reasons noted above, Fran Fair made a motion
to deny a conditional use request, which died for a lack of
second.
City Administrator Eidem noted that the Council has to decide
whether a major outdoor sales activity in a downtown B-4 area
is what the City Council is looking for or whether thin type
of activity should be located in or along a B-3 zone.
Mayor Grimsmo and Councilman Bill Fair felt that as long as
one of the conditions applied to the conditional use permit
would require the operator to vacate the property within 30
days if the property is ready for redevelopment, they felt
a used car facility would not be a major problem and would
be better than leaving the property vacant.
Maxwell made a motion to approve the conditional use permit
with a limit of 16 cars for sale at any one time provided
a 30 day notice is attached if the building is cold and ready
for development but withdraw his motion after further discussion
centered on the parking requirements being mot.
A motion woo made by Grimamo, seconded by Bili Fair, and unanimously
carried to table the conditional use request until the
next Council meeting to enable the applicant to provide additional
on site drawings that would adequately address the parking
layout dosign, etc. to moot the City ordinances.
G. Consideration of Revised Staqo Development Plan for a Previously
Approved Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Mike Rehar.
A few years ago, Mr. Mika Rahor received Council approval
on his planned unit development which was known as Victoria
Square located south of 1-94 and cast of Hwy. 23 adjacent
to Dundas Road. Mr. Rohor at that timo did not proceed with
the platting of this property and it was now rocommendod by
the City staff that Mr. Rehor consider a straight subdivision
of the property consisting of four outlota and one block for
his proposed townhouse development.
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
The basic subdivision would be similar to what was approved
two years ago in that a new Cedar Street alignment would be
dedicated and the townhouse development would be included
also. Questions were raised regarding the townhouse development
and the sizes of the proposed garage units for each structure
consisting of a 10 1/2 by 21 1/2 foot garage. It was felt
that due to these units being individually owned, a 12 foot
width rather than a 10 1/2 foot width would be more appropriate
for this type of development.
Mr. Reber also noted that he tentatively has a commitment
for one of the outlots to be used as a day-care center.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve the preliminary plan for the
subdivision to be known as victoria Square Addition provided
the garage units for the townhouse block consist of 12 foot
garage widths rather than 10 1/2 feet.
7. Consideration of Development Stage Approval of Planned Unit
Development - Ultra Homes, Inc.
Mr. Dickman Knutson, owner of the Meadow Oak development,
request that a development stage approval for outiots C, D, ,
& H. The outlots will be known as Meadow Oak Estates 2nd
Addition, Meadow Oak Estates 3rd Addition, and Meadow oak
4th Addition. i
It is noted that the proposed plats for the above outlets
meet all requirements except that the lots do not yet have
utilities installed such as sower, water and street surfacing.
It was recommended that before final approval is granted,
the developer must supply a written contract for the utility
construction or actually install the utilities before approval.
A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to approve the development stage of the planned
unit development for outlets C. D. & H. to be known as Meadow
Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, 3rd Addition, and Meadow Oak 4th
Addition with final approval for the subdivisions contingent
upon developers supplying a contract indicating that utilities
aro or aro about to be installed.
8. Consideration of Davolopment Stage Plan Approval and Final
Approval of a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Ultra
Homes Inc.
Mr. Dickman Knutson, owner of the Meadow Oak development also
requested development stage and final stage approval of outlot
C which will be known as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
It was noted by the staff that the planned 3rd addition does
moot all City requiromen to of the PUD except that hard surfacing
of the street has not yet boon constructed and recommended
that final approval be subject to the improvements being completed.
—1•
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the development stage for outiot
G to be known as Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
A motion was also made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair,
and unanimously carried to approve the final plat for outlet
G as submitted, subject to the requirement that all improvements
be contracted for or installed prior to recording of the plat.
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a 24 Unit
Apartment Building in a R-3 Zone - Applicant, Wayne Wieber.
Mr. Wayne Wieber requested a conditional use permit to build
a 2 1/2 story conventionally financed 24 unit apartment building
on lot 6, block 1, Lauring Hillside. Mr. Wieber also requested
a variance to allow a 30 foot driveway access width and also
to use landscaping timbers as a barrier around some of the
parking lot area in lieu of concrete curbing. The plans indicate
that the building will be somewhat recessed into the surrounding
landscaped area and the timbers will be necessary under the
landscaping program and would provide an adequate insurmountable
barrier around portions of the parking lot.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional
use request and variances for the driveway width and landscape
timber usage in lieu of curbing.
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by M%xwoll, and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use request for the
24 unit apartment building and to approve the variance for
a 30 foot driveway width and the use of landscape timbers
as barriers in lieu of concrete curb.
10. Conaidorationof Approving an Assent to Land Registration -
Applieant, Michael Soltia.
Mr. Michael Soltio, who residoo along Hart Boulevard, has
engaged an attorney to prepare, the necessary documents for
the registration of title of his property. Tho City Administrator
informed the Council that apparently there are a number of
gaps in the title to his property and that to legally provide
clear title in the future, Mr. Soltia is seeking to have the
property under torranco title. Since the City of Monticello
owns abutting land known as Platted River Street, the City
must approve of the torranco title, application by Mr. Soltia
bofora the procedure can be initiated.
A motion won mado by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to consent to allowing Mr. Soltia to apply for
torranco title on his property.
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
I. Consideration of a Reguest to Respread Special Assessments )
in the Meaoows Subdivision - Applicant, John Sa.-,::berg. J
Mr. Jonn Sandberg appeared before the Council to request respreading
of unpaid special assessments including uclinquent installzants
:rum the entire undeveloped 46 lots within the Meadows plat
to the 20 lots currently served with sewer, water, street and
storm sewer improvements located along Marvin Elwood Road.
Mr. Sandberg is currently in the process of purchasing the balance
of the Meadows property and in the process would like to have
the assessments lifted from 12 interior lots that have no
services available along with 2 lots located along Prairie
Road and place these assessments against the 20 lots fronting
along Marvin Elwood Road which he plans on developing within
the next 2 1/2 years for residential homes.
The entire subdivision has approximately $191,000 in unpaid
and delinquent assessments against ail 46 lots. Of this amount,
approximatoly $23,000 is owed against the interior lots which
are not currently usable. By respreading all of the assessment
balances to the 20 lots, each lot would have a now assessment
in the range of $8,800 which Mr. Sandberg feels is feasible
for development. As part of the respreading agreement, Mr.
Sandberg proposes to pay 52,863.50 in real estate taxes for
the years 1984 and 1985 on the entire plat immediately.
As part of the proposed reassessment request, Mr. Sandberg
also asked the Council to consider e x tonding Marvin Elwood
Road approximately 200 ft. through the Edgar Klucas property
to connect to River St. at an estimated cost of S10-12,000.
Mr. Sandberg felt the road extension would be needed in the
area at some time in the future and requested that the City
pay for all cost involved.
Mr. Sandberg oleo at this time presented a preliminary sketch
on how he proposed to roplat the 26 lots within the Meadows
oubdivisicn from the current smaller raoidantial lots into
larger multiple family building lots. He fait that the area
currently undeveloped would be suitable for replotting into
multiple family R-3 zoning since it abuts R-2 zoning and industrial
property owned by Edgar Klucas.
City Administrator Eldem informed tho Council that the only
atom before the Council at this time is the consideration
of roaproading the spacial assessments and that rezoning request
would have to be handled through a public hearing starting
with the Planning Commiooion atc.
Although Mr. Sandberg understood that no action could be taken
on the rom:oning request, he wanted the Council to be informed
of his plana and felt that as long as the City is reviewing
the comprehensive plan at thio time, now would be the time h
to present the R-3 zoning so the public could comment on it. J
-6-
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
It was Mr. Sandberg -s opinion that all three requests of the
(� roadextension, rezoning, and respreading of the assessments
\ aro necessary for the project to be feasible.
After reviewing all three items requested, it was the general
concesus of the Council that R-3 multiple family as proposed
by Mr. Sandberg be included at the informational hearings
on the comprehensive plan review. In addition, it was the
consensuo`ofthe Council to wait for Mr. Sandberg to complete
ownership of the property and to wait for a formal replat
to be submitted for staff review before assessments are considered
for reassessment.
12. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Portion of Marvin
Road as a Minimum Maintenance Road.
City Administrator Eidem said that after reviewing this item
with street superintendent Roger Mack, it was suggested that
the staff needs more information regarding the City's obligation
under minimum maintenance of roads and requested that this
item be tabled for the present time.
13. Consideration of ordinance Amendment - Animal Inooundmont
Length.
The City of Monticello currently contracts for im poundment
services with various surrounding townships and cities who
have used the State requirement of holding dogs for a five
day period only. The City's current ordinance indicates that
dogs will be hold for seven days, and in order to provide
a consistent time period for keeping dogs that are not claimed,
it was recommended that an ordinance amendment be adopted
changing the length of impoundment for City of Monticello
dogs from seven days to five days.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Sill Fair, and
unanimously carried to adopt ordinance amendment #147 changing
the length of impoundment from seven days to five days that
a dog will be kept before being disposed of.
14. Consideration of Six Month Liquor Store Financial Roport.
Liquor Store Manager Mark Irmitor wan present to review with
the Council the six month financial report for the liquor
store operations. After reviewing the report, it was accepted
as presented.
In a related item, the Council sot Monday. September 9, at
6:00 P.M. as the time for interviewing candidates for the
liquor store managers position which Mr. Irmitor will be
vacating September 1. 1985.
-7-
Council Minutes - 8/26/95
15. Approval of Bills.
A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of September as
presented except for check 011922 in the liquor fund which
will be held until the project is completed.
Rick woifste.1 r
Assistant Administrator
0
Council Agenda - 9/9/65
4. Considerationof Granting a Conditional Use for Outdoor Auto
�. Sales in a B-4 Zone - Applicant, Clarence McCarty, DBA Monti
Motors. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
At the last City Council meeting, Council members directed
Mr. McCarty to go back and draw up a site plan showing how
many vehicles he could place on his lot and how many spaces
would be available for parking. Also as part of that directive,
City staff was to review Mr. McCarty -s site plan prior to
City Council Meeting. This morning, City Administrator Tom
Eidem and myself, Gary Anderson, viewed the proposed Monticello
Auto Sales site and took measurements of the sidewalk and
existing bituminous surface and the building on this site.
Striping is to be required for the parking spaces. The parking
spaces may not be used for storage as under section (10-3-5G).
No : parking is allowed within 15 foot of a street surface
(10-3-5F3). The area when abutting a residential zone must
be screened (103-2G).
The applicant has not had the beat record, counting as
many as 30 care at his existing site on East Broadway (50%
more than allowed). That the trailor to the rear of the
existing building be removed, and the entire roar area be
cleaned up.
The applicant has frequently attempted to circumvent the ordinance.
He displays vehicles for sale at his home and at his office,
in violation of the ordinance. Testimony at our public hearing
for the zoning map revealed residents opposed to the business
uses and inquired about the City -a ability to enforce the
ordinance.
The variances that we can see that would be needed would be:
1. The driveway aielo width.
2. An acceptable turning area for parked vehicles.
3. The proximity of the parking to the buiding.
4. The number of parking spaces needed.
5. Increase in square footage to allow outdoor sales.
6. To allow parking in front of a curb cut.
In spite of all thaws site doficianciso, and you still want
to grant the conditional uao, you should return to the Planning
Commission for the variance process, or you may bypass this
process, but you still must publish notice of variance hearing.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
Q These variances were not considered by Planning Commission
because the conditional use request was denied making them
irrelevent.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow Minor Auto
Repair and Outdoor Sales in as B-4 zone.
2. To deny the conditional use request to allow Minor Auto
Repair and Outdoor Sales in a B-4 zone.
3. To circumvent the ordinance by granting the following
variances:
A. Driveway aisle width.
B. Acceptable turning areae .
C. Proximity of parking spaces to the building.
D. Numbor of parking spaces.
E. Increase the square footage allowed for outdoor sales.
F. To allow parking in front of a curb cut.
4. To bypass the Planning Commission and schedule public
hearing for the variance request for the next regularly
scheduled mooting which is Septomber 23, 1985.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff goes along with the Planning Commiosion in the denial
of the conditional use request. The solo intent of the B-4
zoning is to accommodate retail busin000 uses and to limit
the outside sales area for those businesses.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the location of the conditional use request and three
separate copies of site plane for this request.
4o
7.5
A
Z8
z
L R Zi
N
m
r� �.ACk� P
i
46
Ass
h I
NrcenNT- c"ea 17nc
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
5. Consideration of Adgting Amendments to Title 11 of the City
Code Relating to Subdivisions. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
At the last regular Council Meeting, an issue was debated
with respect to reimbursing certain money to an original developer
based on the oversizing of some improvements that individual
installed. The refund brought to light an omission in our
ordinance that needed to be addressed. Consequently, I have
prepared an ordinance amendment that clearly defines the pool tion
of the City in the cases where one subdivider installs improvements
which will then be of benefit to subsequent subdividers.
The proposed amendment prohibits refunds and reimbursements
to any original developer for improvements that may be utilized
by a later developer. The amendment also preserves the right
for the City to levy a surcharge or some other fee against
later developers for the purpose of collecting monies to maintain
or upgrade the public improvements that were installed by
the original developer, but which have become the responsibility
of the City. I think the amendment adequately addresses the
concerns that thin last issue brought to light.
In a separate matter with respect to the subdivision ordinance,
we recently discovered that in Chapter 1 there is a provision
to allow aimplo subdivision and it makes reference to lot
of record. Based on a straight reading of this provision
(Paragraph A) it appears that any parcel of land may be subd ividad
into two buildable lots. In Chapter B of the name ordinance,
however, we find provisions that prohibit the subdivision
of lots described In motes and bounds into parcels of loan
than five acres. It is staff interpretation that Chapter 8
is a minimum standard which regulates the provisions of Chaptor 1.
We fool then that it Is essential to add a final statement
to Section A in Chapter 1 that clearly rofora to the mooto
and bounds provisions to eliminate any future confusion.
Thio amendment is not intended to change the scope or intent
of the ordinance in any way whatsoever, but merely to clarify
the principles established in the ordinance. For ordinance
amendments, the text, since it is not particularly long should
be road aloud before passage. Upon passage by the City Council,
I will arrange for publication and the ordinance provisions
will take affect immediately upon publication. Each amendment
should be addressed in noparato motfono no that we may record
the amendments as two separate actions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Adopt both amendments to the subdivision ordinance - ono
amendment will clarify the oxiating regulations and the
second amendment will establish a now policy prohibiting
refunds, roimbursomonts,or any typo of repayment to a
developer.
2. Adopt neither amendment - this could present interpreter confusion
with respect to simple subdivisions and it dean not addroso
the isauo of one developer making claims against s subsequent
developer.
Council Agenda - 9/9/65
`_ 3. Adopt either one or the other of the proposed amendments -
the results of this action are the same as the above with
respect to which one would be passed and which would be
denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends the adoption of both proposed ordinance amendments.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the proposed amendments. Copy of the amendment to
Chapter 1 showing Paragraph A in its entirety as amended.
Copy of letter from City Attorney Pringle indicating acceptability
ae to form and content.
TO: Thomas Eidem, City Administrator
FROM: Gary L. Pringle, City Attorney
DATE: September 6, 1985
I hereby approve the attached document as t fora and tent.
�2r
Gary L. Pringle
TO: Thomas Eidem, City Administrator
FROM: Gary L. Pringle, City Attorney
DATE: September 6, 1985
I hereby approve the attached document as bO form andCOnt.
Gary L. Pringle
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 147
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DO HEREBY ORDAIN THAT TITLE 11,
CHAPTER I. SUBDIVISION 11-1-7, PARAGRAPH A. OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES
BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
. . . except that no such division of a lot or parcel shall be permitted
when said division shall create a lot or parcel that is in violation
of Chapter 8, Subdivision 11-8-2 of this ordinance.
Adopted this 9th day of September.
ATTEST: Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 148
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DO HEREBY ORDAIN THAT TITLE 11,
CHAPTER 7, SUBDIVISION 11-7-1 OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES BE AMENDED
BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
(L) The City Council retains the option of allowing a subdivider/developer
to install all required public improvements at the subdivider 's/developer's
own expense provided that plane and specifications have first been approved
by the City Engineer, and further, that all improvements installed by
the subdivider/developer shall be inspected during the course of construction
by the City Engineer. All plan review and inspection costs pursuant
thereto shall be paid by the subdivider/developer. In the event that
the City Council allows a subdivider/developer to construct/ install
improvements, and said improvements may at soma future time be utilized
by subsequent subdividers/developers, the City shall not rebate, refund,
reimburse or in any manner offer payment or repayment to the subdivider/developer
who originally cons tructed/ inotailed said improvements. Nothing in
this section shall prohibit or prevent the City from establishing a
fee, charge or assessment against the subsequent subdividers/developers
which benefit from said prior improvements for the purpose of maintaining
or upgrading the public improvements.
Adopted thio 9th day of September, 1985.
ATTEST: Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eide co
City Administrator
0
11-1-6 11-1-9
11-1-6: BUILDING PERMITS: No building permits will be considered for
issuance by the City of Monticello for the construction of
any building, structure or improvement to the land or to any lot in a
subdivision as defined herein, until all requirements of this Ordinance
have been fully complied with.
11-1-7: EXCEPTIONS: When requesting a Subdivision if either of the
following two conditions exist the subdivider is required to
present a certificate of survey, have the subdivision reviewed by the
Planning Commission, reviewed and approved by the City Council and ad-
here to the park dedication requirements spelled out in Ordinance Sec-
tion 11-6-1 through 11-6-5 and all other subdivision requirements shall
be waived.
A. In the case of a request to divide a lot which is a part of an exist-
ing lot of record where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel
of land to an abutting lot or to create two lots and the newly created
property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to
be in violation with this Ordinance of the Zoning Ordinance, except
that no such division of a lot or parcel shall be permitted
when said division shall create a lot or parcel that is in violation
of Chapter 8, Subdivision 11-8-2 of this ordinance.
NOTE: Proposed now language underlined.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
6. Consideration of Design Criteria and Financia 1 Participation
in Wright County Plane to Improve Co. Rd. 39. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
We recently received a letter from the Wright County Highway
Engineer addressing the status of two different segments of
County State Aid Highway 39 within the City of Monticello.
The first segment addressed is CSAR 39 West which is Golf
Course Road.
As you may recallthe Council discussed vest County Road 39
at a meeting in July, 1984. We had received a request from
residents along Golf Course Road that the City request the
County to look into the speed limits in that area, designate it
as a no passing area, and level and blacktop the shoulders
to form pedestrian and bicycle paths. At the direction of
the Council, I wrote a letter to the County on August 13, 1984,
requesting the speed limit change, the no passing area, and
the widening. I subsequently attended several County Board
meetings again requesting that the County look into the possibility
of widening Golf Course Road in conjunction with the resurfacing
and grading of west County Road 39 outside the City limits
in 1986.
( In March of 1985, 1 was contacted by Dave Monabollo of the
Wright County Highway Department, in regard to the possibility
of including the work on Golf Course Road in the County -a
five year plan. Mr. Monabello indicated that if we could
perform a coot study of the alternatives using a rural design
and/or a urban design, the County would attempt to include
it in the five year plan. With Tom Eidom-a authorization,
I had OSM prepare a cost study of two options: Option one -
a 40 foot rural design at a coat of 8157,000: Option two -
an urban design at a cost of $424,000. The major constituents
in this option being the significant amount of regrading that
needed to be done for a curh and gutter street, and also the
installation of atone sower.
I forwarded this information to Dave Monabol to and the Wright
County Highway Engineer. I than attended tho Wright County
five year plan board meeting to again roquost the County Board
to consider some typo of work on wast County Road 39.
The letter we received from Mr. Wayne Fingals on on August 20, 1985,
outlines the County -o proposal to widen the road as a rural
section, installing eight footpavod ahouldorn on each aide
with appropriate inalopoo which mooto State aid standards.
With the exception of additional right-of-way needs, the County's
funding policy would be 70/30, with the City paying approximately
447,100 of the estimated 8157,000 coat.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
The additional right-of-way needed would be 12 feat on each
side of the existing 66 foot right-of-way. This would mean
slightly over an acre of additional right-of-way to be purchased
at 1008 of the City's expense. I contacted Jack Maxwell for
an estimated cost per acre for this additional right-of-way,
his estimate was 515,000 per acre.
The section of CSAH 39 east, which is Riverview Drive, was
discussed earlier this year when we received a letter from
all of the property owners along that section of Riverview
Drive from Mississippi Drive to County Road 75. This letter
requested that the City consider an urban design utilizing
curb and gutter. Because we received this letter, and the
County indicated that no additional right-of-way would be
required if the uraban design was used, we allowed the Riverroad
Plaza to place their parking lot curb within five feet of
the existing right-of-way line. Since it was the City's preference
to have an urban design with curb and gutter, the cost of
the project will be approximately 538,000 higher than a rural
section. The County is currently looking into the many alternatives
in funding for this east County Road 39 project. It was expected
that the City would not share in the cost of this project
if it would have been a rural section, but since it will be
urban , the City will have to pay the 538,000 which I would
expect would be assessed to the bonofitting property owners.
Tho County is looking for a formal acceptance of the design
dote for both sections of County Road 39. Upon formal direction
from the City Council, the County will schedule those projects
for construction. It is possible that the City, may wish
to order additional feasibility studios to determine more
apocific coat than aro now defined, and we may later have
the City Engineer do the design and engineering work for the
projects duo to the County'o heavy work load.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Accept the County's proposed design for west County Road 39,
Golf Course Road no a rural section. Authorizing the
project and allocating funding. This alternative would
also include formal request to the Wright County Highway
Department that cast County Road 39, Riverview Drive,
have an urban design with curb and gutter, with the City
paying the coat difference between the urban and rural
design.
2. Request that wont County Road 39 be of the urban design
with curb and gutter, rather than tho rural design. Two
options hero aro to wait for several years until the Wright
County Board can fit this project into the five year plan
or to cover the entire construction cont of $424,000 on
our own. In addition, thin alternative would include
the urban design for cant County Road 39.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
3. Leave west County Road 39 as it currently exists with
a narrow two lane road and authorize only the construction
on the east County Road 39 of the urban design.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that
the Council authorize construction of both segments of east
and west County Road 39 as outlined in alternative M1. There
are definitely some advantages to having west County Road
39 as an urban section, as it would fit in better with the
construction of the area. I do believe, however, that the
costs of alternative k2 are extremely prohibited in this area
due to the enormous amount of regrading and the small benefit
of an urban type design to the adjoining properties.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Letter to the Council from residents along County Road 39.
Letter to the County, August 13, 1984. Letter from the County,
August 31 , 1984. Letter from the County, August 20, 1 985.
Cost feasibility for west County Road 39 from OSM. March 15, 1985.
We live along Golf Course Road (formerly County Road p.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 m.p.h. to 30 m. p.h. along the entire
length of the road that is within the city limits.
2. Enforce the speed limit.
3. Designate it as a "No Passing" area.
4. Level and blacktop the shoulder or widen the road to force a pedestrian/bicycle
lane.
0
City / M.na'Al.
MONTICELLO, MN 55382
August 13, 1986
Phone (8121295.2711
Metro ( 8121333.9739
Mr. Wayne Fingalson
Wright County Highway Engineer
Wright County Public Works Building
Mayor:
A Vo Crimvno
Buffalo, FIN 55313
CM Courd.
Dan 61o%on
Re: Traffic Problems CSAH 39 from West Limits of Monticello
Fran Far
Kenneth Maus
to Elm Street (Golf Course Road)
Jack Mnwea
Dear Mr. Fingalson:
Aomtnistnb:
The City of Moriticallo has received information from residents
Tam Been
along Golf Course Road that certain hazards exist to vehicular
Finance Otector:
and pedestrian traffic.
Rick W0211000F
Public Wau:
John SMda
It is our understanding that at least one of the residents,
Piannin0alorvng:
Mr. Lao Mazer, has been in contact with the Wright County
GWV Anderson
Shoriff's Department in requeet for a traffic atudy. It
is our understanding that the Wright County Sheriff's Department
may have completed their study at this time.
(�
The Monticello City Council, on Monday evening, August 13,
1984, took formal action and requests that the Wright County
Highway Engineer look into the following concerns for rho
above referenced portion of County road: 1) The posoiblo
reduction of the opood limit in this area from 45 mph to
30 mph; 2) The enforcement of the speed limit; 3) That
this above referenced soction of road be designated an
a no passing area and striped accordingly; 4) That one
of the shoulders be leveled and widened and paved in order
to form a padostrian/bicycle pathway.
The City Council. requests that you commont in writing on
the above four items. Please do this at your earliest
convenience. We do understand that as far as the speed
limit is concerned, the County cannot answer that question
without passing it on to the State Highway Commiosioner.
if you need any ssoistance in this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
XERCully ell
Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
cc: Marilyn Frio
Loo Manor
Arve Grimsmo
200 Culare0desy
Tom Eidem
Route 4,802 03A
Monacees, MN 55352
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. 1 - Box 97.8
Bullalo, Minnesota 55313
Jet. T. H. 25 and C. R. 138 WAYNE A FINGALSON, D.E.
Telephone (612) 682.3900 COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
August 31, 1984
John E. Simola
Public Works Direceor
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: TrafficProblems an CSAii 39 from West limits of Monticello to
Elm Strcet (Golf Course Road).
Dear Mr. Simola,
In your letter dated August 13, 1984, you requested a written response
to the following four items:
1. Reduction in the Speed Limit.
2. Enforcement of the Speed Limit.
3. Designation of a no -passing zone.
4. Shoulder improvement for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway.
The first concern, reduction of the speed limit, has been addressed.
The Wright County Board passed a resolution an 8-28-84 requesting chat
the Minnesota Department of Transportation complete a Speed Zone study
of this area no soon as possible. This resolution will be forwarded
to the District 3 Traffic Engineer and the study that follows will
determine the posted speed for this area. This is consistent with
Section 169.14, Subdivision 5 of Minnesota Statues.
Your second concern should be addressed to the Wright County Sheriffs
Department. As you know they are the enforcement agency in this case.
Something you may want to consider is the enforcement problem that
would occur if the road is widened and the spend limit reduced. It
would appear to the driver that the road is more safe and a higher speed
generally results.
The third concern (the area should be designated as a no -passing zone)
has been addressed by our staff. The area does not meet the criteria
for establishment of a no -passing zone. Therefore your request for a
no -passing zone will be denied.
In raspono to your fourth request I would like to give you some in-
formation regarding Wright County's future construction plans for
( this segment of CSA11 39 and an update on proposed legislative funding
of bikaway projects.
Last year the Bicycle Transportation Unit of the Minnesota Department
of Transportation requested that government subdivisions submit
proposals to receive special funding for bikeway projects. Even
though 125 proposed projects were submitteds no bikeway construction
monies were appropriated to MN/DOT during the last legislative session.
Local support will be a key factor in positive funding decisions for
this at the next legislative session. J
The Wright County Board has submitted resolutions in support of this
funding to our legislators. The city of Monticello should consider
doing the same regarding bikeway construction needs. If funding
develops, Wright County will prepare and submit a proposal t11at would
apply for these funds. If Wright County were to receive bikeway funding
for this segment of CSAH 39, construction of the bikeway would be in
conjuction with the regrading and surfacing of CSAiI 39 from 1-39 to
CR 123 west of Monticello. The grading portion of this project is
scheduled to start in 1985 and surfacing is scheduled for 1986.
If you have any questions regarding this le Iter please contact our
off ice.
Sincerely,
Wayne A. Fingalson, P.E.
Wright County Highway Engineer
by
Dave Montebello
Project Engineer
pc: Darrell Wolfe, County Sheriff
Basil Schillewaert, County Commissioner
0
���%Gr+►+��
CLIENT woQQS .o^�ISle.5
Y
CCXSUS,IrG IrG1III S
/!Eo,.
PROJECT C O. K.LI 3S In/i�et9i✓�a
e�in�-o,�
uro auan'aRS
ORR-SCMELEN•MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES. INC.
orviSION of w100E CONSULTANTS, INC
'SUITE
2021 EAST NENNEMM AVE25a MINNEAMLIS, MN SNISIOIT MI SWI )III.
20OWa
SAYE M�►JT W IDEN INy
;u L�2' x 11.S', 131001: (o,C900 6-q.@g2oo - 131(000
L z1 J
10 Y '"• 1�j x (o2v0' _ Sou ;z,SCZ 30.6.2 = 35 000
:
Q C�a12' r b a 140 , (,,ZOO _ 2110' Y..J)1 SC° ��o.Cb — 15,000
.Z
• � I �-�- I AlC� dvE r_ LA P
5.�c-
.. q
3' i1s r / Zao � 65 20o ialS0 hD.oO a to Doo
9 2L
61u7-rGr2—
�it�TJTQI_
y 11c CIt
5000 = I;.qo�
-4( 1 r71,0v )
(4yy�
/�
��(�
aOil Clli Nt NC. A5,1 LCOM.. HO �}�DN1l �/ r5 r,• 7
coftsulnNc IIECnuEE PlOilCl / v. !`d .i9 WIt-ECJ/A/ 6r '
"to {YOYI IDR!
ORR-SCIIELEN MAYERON &ASSOCIATES. INC.
DIVISION OE nioDE CONSWANTS, INC,
M, E.ST E E.. —E 5U -1E 230 rN 5y 13151], u, l Tei.. 2910M
A. /.-r-pAk-
)NlI1—LOI_4
AIrJTA I N (fo. Zd • A S IZU 2 alp
LEs1c-�N \t11T=, IPJC.f��•'�SE��I�
C_vr.1STRu c -T IIT Cx�r-T J'? 14I, Do,)
151 DOO
��P,7IU►`1 Z Wr��E12T CO. (�. �� TJ uFe-F_r',Q
--lam w IT r. �RoIJT yAt_I� i�CAINAaL
OVEi2LL\C"3 i rl\S EQuklz- ,S
STREET Cc�rJSi r",�ucT( OFA '101,000
C �tcZ3 s UulcEci j'l, no a
S;OC�rv. �EwEr� 5g1,wo
'1"cJTAL CC,�, �T f LlCZluhi �O�j,00�
CU^�TiNC�E JLiErj 114/'/ 45 000
I PV DI 12Ec z cos,— 7 b100 0
T o -r A�— f(-, Z --Sc T COQ
Iy T /��
(00- ` Y cu1Nt NO I.- --4/5/65 e.: C•Q.t FP/i�
CONSULTING INGIeUeI YeOIICT snn+ or�
LAUD IUNVE roes
1 ' , I ONR SC D -5 -ON 0, DDE O d ASSOCIATES, INC.
JA�A�' DIVISION 0ER10DECONSutf.NiS.InC
°:t EAST nENNEMN AVE SUITE 2M NINNE-0115, MN SY+3IE121 MI SM) i�
2>loo '� 241
EAI�T� YJOt2�
I•S � K a�<i.'< %�lE�� =2� _ (P���c.�.0 too � l3,Dao
-(:U,c- G2 E z:) �-7
J,j> t IA MIN 0I -,k>
310o'v Z4+• �21X Ilia i 11%00 �Tt�'r��� � 4o�106J
tk&,GRE GATE
; (o °% ° I (a 180
I?i 2a�
TdTA� corJ�,�� lC� Iu+J G•^s� �a�
GOti1TINr1C-NGI�S �15 ��� I b�rjDJ
IN��REGT co ��S �25%� IPJ, x.,00
-ry-rat_ IZoS EGT (-0 57 t 4IDS 1 03
R Act -TaT AL = ° 424, 000 )
:!STa(L M SEWE2
I1 00 I8 RCP
Cj GQ �'C In h0.S� ✓I S
I ^ QTS V1 o IeS
ca 20 °9 = 4, oocn�
C ?o Oa. -4--5iOOa
Gd '5—'oo - _ !o, OOc)
ca 1000 = = 4,00C,
� 59, OJJ
Tari L C�71`1STt2t�CZ I�rJ 'A�.T = 12— -JDI 0 00
(�OrJTtIJ(�isrJCIES C�GrD� 35r n0�
Ir, QIPEGz COSTS 251>� J7r000
—; oTAL =�La �� C.� � � — I you
Z
DATE.
3/IS/8� IT
4.
Le�/^C-
,
EOIEUETIRO E ROInEIRS
PROJECT
SAE T—aO1
uRD SU"Ilons
NMAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ORR SC LEN' YER
D1 OE CONSULSSO INC
D' ISIO
® `�
2021 EAST MENNEPiN AVE SUITE 238 mINNEAPOIJS. TAN S 13II12T O]1 IOW TIl
2I4DO4I
J
:!STa(L M SEWE2
I1 00 I8 RCP
Cj GQ �'C In h0.S� ✓I S
I ^ QTS V1 o IeS
ca 20 °9 = 4, oocn�
C ?o Oa. -4--5iOOa
Gd '5—'oo - _ !o, OOc)
ca 1000 = = 4,00C,
� 59, OJJ
Tari L C�71`1STt2t�CZ I�rJ 'A�.T = 12— -JDI 0 00
(�OrJTtIJ(�isrJCIES C�GrD� 35r n0�
Ir, QIPEGz COSTS 251>� J7r000
—; oTAL =�La �� C.� � � — I you
Z
Mr. John E. Simola
August 20, 1985
Page 2
l
no bikeway funding resulted from this past session. This means that this funding
option is not available to us as we had hoped it would be. This project as de-
scribed would then be subject to our Municipal Funding Policy which includes, as
you know, 100% payment by the City for right of way costs, as needed for the im-
provement. Please advise if you have any questions or comments on this proposal.
Estimates will have to be developed which will define the costs, if this will be
pursued. Due to our heavy workload, the City may want to call for a feasibility
study to determine more specific costs than we have defined.
CSAH 39 East (Riverview Drive)
This segment, depending on funding source used, is tentatively scheduled for
construction in 1987 as part of the CSAR 39 project from CSAR 75 to CSAH 19.
We have developed preliminary construction cost estimates for this CSAH 39
segment between CSAH 75 and Mississippi Drive (length a 0.26 Mi.). Estimated
costs for a rural design using the existing alignment (30 MPH curve) would be
about $52,000.00. If the City would prefer an urban design with curb and gutter,
etc., the cost would increase to about $90,000. This option would be subject to
the County's Municipal Funding Policy, as we discussed.
Funding sources and other design considerations may dictate that we establish
a new alignment for the existing curve, such as a 45 MPH curve. This will obviously
have an impact on right of way costs.
1 trust this information is helpful to you. I sincerely apologize for the delay
in getting this information to you in written form. I look forward to hearing from
you regarding the City's response to the information given here.
Please do not hesitate to contact my office regarding any questions yo•i might
have on any of this.
Sincerely,
WaynFingal of
Coun Highway E Lnuor
pc: Basil Schillowaert, County Commissioner
WAF: jas
August 20, 1985
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. 1 • Box 97•B
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Mr. John E. Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
Monticello, hod 55362
Jct. T.H. 25 and C. R. 138
Telephone (612) 682.3900
Re: Status of two CSAR '39 segments in Monticello
Dear John:
WAYNE A. nNGAL50N, V.E.
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
This letter will address the status of two different segments of County State
Aid Highway (CSAR) No. 39 within the City of Monticello which we have discussed
With you recently, John. They are 1) CSAR 39 between I-94 and Elm Street on the
Westerly side of the City, and 2) CSAII 39 between CSAR 15 and Mississippi Drive
near the East side of the City. Both segments have been included in the County's
Five -Year Improvement Plan, which was approved earlier this year by the Wright
County Board of Commissioners.
CSAH 39 West (Golf Course Road)
The first segment listed above (between I-94 and Elm Street) has been added
to the plan at the City',s request. As you know, we are planning the grading of
CSAR 39 between I-94 and County Road 123 to take place in 1986 with base and
bituminous surfacing to be completed the following year. The City has indicated
the need for a bituminous shoulder along the said segment of CSAR 39 as a safety
measure for the numerous pedestrians and bicyclists which use this portion of
CSAH 39. This was discussed in your 8-13-84 letter to me. I have personally
looked at this 0.30 mile segment with this in mind. The bituminous surface itself
and the grade line are both generally good. In view of tills, my Department in
proposing a widening of the existing roadway as needed to accomodate the width
needed for a paved eight -Coot shoulder and appropriate ins lopes which meet state
aid standards. This widening should ideally be accomplished during the year prior
to the construction season when the bituminous surfacing takes place (to allow
for settlement, etc.). Therefore. if the City of Monticello would still like to
have this CSAR 39 segment improved (in the manner which I have outlined), please
lot us know within the next couple of months. Provisions can then be made to in-
cludo said ocgment into next year's CSAH 39 grading contract.
Now 1 would like to address the funding status. I mentioned in my 8-31-84
letter to you. John, that bikeway funding was included in proposed legislation
for thin past session of the Minnesota legislature. I have recently learned from
the Bicycle Transportation Unit of the Minnesota Department of Transportation that.
i
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
7. Consideration of a Proposed Extension of Public Services -
/� Petitioner, H. Ruff. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Mr. Harold Ruff and Mrs. Lela Panter have petitioned the City
for sanitary sewer and city water services for parcels #101403
and 0101412. These two pieces of properties are located on
the west aide of Elm Street, just south of Sixth Street.
The purpose of the extension of sanitary sewer and water services
are to serve the residence of Lela Pantor and a proposed single
family dwelling for Mr. Randy Ruff.
Sanitary sewer currently exists at the intersection of Elm
Street and Sixth Street. This project would require the installation
of approximately 185 feet of sanitary sewer, a single manhole,
and two sanitary sewer services. There is an existing water
main on the east aide of Elm Street from which both of these
properties have been assessed. At that time, however, no
water services were requested so therefore none were put in.
We would propose to install a one inch water service to each
of the single family dwellings.
A pruliminary field investigation indicates this project to
be feasible. There is a considerable amount of fill required
on the lot proposed for the Randy Ruff residence. Since the
proposed home is to be a walk -out there will be adequate elevation
to pick up the sower at Elm Street. We have estimated the
cost of this project in the area of $8,400, which includes
the water, sower, and street. The cost of the project would
be assessed 1008 to those bonofitting property owners, therefore,
1/2 to Mrs. Lola Pantor and 1/2 to Mr. Harold Ruff payable
within 30 days after completion of the project.
In Mrs. Lola Pantorlo case, it appears that she will qualify
for a senior citizen or retired and disabled persons hardship
deferral pursuant to Minnesota Statute 435.193-195. In this
particular case, we would expect the assessment payments to
be deferred until ouch time that she no longer qualifies for
the deferral, sells the property, or passes on and the property
becomes her heirs.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. To accept the petition and authorize installation of the
improvements based upon City Staff completing the plane
and specifications and the quotations from contractors
and suppliers totaling loco than 910,000.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
2. Accept the petition and have the City Engineer prepare
t the pane andspecifications, bid documents, and advertise
i, for bids, than perform the required inspection. On a
small project like this the design, engineering, advertisement,
and inspection cost could be significant.
3. Accept the petition but to deny the request for public
improvements. This does not appear practical as the field
information indicates that these two properties may be
served.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director that
we accept the petition and authorize the improvement with
the conditions as outlined in alternative 01.
0. SUPPORTING DATA.
Petition. A copy of the location map and a copy of the preliminary
construction plane.
PETITION FOR LOCAL XMPR0VEMEI1T � CG
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOIiTICELLO, MIISi7ES0TA:
�'9 G 5
rcf
I (we), the undersigned owner(s) of the property deccribed below
petition that such peoperty be improved pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429 (Local Improvements, Special Assessments)
and hereby petition the following improvements:
Please indicate with an X the
improvements requested
Sanitary Sewer
City Water
Storm Sewer
Bituminous Surfacing (blacktopping)
Street Lighting
UCurb and Gutter
I (we), agree to pay 1001 of the improvement costs assessed
within 30 days after completion of project, except whore benefited
property-* are qualified for Senior Citizens or retired 6
disabled persona hardship deferral pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
435.193-195, which is hereby applied for.
Description of Property: pA2C' L 40 14 ` 7—
C) \ A-03
Signature of Owners:i
0
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
S. Consideration of a Resolution Requesting MN/DOT to Establish
Recognized RR Crossings at Cedar Street and at Jerry Liefert
Drive. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
The MW/DOT has requested the City pass resolutions for authorization
of two public railroad croosings in Monticello. The resolutions
are to include reasons why the additional crossings are needed.
1 have already forwarded copies of the plans for the crossings
and the construction and maintenance agreements with the Burlington
Northern Railroad. It appears that the resolutions are needed
as a formal declaration for these crossings, I cannot find
any evidence where the City has passed resolutions prior to
this for crossings, but it does appear that they are necessary
in the eyes of the MN/DOT.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
I. Pass the oncloseci resolutions requesting the authorization
establishment of two public crossings.
2. Not Paso the enclosed resolutions. This does not seem
to be practical as the State would then not recognize
those crossings and could close them.
C. SUPPORTING DATA.
A letter to MN/DOT, August 6, 1985. Speed letter from MN/DOT,
August 14, 1985. A copy of the resolutions.
- City 4 Wonfice[lo
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
August 6, 1985
ptdnele+ 21295.2711
L+etro 10+21333-5739
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Mr. Robert Swanson
Uayor: Director of Railroad Administration
AWv° asn3M Rm. 810, Transportation Building
city Cance: St. Paul, MN 55155
Dan Btonlw
Fran FW
WFea
Jk Marna Re: Public Crossings of the Burlington Northern Railroad at
ack
Cedar Street M.P. 35.116 and Jerry Liefert Drive M.P. 36.64.
A~Istretd:
Dear Mr. Swanson:
Tan Etdam
Faience Dtrector.
As per the City's past and recent conversations with Dick Fautch
Rick wo.ete0orr
of your office it appears that the Burlington Northern Railroad
Puotic War":
John Sancta
and the City's consultants fail to provide the proper information
Panning a Zoning:
to your department for the establishment of the above public
Gary Anderson
Crossings. '
The City has entered into agreements with the Burlington Northern
Railroad for the establishment of these crossings. The Burlington
Northern Railroad have completed their work on these crossings
including the necessary and applicable signing. The City has
paid Burlington Northern for this work and entered into the
applicable maintenance agreements.
I have enclosed copies of those maintenance agreements for
your review. If thio information 13 catiofactory, please list
those crossings as public crosainga with your department.
If you have any questions or if we may be of any further assistance,
please contact us.
Sincerely,
John E. Simola
Public Works Director
City of Monticello
JES/ba --'
Enclosure
cc: Tom Eidam, City Administrator
Burlington Northern Railroad Filo
250 Etts1 Rrowrey
Route e. Bo. 03A
monticetb. MN 55362
-Speed Letter® 44.902 j G:cvLine ;
Speed LettLrL—
To , From ' '•+-�� l _. 1�C1..�..1��
...Q,xc.., � tJ e•+.Q� �J�eXo,� Q 1 0 �o f �� .
A),
Subject `.a-l�-e.w`3�A.w �J�-l-✓Q.� /�! .¢_ ' /�•c� C.l.oaa..,.-•r„' Jc�r�. (�C,..J[at�.Aang.
MESSAGE
0.c A2.0 A_; a�+., X1�X° `_Qu ..� t i at lLe �¢ $.-t W&
�. Rai
REPLY
Dire 4 I f S S Signcd
011e Signed
Wilsoniones
V•• • RECIPIENT -RETAIN WHITE COPY. RETURN PINK COF
RESOLUTION 1985 #14
RESOLUTION
REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION TO ESTABLISH
A RAILROAD CROSSING
WHEREAS, Par West is a subdivision reviewed and approved by the
Monticello Planning Commission and the Monticello City Council and authorized
for recording, and
WHEREAS, the proposed density of Par West subdivision warrants
additional vehicle access other than Kevin Longley Drive via Prairie
Road, and
WHEREAS, proposed Jerry Liefert Drive provides such access which
will be beneficial for fire safety, lav enforcement and the relief of
traffic congestion, and
WHEREAS, Jerry Liefert Drive is aligned to cross the Burlington
Northern Railway.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
That Jerry Liefort Drive is found to be an approved platted street and
that the City request from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
that an official railroad crossing be established at the eastotnmost
and of Jerry Lierfort Drive.
Adopted this 9th day of September, 1985.
Arva A. Grimamo, Mayor
Thomas A. Eidam
City Administrator
RESOLUTION 1985 #15
1
RESOLUTION
REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION TO ESTABLISH
A RAILROAD CROSSING
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has recorded in its original plat
a street designated Cedar Street, said street connecting River Street
and Lauring Lane, and
WHEREAS, the growth in commercial and residential density along
said Cedar Street has been significant enough in the recent past that
traffic congestion problems are beginning to develop, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that Cedar Street when fullly
constructed can alleviate said traffic congestion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
That a request be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation
l` that an official railroad crossing be established on Cedar Street in
order to permit the completion of construction of Cedar Street.
Adopted this 9th day of Septembor, 1985.
Thomas A. Eidom
City Administrator
C'
Arvo A. Grimamo, Mayor
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
9. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of a Utility
1 17 Tractor. O .S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
In the 1985 budget under park and recreation/cemetary, the
City staff placed an amount of $9,000 to replace the old 1947
International Tractor Mower which has become outdted. The
majority of the mowing in the park and recreation/cemetary
and other public properties is performed with three pieces
of equipment that the City has. One, the existing 1947 International
Cub Tractor with sickle mower, two, a 1980 Bolens with a rear
mounted 60 inch rotary mower and three', a 1982 Allis Chalmers
with a 60 inch mid -mount mower. This year for the first time
due to work overloads and/or breakdowns with existing equipment,
we contracted for mowing on three separate occasions.
Since the 1947 International is so old, most of the parts
for this machine are outdated and not stocked by any dealers.
This unit, therefore, because of its equipment and age is
not utilized to a great degree. We have proposed to replace
this unit this year with a now mid -mount rotary equipped tractor.
We had also expected to equip either the Allis Chalmers or
the Bolona with a roar mount roverso cut flail mower to supplement
the mowing force. With three pieces of equipment, we could
better keep pato with the mowing requirements in the City
of Monticello. A breakdown of one of the pieces of equipment
�. would not give us a significant backlog as it does now, and
it would only be necessary to contract for mowing occasionally
when workload prohibits us from mowing or when the tractors
are being used for landscaping, spraying, or other duties.
We may still contract, however, for ouch isolated areas as
the now four field softball complex. Tho next question you
may bo asking is what does it coot us as a City to own and
operate a tractor and put an operator on it. Tho avorago
coat of ownership of tho 1980 Bolona and the 1982 Allis Chalmers
is S6.86 par hour of use. This figuro includes ovary part
that was bought for theso tractors, ovary gallon of fuel,
all tho labor for maintenance, oil, and insurance since tho
time they were purchased and assumos a seven yoar life with
a rosalo value of $2,600 each. All of tho figures on tho
enclosed shoots can ba vorifiad through City records.
The pay roto for City amployaon doing mowing varies, a good
percentage of the mowing is dono by Dave Stromborg who is
paid $4.85 an hour. This coupled with the bonofita and ovorhoad
packago ho raccives totals $5.65 or. hour. For a summer youth
worker under no programs what000var, wo pay $3.35 an hour.
To thio wo add 17a for his bonafit packago, making a total
of $3.52 par hour. For a oummor youth worker undor ono of
the programs wo pay only 8 hours out of ovary 40 hours at
$3.35 par hour with a bonafit pacakago thorn, tho hourly rato
( for thosa 8 hours would bo also $3.52 par hour.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
/ However, if we take the total weekly outlay for the City of
Monticello of $28.16 and divide it by 40 hours, these individuals
cost us 704 an hour.
Adding the labor rates to the equipment ra to of $6.86 an hour,
we come up with a range for the total ownership and operation
of a mover of $7.56 an hour to a maximum of S12.51 per hour.
Now we will compare the existing ownership rates with the
coat of ownership of a new tractor.
We have taken bide for two similar pieces of equipment from
Moon Motor Sales in Monticello for a 650 John Deere and from
Carlson'e Lake State Equipment Company in Burnsville for a
model 8200 Kubota tractor. Both tractors are equipped with
60 inch mid -mount rotary motors and roll-over protection.
The John Deere is a 17 horsepower, 2 cylinder diesel four-wheel
drive tractor, and the Kubota is a 19 horsepower, 3 cylinder,
diesel four-wheel drive tractor. The Kubota has a hydrostatic
drive transmission with a two speed PTO, while the John Deere
has a manual transmission with a single speed PTO. John Deere
is currently promoting sales of these mid- sits compact utility
tractors to municipalities and other government agencies.
By buying through John Deere, we would receive a $3,668 discount
because we aro a municipality. This makes the total coat
of the John Deere $5,888.24 versus the cost of the Kubota
of $8,092. Both of the quotas and litorature are enclosed
for your review. Neither of those prices includes the trade-in
value of our 1947 Cub, which I boliove in valued at between
$1,000 and $1,500. Subtracting this from the Moon Motors
bid would make our total capital outlay so meplaco between
$4,300 and $4,800. For the purposes of determining the ownership
and operational costo of this now tractor. we will use the
total purchase price of $5,888. Based upon thin figure and
typical repair and operational figures from our other two
tractors, wo would expect the total oporational coat and ownership
coat to be $6.11.par hour based upon a 240 hour par year expected
use. Dropping to 200 hrs. a year would raise the price to $7.25
an hour. Putting a summer youth on this tractor, under no
reimbursement program would moan a total operational coot
ranging from $9.63 per hour to $10.77 per hour.
The throo times that we contracted for moving in 1985, were
for a operator and tractor witha GO inch mid -mount mower, the
contractor had tho minimum insurance raquiiremonta an racommondad
by the City's insurance company and City a ttornoy, and the
lowest price we rocoivad for tractor and operator was $17.00
par hour. If one can assume that a contractor lives or resides
nearby the workoito, does not charge for hie time going to
the worksito or returning from the workslt o, dean not charge
you for any down time or equipment maintenance time, or refueling
time, and dean not pad his hours or have min off day, one might
/ assume he Is 100% efficient for tho hours contracted for.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Replace the 1947 International Cub tractor by purchasing
the now John Dooro tractor and a flail attachment,
and call the old International to the highest bidder.
The total capital outlay expected to be $6,188.
A City worker on the other hand would be paid for travel time
�l
(I
from the shop to the job, would be paid for fuel- up time,
`4
maintenance, however, is covered in our operational cost,
but he would be paid for a 15 minute break in the morning
and a 15 minute break in the afternoon. Most of the time
our mowers operate right through break, or they take their
break at the site. Lot us, however, for the sake of those
who may argue the point assume that as much as 2-25 hours
per day on the worstscenario would be used in travel time,
breaks, and whatever for a City worker. I would like to think
the average is much less, however. Using the 2 1/2 hour figure
out of an 8 hour day would indicate that the City individual
would be 758 efficient compared to the contracted worker.
we would, therefore, say that the break even cost would be
758 of the contracted cost or 756 of the $17.00 per hour figure.
The break oven cost for a City worker with tractor would be
S12.75 per hour. This figure is above any of the figures
we have above, therefore, indicating that it is slightly cheaper
to own and operate the City's own equipment rather than to
contract._ I do believe that the figures are close enough,
however, that the City can contract for certain portions of
our work involving a great deal of travel time, or during
those periods of time when City staff is overloaded. The
fact does remain, that if we can use summer youth to do much
of the extra mowing, the cost to the City cannot be matched
by any contractor, they cannot oven come close to a rate of
$6.81 par hour.
The John Doers tractor in an especially good value due to
the municipal discount at thin time, our actual cost of $58
is leen than the normal dealer cost on this particular unit.
In addition to the tractor as stated earlier, we would wish
to purchase a roar mounted flail mowor to be used with the
Solana or Allia Chalmers tractor for, mowing road shoulders.
This would take the place of the eicklo mowor on the old Cub.
The coot of those flail mowar attachments are approximately
$1,800, therefore, adding thio to the price of the tractor,
loan the expected sale of the 1947 International Cub for 91,500,
will bring the total capital outlay to $6,188, thio is approximately
$2,822 lose than tho budgeted amount.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Replace the 1947 International Cub tractor by purchasing
the now John Dooro tractor and a flail attachment,
and call the old International to the highest bidder.
The total capital outlay expected to be $6,188.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
2. Purchase only the flail mover attachment, and to get
,t by with the rest of the existing equipment ve have by
contracting out significantly more moving.
3. Do nothing and continue to use the existing equipment.
This alternative does not appear to be practical, as the
City is growing and more and more areae are needing maintenance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director and
Park Superintendent that we purchase the John Deere tractor
and flailmover attachment for the Bolens or Allis Chalmers
tractor and sell the 1967 International Cub outright as outlined
in alternative U1. we feel this is the beat possible solution
for the City, and that we would contract only in those remote
areas or an as needed basis.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copy of the quotation from Moon Motors and brochure on the
John Deere tractor. Copy of the bid from Car loon's Lake State
Equipment Company and brochure on Kuboda tractor. Copies
of ownership and operating costa for the 1980 Bolone, 1982
Allis Chalmers, and estimated costs for the 1985 John Deere.
f■
l_
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING COSTS
1. 1985 John Deere Estimated
Purchase Price
$5,888.00
Expected Use Per Year
240 hrs.
Fuel Costs/yr @ .43 Gal. hr. @ $1.00 Gel.
103.00 yr.
Oil and Lube Costs/yr
23.00 yr.
Parts Costs/yr
300.00 yr.
Labor for Maintenance/yr
500.00 yr.
Insurance
100.00 yr.
Ownership Cost (assume 7 yrs. with $2,800 Resale)
$ 441.00 yr. -
Total Yearly Cost
51,467.00
• 240 hre. -
S 6.11 hr.
2. 1982 Allis-Chalmers Actual Coate.
Purchase Date
1-83
Purchase Price 2/mover, blower and cab
$9,995.00
Fuel Use
.62 gal/hr
Total hro 9-85
1062 hro
Oil Use
$ 43/yr
Parts (1419.63)
S 534/yr
Fuel @ 1.00/981
S 248/yr
Labor for Maintananco
$ 700/yr
Insurance
$ 100/yr
Total Operating Costs
S 1,625/yr
Ownership Cost (assume 7 yrs 52,800 resale)
S 1,028/yr
Total
$ 2,653/yr
Houro/yoar
400
Coat/hr.
$ 6.63
3. 1980 Bolono Actual Coate
Purchase Data
2-80
Purchase Price w/mower, blower 6 cab
S 7,633.33
Fuol Use
.43 gala/hr.
Total Hours 9-85
1,316 hro.
Oil Uso
S 23/yr
Parts (51,564.17)
S 285/yr
Fuol g 1.00/gal
S 103/yr
Labor for Maintonanco
$ 500/yr
Ins-tranco
S 100/yr
Total Operating Costa
51,011/yr
ownership Coot Assume 7 yrs. $2,800 resale
S 690/yr
Total
$1.10 '/Y;
/
Hou re/year
240 hrs.
Coot/hr
5 7.09/hr.
I
MEL"t-TRACTC
Sk
Aku
IMS
rx
It %
i vv
Ya�L
Y
(FLC - ,
I . AJ
CARLSON'S
LAKE STATE EQUIPMENT CO.
12500 Dupont Avenue South
QWTAT ION
a
Burnsville, MN 55337To: i 1 f
Phone 612-890.8880 Z CG �.�cs /....c r Date
[�// Quoted
i�;'r•r.: ��� /%%/� F.O.B. �%lcr; •�rc e�%
Quotation Firm
Attn: j::L) rp f'�, /� Unti1 /C- // - p<—
s�
� y�
-1/Y
• lie
Subject to terms and conditions of our customary order form.
oted By:—D-&LA,ve. l"o drl8ine Accepted: Date:
pprr•-,,td 8y:. L) 'AiV /� ' L4 Finn Name
By: Title:
0
NAM=*
MOON MOTOR SALES, Inc.
414 S. Highway 25
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
0 , -) _J�S_
Date / __.�
Salesman a16�
Year make -rt2 17 A.1 /,"7,r e re model — v C6/1W
Serial No. Engine No
Factory F.O.B. Price. ................. .. . . . . ................... .... $
e,,.l :lo4A,, ^10)z /(/__ d �Lp.
/d. A_ "4'-V e'.(V14Z --",c
4v el cP
re .5
z'4 r-r"A I
/.'/Cuter
3-7
Phone: (612) 295-2920
Freight
FOB
Dealer Assembly 8 Service
TOTAL
Less—Allowance for Trade-in
Make Model
Year License
Color
Tax
License. Title a Fees
This quotation expires
Plicas "" ftwom we "MI so 0111,10111 &V the mamoackof"
.'Vvul n"s CiVift" 'A u4" V4101101102 via to ro-,1111,100 an
ad% of OWV"
TOTAL S
S" No
Mileage Engine No
S
Not Cash Delivered Price $_
say. awrasrriawa
son m1VWW
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
10. Consideration of Authorizing the Acquisition of a Snow Plow.
W.S. y
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
As you may remember, the City purchased the now International
truck without a plow, the Public Works Department was currently
reviewing several plow models and had not made a decision
on those models. Nor had we had an opportunity to test the
STP plow through a complete winter.
Over the past winter and our research, two things have become
evident; the STP snowplow with the triple cutting edge has
proved itself adequately through the winter of 1988-85. One
thing observed with the plow in that less snow is thrown over
the plow into the vision and windshield of the driver. The
plow, however, does not appear to throw snow or is not substantially
higher than the existing Henke, plows we have. On the other
hand, any higher plows or plows of alternate designs are much
more costly than the STP plow. The STP plow currontly calls
for $2.675 installed. Other plow dosigns which we have looked
at sell for in the neighborhood of 54-5,000. We believe the
benefit of those other plovahais not proven itself enough to
justify the additional funds.
df We do have one Henke plow ief tovor from the 1981 Chevrolet
1 - when we installed the STP plow on that truck. I believe the
current value of that plow to be in the area of $1,500. I
would rocommond colling that plow to the highest bidder, therefore ,
our total outlay would be in tho neighborhood of $1.100 for
a now plow.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Purchase a now Norway STP plow for $2,675, and call our
old Henke, plow to the highest bidder.
2. Purchase one of the alternate design plows at coot of
approximately $5,000 more or less.
3. Modify the existing Henke plow to fit on the Folic hitch
on the now truck. This dean not appear practical as we
have not boon ca tiofied with the performance of the Henke
plows that the City owns.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Copies of a quoto from Valk, STA, and a picture of the Wausau
plow. Design data for STP plow and Wausau plow.
II
j I�
AUSexpressway snow plows
efficiency of the one way plow — versatility of the reversible blade
t�
I I is 11 a
The symetrical shape of the moldboard moves the
snow up and out on the plane of the moldboard — In
oithor direction — raising and coating it over snow
accumulation of the discharge and.
a
The curvilinear portions of the moldboard act as highly
efficient deflectors to guide and funnel the snow as It
moves up, out and over to the aide — no blow over to
obscure operator vision.
Get the high speed characteristics of
aone-way plow with the reversing and
clean-up ability of a reversible blade.
This snow plow Is designed for today's mod-
ern expressways, toll roads and airports. It is
the most modern and radical departure from
conventional snow plow design the industry
has produced In a generation.
The Expressway Is hydraulically or man-
ually adjustable 42' to both sides of center.
It functions as a highly efficient, high speed. ,
right hand one-way plow, a left hand one-way
plow and as a straight across blade for all
clean up work. The high nose makes the plow
even more effective for straight ahead bull-
dozing.
5 POSITION PITCH CONTROL
The unique pitch control shear bar with
trip spring design gives the clean plowing
characteristic of a rigid blade plow and the
safety of a trip blade. The 5 pitch positions
(17, 23, 28, 33 and 40 degrees @ cutting
edge) on the moldboard permit close -in or
far-out discharge as well as compensation
for loose or hard packed snow. Easily re-
placed shear pins protect plow and truck
from damage.
INTERCHANGEABLE
The Expressway is Interchangeable with all
Wausau Vee and blade plows for comparable
size trucks on the same hitch. It can be used
with Wausau Leveling Wings.
D
A/S .STP .SCANDINAVIAN
TRANSPORT PRODUCTS
2•VIXt ROINER
REVERSISLE Sil,J0AW PLOV1 EQUIPPED
INI i H SPECIAL SHOO ABSORBING
AND SAFFY DEVICES
I V 8 LH v Plows
"V" TYPE PLOW
SPECIFICATIONS
PLOW cuft" Hidden
MODEL 1011111111 91
Mol dboa int of Welond m-nded
Width" of 01 RemErect
Now Rut
End
51 Top 0111104.0 Pic. SIR
Un.
V8 8. 36" 72'
129' 10 GA. 1250 2 to 4 Ton
V95 81 6* 36, 72'
132" 10 GA. 1475 211z to 5 Ton
V9 91 44- 78"
132" 10 GA. 1550 M to 5 Ton
VID 10, 55' 84'
138' 10 GA. 2050 5 Ton Up
Valk V Series snowplows are designed
for fixed position plowing while discharging
snow off both Sides of moldboards. Smooth
rolled, tapered moldboard permits easy, effl-
cient snow removal with a minimum of truck
effort; Plow comes equipped with abrasive
-. 7
resistant nose guard, cutting edge and three
wear shoes. Valk V plows will also fit standard
hitches.
V B LH xwseries-
Valk XW serlds snowplows are designed +�M"$r
for high speed snow removal from either side
of moldboard. Dual tapered moldboard design
permits high speed travel as with the One -
Way Snowplows. Discharging snow from
either side is possible as with the Reversible
snowplows. This makes these plows Ideal for
A -
plowing highways, turnpikes, airports, and
expressways.
"XW" SERIES PLOW SPECIFICATIONS
1
PLOW o'er• Vill "I" Ill.: 11.0" was"?
Enin Theduss Rs
(A.
Wer C11111114 1111611110 RMMMR I
Trat "
:0001L AT ft , 11
DEL wissi mail Dial Centers we"tes, "Iflastal
rite" of
Went Moldboard Sul
pin Ilia
E.0 lor R" Rill
"two$
Us, DIP 4r
XW-10 10'6' 40' 517, 115, 6 5
2 10 GA. it's 5
1550 81 7- 7' 11' 3 Ton Up
XW-1 1 121 Q" 44' 56" lie, 8 5
2 10 GA, W x 6"
11700 9' r 8' 4' 5 Ton Up
AIS STP SCANDINAVIAN
TRANSPORT PRODUCTS
PRODUCT:
PRICES:
TERMS OF
DELIVERY:
TERMS OF
PAYMENT:
TIME OF
DELIVERY:
SERVICE:
OTHER:
PR I CE'.` LI ST
"NORWAY" REVERS 1B LE SNOWPLOW
Model no. 3300, 11 feet,
2 -way power reversible snow plow,
equipped with special chock absorbing
and safety devices and blade,
without hitch,
but adjusted to your present hitches.
1 - 2 units: $ 2675,-
3 - 5 $ 2575,-
6 -10 $ 2475
Any applicable taxes not included.
F.O.B. Hutchinson, Minn. 55350
j9 10 days - net 30 days
To be agreed upon.
Service and spareparts available from
our local warehouse and service
organization.
For further details as to the above
Model 3300 please see enclosed literature.
Models, specifications, and prices are subject to change
without advance notice.
s
3
STEEL PRODUCTS DIVISION
P. 0. BOX 218
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
PHONE: AREA CODE 717 - 766.0711
® 'irf a LH MANUFACTURING COMPANY
January 29, 1985
City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Attention: John E. Simola
Public Works Director
Gentlemen:
We take this opportunity to answer the questions you had
in your letter of January 23rd.
a. The speed of 20 miles per hour is not really considered ,
high speed on this plow, it will not roll the snow back
as far as it would if the plow is traveling at 30 miles
per hour.
b. The cutting edge can be either steel, rubber, or carbide
and have AASHO punching.
c. The warranty will run a period of one year against de-
fective material and poor workmanship.
d. A repair parts sheet showing every part on the plow with
the current prices will be furnished with the snowplow.
I am enclosing to you two (2) pictures showing the power
reverse on the XW type snowplow. The picture showing the black
plow has a rachet with a mechanical lock to remove all pressure
and shock from the hydraulic system. The other picture shows tho
type of power reverse that consist of two (2) double acting cylinders
and the plow will be held in place by the hydraulic cylinders.
The two methods of power reversing are optional at the same cost.
I
.<<I,s
O
City of Monticello
January 29, 1985
Page 2
Your cost delivered to Monticello on the Xw-11 with a 44"
nose height and a 56" discharge height with an 11' steel cutting
edge and power reverse, constructed to fit the Falls Model 40
hitch is $5300.00.
we sincerely hope this information has answered your questions,
if not, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
VALR bIANUFACTURING COMPPdIY
John H. Hi nsteel
/ Vice President
JHH/s as
Enclosures
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
11. Consideration of Making Final Appointment to the Position
of Liquor Store Mandger. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUNG.
The amount of information provided in this supplement is limited
since you will have had the opportunity to interview all three
final candidates. Beginning at 6:00 p.m. I have scheduled
each of the three finalists to come before the Council for
approximately 1/2 hour. At the conclusion of the interviews
it would be my wish that a final selection be determined with
the appointment to follow during the regular Council Meeting.
I think it would also be appropriate that during the special
meeting prior to the regular meeting, after interviews completed,
the salary be established for that individual. Consequently,
when the motion is made to appoint an individual to the position,
it should take the form of a selection of a given individual
and authorizing an offer of X dollars for salary. With respect
to salary, Mark was receiving $28,985 annually with nine years
experience and service with the City. It is my recommendation
that depending on the credentials and qualifications and overall
service of the person selected, the manager's salary be set
between $23,500 and $29,000 annually.
Thera is no alternative action nor staff recommendation on
this item.
Under separate cover you will receive copies of the finalists
resume's and a summary sheet of my interviews with the finalists.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
12. Discussion Item - Zoning Map. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Before proceeding with further revisions to the zoning map,
I am requesting that the City Council again provide staff
with direction. Based on the testimony at the last public
information meeting, I believe that the comments from Wrightco
and from ARE Ready Mix warrant changes in the map. I believe
that the performant zone -mixed needs to be expanded to accommodate
additional commercial uses, but I do not believe that the
Hoglund property should be zoned B-4. B-4 is clearly designated
to be a downtown business district (central business are)
and not fringe commercial. I believe that the PZ -M zone will
easily accomplish what the Hoglund -s would like in that area.
I have no position one way or the other with reapec t to the
expanded B-4 zone that affects block 30. The downtown business
zone is somewhat "land poor" and expansion is limited. If
we hope to inject now commercial life into the old downtown,
then we do need land for adequate expansion. This land expansion,
however, could occur at some later data when bona fide proposals
for commercial development have surfaced. Similarly, I have
no special preference on the performant zone residential line
along River Street. I genuinely believe that the zone will
work and will accomplish both goals, to wit, allow for the
croation of multiple housing along the river and protect the
rights and privileges of the single family home owner along
the river. I believe the zone as proposed Is fairly innovative
and could be quite successful. I also believe that the very
first multiple that could ever be proposed along the river
will generate substantial antipathy towards the City and the
devolopor. It matters not one bit to me whether the area
be preserved as R-1 or if it be permitted to expand to a controlled
flexible typo zone.
Rick Wolfatollor and I have speculated that the amount of
testimony at this time is somewhat limited in that the formal
hearing before the City Council is yet to be hold. Thoro
aro approximately 70-80 residents along East River Street
of which only 5 testified at the most recent mooting. From
that, is it sofa to conclude that the romaining 85 property
owners have no objection or simply that they plan to tomo
before the Council with all of their big guns. It may not
be beneficial to prolong those typos of informational mootings
unless there aro going to be radical changes in tho substance
of the zoning regulations. In my estimation, if the Council
finds itself quite comfortable with the kinds of zonoo we
aro proposing and the basic configuration of those zones,
than it is perhaps time to order the preparation of the final
document for Council hearing. Basically, if the overall concept
seems workable, than we should begin putting it in final form
now.
Council Agenda - 9/9/85
If the overall concept appears to be inappropriate for the
City's growth pattern, then that issue should be brought to
the front and the map redesigned. I do not think we will
ever arrive at a map where 1006 of the residents of the community
say we support this proposal.
The only decision required for this meeting is one telling
the staff what you wish us to do. If, before you elect to
order the preparation of the final map you wish to have an
additional work session with staff so that you may expand
your knowledge and develop a firmer grasp of the zoning principles,
we would be glad to meet at your convenience. At any rate,
I think it is an appropriate time to start taking definite
steps to approach final formulation.
Postscript:
I neglected to refer to the John Sandberg proposal for the
Meadows in the preceding body of this statement. I am to
date opposed to establishing an R-3 zone in the Meadows while
it is platted as it is. I would prefer to see the zoning
ordinance proceed as proposed and at such time that John Sandberg
proposes a replat of the area he can submit a request for
rezoning at that time. If, however, he is able to submit
an acceptable plat to the Planning Commission and the City
Council prior to final adoption of our zoning ordinance then
it might abo conceivable to be rezoned in part with the entire
Lordinance process. I am not opposed to zoning this area R-3,
I am only opposed to rezoning this area R-3 as platted today.
Thera aro no alternative actions, supporting data nor staff
recommendation for this item.
•
CSTT OF "WrICF33A
Hanthly-i3uliding Department Report.
PFJWTS and USPS
}tort'. of X19_25
,
�Ls"�a,
Leri Year -Tn
a Ycur____
PIIUSITS ISSUF� Mmth
Ju17
North August
Last Tear To Data
To Date
RMIDWrIALL
'
Number .
17
10
t0 72
66
Valuation 6 604,860.00
3 712,190.00
S 72,559.00 $2,321,227.00
33,792,610.00
Fees
4.9$0,6
3,014.66
447.]. 12,817,71
t9,2T6.fi2
Surcharges
442.15
156.50
16.50 1,151.20
1,896.40
COMERCIAL
-
Number
1
3 25
16
Valuation
15.000.00
157.900.00 940,329.00
_1,728,960.00
Fees
110.50
1,040.41 6,324.18
7,915.70
Surcharges
7.50
78.95 470.30
864.45
IN W SIRS AL
_
Number
Valuation
5
Fee$
1,776,500.00
Surcharges
81318.53
888.65
PIINISINO
Numbs r
Fees
15
6
.. 2 37
5O
Surcharges
372.00
277.00
64.00 1167.00
1668.00
7.50
3.00
4.00 18.50
28.00
O1'lIFA.9
Number
t 2
1
Valu0tion
Fees
10.00 20.00
456,900.00
2,285.02
Surcharges
228.25
TOTAL 110. PEPJ073 .
32..
. 11
.r. .41
•,,3.
TOTAL VAWATION 8 884.850.00
5 727.190.00
5 230,459.00 65.038.056.00
6 5,978.470.00
TOTAL FITS
7, t4t. 95
3.402.16
1,671973 28,847,02
31.165.42
TOTAL SURCHARGES
769.00.
367.00
116.51 2.520.65
3,017.05
L,IJRRPNT MIWT i
_..._
.. ..._._,^•
fhimber
M Data
EaMT 2tAral
Nhuab4Y
+ �.• Valuation Th1 s year
L.It year, .
5177gle Family
3
1 835.40 $
73.85 1 147,700.00
19
22
Duel ea
1
426.10
48.00 97,700.00
3
1
}silt! -tamp]
2
1.674.76
23D.OD 460,000.00
7
2
Commercial
I
6
8
Industrial
0
4
nee. Caragee
'
73
/9
SigneO
0
Fuel is 0u11dinga
1
2
ALTIRUTION CR RFPAn
rVellings
470.40
1.65 + 6,790.06
24
33
Comaerci al
I
110.50
7.50 15,000.00
to
15
Industrial
I
0
1
1 PII1NOUt0
All types
i
6
277.00
1.00
So
37
.
. ACCESSORY or"W YAU
..,.Ing pool•
0
0
i Does.
0
0
I TCNPORAAT pEAA2T
0
0
0f. M TION
. I ,
0
2
TUTUS
17
6 1.402.16
$ 367.00 1 727,190.00
133
141
INDIVIDUAL P£PMIT rCTNIH REPORT
. MONTH OF AUGUST . 198
( DESCRIPTION
�pr� NAME/LOCATION (VALUATION
IpERMIT
SURCHARGEI PLUMB]
NG
ISURCHARGFI
UMEAMIT BER
-
89-792
lloune Aeahfngle
ADI Lydia Swanson/518 k River St. (
1,430.00
! 14.30
S .TO
85-741
8asseent finish
A4 Jeffrey NOunelog/216Marvin Cl wad Re 0
2.500.00
15.50
1.75
59-794
12 Unit Aperwant
I11 MPj John KornoviCh/9l7 Golf Course Awd
730,000.00
507.90
111.00
97.00
.SO
65-795
12 Unit Apartoent
IJohn Kornavieh/919 Golf COurs: Aad
710,000.00
907.50
119.00
91.00
.50 I
85-746
Bingle family Ovoiifng
SP Marvin George 8uildere/24 fairway Dri a
46,200.00
266.40
21.10
23.00
.50
85-747
Mouse Aoehingie
! Ed 5chaffer/531 v Broadway f
1,430.00
14.30
.70 I
85-798
Addition in Garage
IAD
IAO Aohart Clark/103 O4kView Cirele I
1,430.00
` 14.10
' 85-799
1 single ramify Dwelling
09Bruce ZaChmen/211 Kevin Langley Drive;
52,900.00
4
26.25 I
21.00
.90 ;
8l-800
Addition to Ousinese
1ALj John Koppy/230 w Broadway 1
15,000.00
190.90
110.90
7.50 !
I 4
SS -801
Two reolly Dwelling
1D John Ml!ler/109 6 107 Kevin Longley Dr.
97,700,00
1 426.10
48.80
26.00
.50
85-002
single family Owelling
:dr Marvin George guilders/23 fairway Drive
49,000.00
278.50
24.50
21.00
.50
'
TOTALO
D 727,190.00
827465.40
9 364.00 8
777.00
8 1.00
i
1
I
+
i PLAN QEVIEN
83-744
12 Unit Apartment
MT4 John Kocnoviehl9iT Golf Course RnAd
179.88
,85-705
I
, 12 Unit Apartment
Mf John Karnovi Ch/919 Golf COuree Road
329.60
1
j
'
TOTAL PLAN QNIEN
8 659.76
'
TOTAL REVENUE ;
8 3.769. 16
j