City Council Agenda Packet 02-22-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 22, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Bloni'�en
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting Held January 13, 1988, and the
Regular Meeting Held February 8, 1988.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints.
4. Consideration of Feasibility Study for Sewer and Water Extension --West
County Road 39 --Bette Grossnickle Property.
5. Consideration of Approval of Preliminary Plans and Specifications and
Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Project 88-01 Phase II, County
Road 39 East Improvement and Oakwood Industrial Plat.
6. Consideration of a variance Request to Allow a Proposed Residential Lot,
When Platted, to have Less than the Minimum Lot Frontage on a Public
Right-of-way. Applicant, Charles Ritze.
7. Consideration of a Tabled Request for a Preliminary Plat Review of a
Proposed New Subdivision Plat. Applicant, Charles Ritze.
8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow as a Home Occupation
a Beauty Shop in an R-1 (single family residential) Zone. Applicant,
Karla Dickey.
9. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of More
than One Building on an Unplatted Lot. A Conditional Use Request to
Allow Construction of an Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum
Number of Units Allowed. Applicant, David Hornig.
10. Consideration of a Rezoning Request to Rezone Part of an Unplatted Tract
of Land from B-3 (highway business) to PZM (performance zone mixed)
Zoning. If Property to Rezoned, a Conditional Use Request to Allow
Construction of an Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum Number of
Units Allowed. Applicant., Metcalf 6 Larson.
11. Consideration of a Rezoning Request to Rezone Platted Lots from B-4
(regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. if Property
is Rezoned, a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of an
Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum Number of Unite Allowed.
Applicant, Metcalf 6 Larson.
12. Discussion of Concession Stand at NSP Softhall Pield Complex.
13. Consideration of Bills for the Month of February.
14. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
?' Wednesday, January 13, 1998 - 5:00 P.M.
A special meeting was held by the City Council fer the Purpose of
interviewing three finalists for the Position of Assistant Administrator. In
attendance at the meeting were Mayor Grimsmo, Councilmembers Bill Pair, Fran
Fair, Dan Blonigen, Warren Smith, and City Administrator, Rick Woifsteller.
After interviews were conducted with finalists Jeff O'Neill, Joel Dhein, and
Phyllis Boedigheimer, after which the Council discussed the qualifications of
each of the applicants, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Dan
Bionigen, and unanimously carried to offer the position of Assistant
Administrator to Mr. Jeff O'Neill with an annual salary of $32,000.
A1Ck Woltsteytrer
City Administrator
ral-07
MI MITES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 8, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Warren Smith
Members Absent: None.
Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 25,
1988.
Consideration of Request by U.S. Cycling Federation to Hold a Time Trial
Event in Monticello.
Mr. Pete Zarembo, District Representative of the U.S. Cycling Federation,
appeared before the Council to request permission for the Association to
hold a State Time Trial Bicycle Championship in Monticello on June 11,
1988. The event would start at the Pinewood School at approximately
6:00 a.m. and consist of up to 300 bikers who would proceed along a
course from Pinewood on County Road 75 to Clearwater a distance of 12.4
miles and return. Mr. Zarembo noted that the School has agreed to rent
their facility to the Association, and the Association would provide
$1 million worth of liability insurance for the event.
Before the event can proceed, the Wright County Sheriff's Department and
Highway Department are required to issue a permit for the use of the
county road, and a number of concerns were raised by the Sheriff's
Department regarding traffic control and assignment of a deputy to
monitor the event. The Sheriff's Department suggested that at least one
deputy be assigned for the event that would be paid for by the
Association. Councilmember Fran Fair also recommended that as a
condition of the permit, the Association consider the posting of notices
along the route and within Monticello ahead of time that would indicate
when the event would take place.
After further discussions, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill
Fair, and unanimously carried to grant approval to the issuance of the
permit for the event provided that 11 insurance coverage is provided in
the amount of $1 million with the City of Monticello as an additional
insured? 21 the Association pays for all costs associated with one deputy
to monitor the event; 31 the Association provide and post notices of the
event throughout the community and along the route.
Consideration of Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans
and Specifications on Streetacape Project.
At the January 11 Council meeting, a public hearing was held on the
proposed Downtown Streetacape Improvement Project; and it was the
Council's action at that meeting to table any action on the project
10
Council Minutes - 2/6/88
and directed the Downtown Rehabilitation Committee and City staff to work
with the Planner in an effort to reduce the cost by approximately
one-third.
Mr. Geoff Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow s Uban, Inc., the City's
Consulting Planner, presented to the Council the revised streetscape
proposal that had been reduced from an estimated cost of $640,000 down to
approximately $405,000, a 37 percent reduction. Mr. Martin noted that
the revised project included the elimination of Blocks 50 and 37 from the
project (Post Office block and Pump -n -Munch block) on the west and
replacing of sidewalks only where needed in Blocks B and D on the east
end. Major reductions in the public parking lots were also recommended
in Block 35, 34, and Block 52 by eliminating medians, some curbing, and
landscaping, etc. The revised plan also will be using exposed aggregate
along the sidewalks in areas that were previously planned to use
interlocking pavers in an effort to reduce the cost substantially.
After Mr. Martin's presentation, 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development
Director, reviewed with the Council the new project cost of $405,000 and
the proposed assessments to the benefiting property owners based on a
20 percent assessment ratio. The project would result in a typical
residential home valued at $62,000 having an increase in taxes of $1.80
per year.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that the two questions that the Council had to
consider were whether to proceed with the project; and if so, what the
assessment formula would be for benefiting property owners. The Council
did open up the meeting for public comment and questions, but asked that
it be limited to new information and not a rehash of the public hearing
comments January 11. Mayor Grimsmo noted that no improvements have taken
place in the downtown area in the past 15 years except for public parking
lot improvements and feels that all of Monticello will benefit from a
project such as this. Councilmember Blonigen felt that if the project
did proceed, a 20 percent assessment ratio was not high enough for the
sidewalk and landscaping improvements. Mr. Blonigen noted that the
City's ordinances currently require property owners to maintain and
replace sidewalks in front of their property and felt that if only
20 percent of the project is assessed to benefiting property owners in
the downtown area, the Council should seriously consider changing its
ordinance for the rest of the city. Based on the proposed assessment,
Mr. Blonigen was opposed to the project as presented. Councilmember Bill
Fair felt the image of the downtown area needed to be upgraded to prevent
further erosion of retail businesses. He noted that the main focus of a
community is normally its downtown area and that the facelift of the
streotscape project should encourage more private development to occur.
Councilmember Fran Pair also felt the project was much needed for
Monticello and that the project has been discussed and considered for a
number of years. Councilmember warren Smith noted that he had received a
number of comments from the public both pro and con to the project, but
overall felt the project will improve the image of the City of Monticello
ff and therefore make all residents proud of the city. Mr. Smith noted that
the City has and always will use ad valorem taxes to pay for projects and
U
Council Minutes - 2/8/88
services for the public and that not all people will benefit from each
tax dollar spent. Projects supported by taxes include such facilities as
softball fields, senior citizens centers, and other items that actually
benefit only a few people and that this project should be considered
likewise, a project that should be supported by all the citizens of
Monticello.
After the Council deliberations were completed, motion was made by Fran
Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, to adopt a resolution ordering the
improvement and preparation of plans and specifications on the revised
streetscape project and to propose that a 20 percent assessment formula
be used for benefiting property, voting in favor was Arve Grimsmo, Fran
Fair, Bill Fair, and Warren Smith. opposed was Dan Blonigen.
S, -e Resolution 88-4.
6. Consideration of Change Order #1 on 88-1A Deep well Project.
At the previous Council meeting, a contract was awarded to E.A. Renner
and Sons of Elk River, Minnesota, in the amount of $40,510 for the
construction of a new 14 -inch deep well. Because of the City's desire to
obtain at least 1,000 gallons per minute from the new well, the Public
Works Department had scheduled a gamma scan test of the well site which
would better determine whether the soil conditions could provide this
capacity. Based on the test completed by Minnesota Geophysical, it
appeared that the new well could produce in excess of 1,000 gallons per
minute with a 14 -inch high tech screens but the currently designed
14 -inch casing would limit the size of the pump that could be installed
in the well. As a result, it was recommended by E.H. Renner, the low
bidder, that the City consider changing to an 18 -inch well with an outer
24 -inch casing that would allow a larger size well pump to be installed.
The additional cost would amount to $7,865 and would require a change
order on the project. The new bid total would amount to $48,375, still
lower than the second bidder on the project.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $7,865 with E.E.
Renner and Sons enlarging the 14 -inch casing to an 18 -inch well.
7. Consideration of Policy Approval on Survey Requirements.
Section 3-2-C of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to platted and unplatted
property currently states that any person desiring to improve property
shall submit to the Building Inspector a survey of the property and
information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed
buildings, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments,
and other information that may be necessary to ensure conformance to city
ordinances. In an effort to clarify for all individuals obtaining a
building permit, the City staff has researched requirements of other
communities and prepared a policy that outlines the requirements that
each certificate of survey must provide.
LIM
Council Minutes - 2/8/88
It was noted by the City staff that the requirement would not be new,
only a clarification in policy form of the actual requirements. Council
members discussed whether the requirement of a certificate of survey for
a residential building permit would be cost prohibitive; and it was noted
that in most cases a new home builder usually is required to present a
survey for mortgage requirements and that the estimated cost of a typical
certificate of survey would be in the $100 to $200 range. The staff also
noted that a certificate of survey would have eliminated a number of
problems in the past if they had been submitted.
Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the policy statement outlining certificate of survey
requirements.
B. Update on East County Road 39 Improvement Project.
Public Works Director, John Simola, informed the Council that the City
staff has been negotiating with Mr. Robert Krautbauer for the purchase of
necessary property for the location of a lift station as part of the East
County Road 39 project. It was the Council consensus to authorize the
City staff to proceed with acquiring the necessary property for the lift
station in accordance with the design specifications.
�Ricl.
teltel�l
City AdministCator
C.
Litt' 01 Monticello
toluce of the
Gly Atlrnulistteta
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
70: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
DATE: February 22, 1988
SUBJECT: Additional Reference and Background for Council Agenda
Items Number 9 and 11 (Elderly Housing Projects)
As part of tonight's Council agenda, the Council will be considering
two separate development proposals seeking conditional use permits
and rezoning requests to allow for development of elderly housing
projects. It was felt that some additional information may be
appropriate for the Council to consider before taking action on
either one of the requests (items 9 and 11).
` The first proposal from Mr. David Hornig is to develop the former
Lucius Johnson property south of Sixth Street near the Monticello
Mall into a 12 -unit family subsidized apartment building and a
36 -unit elderly subsidized apartment project. Apparently, Mr. Hornig
has already submitted his application to Farmers Home Administration
for the elderly project, and he has obtained an option to purchase
the property from Lucius Johnson. I believe all Mr. Hornig needs
from the City Council is approval of placing the project on this
property and Farmers Home will consider his application. The second
project that the Council will consider is item 11 from Metcalf and
Larson proposing a similar 28 -unit elderly housing project on the
Monticello Ford site and adjacent property owned currently by the
HRA. In this request, the property still has to be rezoned to allow
elderly housing and also would require the same conditional use
permit.
As you are aware, the HRA has acquired the Monti -cello Ford site and
has been working very hard over the past few weeks in an effort to
obtain options on adjacent property consisting of the Jones
Manufacturing building, Stelton'o Laundromat, and Joe O'Connor'a
Truck Repair, which appear to be necessary to make the project
proposed by Metcalf and Larson feasible. At this point, it is
certainly the HRA's intent to sell the property to Metcalf and Larson
for their elderly project if terms can be reached with the other
250 East Broadway *Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Mayor and Council Members
February 22, 1988
Page 2
property owners to acquire their land. At this time, the HRA has
made tentative offers to Jones, O'Connor, and Steltons and should
expect to know whether the properties can be acquired by the end of
the week. If the HRA cannot come to terms with the other property
owners by the end of the week, it's possible that this project and
the problems associated with it will become a dead issue because
without the property, the elderly project proposed by Metcalf and
Larson would probably not be feasible in the downtown area.
In recent conversations with Mr. Jim Metcalf, he indicated that they
have not yet made application to Farmers Home Administration for
their elderly housing project, as they are awaiting the City Council
action on acquiring the additional property necessary and the proper
rezoning of the land, etc. In the meantime, Mr. Hornig has already
made application for his project; and Mr. Metcalf has indicated that
if the City Council would prefer to see the elderly project built in
the downtown area, he felt their project would really suffer if the
Council approved Mr. Hornig's project tonight. His reasoning is that
since Mr. Hornig already has his application in, Farmers Home
Administration would consider Mr. Hornig's project before the project
of Metcalf and Larson.
Because of this, the question for the Council to consider is whether
or not they have a preference on location for an elderly housing
project, that being the downtown area the HRA is trying to
rehabilitate or the vacant property near the Monticello Mall. The
HRA, as one of its major goals, has been working towards the
elimination of blight in the downtown area and has been working
extremely hard over the past month to work out details so that
Metcalf and Larson's elderly housing proposal would be feasible in
the downtown area. From this standpoint, the HRA certainly has a
vested interest in seeing the downtown Ford site develop to eliminate
blights but on the other hand, the HRA also didn't want to show a
preference over developers. 7fie HRA certainly feels additional
elderly housing is necessary in Monticello but hasn't taken a
preference over who develops it. Naturally, both sites have
amenities that make them desirable for elderly housing; and the
question will come down to whether the Council has a preference or
would rather let the Farmers Home Administration decide which should
receive funding.
At the present time, it is still uncertain whether the HRA will come
to terms with acquiring all the property needed next to the Ford
site, but if the Council would prefer to see the elderly project
constructed in the downtown area, approving the conditional use
request of Mr. Hornig may jeopardize the Council's desire to see it
downtown, but on the other hand, maybe the Council does not want to
play favoritism and let free enterprise take its course. As a
Mayor and Council
February 22, 1988
l Page 3
reminder, the downtown proposal by Metcalf and Larson would require
tax increment financing and a write-down of the land, whereas
Mr. Hornig's project is not asking for any City help. If the Council
feels both projects have merit and approval is granted to each one, I
believe the Council could write a letter for Metcalf and Larson to
Farmers Home Administration advising them that the City would prefer
the elderly project in the downtown area, as it meets our goal of
eliminating blighted buildings. This way the Council could support
the downtown project but still leave it up to Farmers Hone to decide
which project should be funded.
If Farmers Home Administration will act on a first come, first serve
basis, there's nothing the City can do to change the fact that
Mr. Hornig has already applied for his project other than delaying
his request for some reason. The problem I have in the Council
taking this route is we should have a reasonable excuse for tabling
Mr. Hornig's request. It may be sufficient to table the request just
based on the fact that the HRA has indicated they would prefer the
elderly site to be in the downtown area versus Mr. Hornig's property;
and the Council would have the right to base its recommendation on
the KRA'a choice of property. Basically, if Mr. Hornig Ia project is
approved, it appears that Farmers Hare will fund their project over
rt Metcalf and Larson's in that Metcalf and Larson will not be able to
get their application in before March 1. If this happens, it to very
possible that Metcalf and Larson will not even continue with their
application knowing that preference will be given to Mr. Hornig's
project. Mother thing to muddy the waters is if the Council even
decides it prefers the downtown site and tables action on
Mr. Hornig's property, if the downtown project does not go because
the HRA cannot acquire enough property, it will also possibly
jeopardize Mr. Hornig's project in that they also need approval prior
to March 1 or they may not get funding in 1988.
To briefly summarize, if the Council approves Mr. Hornig's project,
it's almost guaranteed that the Metcalf. and Larson project would not
happen regardless of whether the City acquires the land from
O'Connor, Stelton, and Jones, etc. If the Council denies or tables
Mr. Hornig's project, it sti 11 is not certain whether the HRA will be
able to acquire the property necessary at a reasonable price to even
allow Metcalf and Larson's project to proceed. As a result, the City
may not see any elderly project being funded this year. It's
certainly become a real dilemaa and one that the Council will have to
decide.
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
4. Consideration of Feasibility Study for Sewer and Water Extension --west
County Road 39 --Bette Grossnickle Property. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the January 25 Council meeting, Mrs. Bette Grossnickle appeared before
the Council and presented a petition requesting the City initiate a
feasibility study on the extension of sewer and water utilities to her
property on Golf Course Road. Mrs. Grossnickle indicated that she was
currently considering subdividing her property to create three lots but
needed to know the estimated cost of sewer and water extensions to serve
the new parcels.
Chuck Lepak of OSM has prepared a feasibility study on the sewer and
water extensions and will present this information at Monday night's
meeting along with the cost estimate. If it is acceptable to
Mrs. Grossnickle, this project can be incorporated into the East County
Road 39 improvement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. If the cost of the improvements is acceptable to Mrs. Grossnickle,
the Council can authorize preparation of plans and specifications for
C this extension which can be incorporated into the East County Road 39
Improvement Project.
2. If the estimated cost is not acceptable to Mrs. Grossnickle, plans
and specifications do not have to be ordered.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Provided the cost of the improvements is acceptable to the benefited
property owner, plans and specifications should be authorized and
incorporated into the East County Road 39 project for bidding.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
The feasibility study will be presented at Monday night's meeting by OSM.
-1-
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
5. Consideration of Approval of Preliminary Plans and Specifications and
Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Protect 88-01 Phase II, County
Road 39 Fast Improvement and Oakwood Industrial City Plat. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the public hearing held on January 11, 1988, the City Council ordered
plans and specifications for the County Road 39 Improvement Project.
This project was to include the City's new plat in the Oakwood Industrial
Park. In addition, if the Council wishes and Mrs. Grossnickle approves
the feasibility study and cost estimates, we could include her project
with this project.
The preliminary plans for this project were completed on the 16th of
February. I met with John Badalich and Chuck Lepak in their office on
February 17 to review the plans. The configuration of the plans remain
the same but some changes were made. Because of the failure of
annexation east of the city of Monticello, we looked at the possibility
of reducing the watermain and sanitary sewer in size. After some initial
study, it was determined that we could reduce the watermain from a
16 -inch to a 12 -inch and serve the existing city limits and some areas
immediately adjacent to the city in the future.
The reduction in size of the watermain will have significant savings for
the City. It would not rule out the possibility of serving portions of
the OAA in the future with water, as a 16 -inch stub located on County
Road 75 could be extended further into the OAA in the future. Since it
was highly unlikely that we would serve the entire OAA east of the
existing city limits and north of I-94 for some time in the future, it
was the consensus to reduce the sanitary sewer to a 12 -inch line and also
reduce the size of the lift station pumping equipment. This would serve
the existing city limits, the remaining portion of Krautbauer'e property
outside the city, and the area of Tyler East. we would not have the
capability to go beyond Tyler East unless the entire area developed in
a low density fashion. At some time in the future when this system
reaches capacity, it may be necessary to replace the sanitary sewer on
Mississippi Drive. If at that point in the future other areas in the OAA
need to be served, one could look at alternate methods of serving those
areas.
We have looked at the possibility of stopping the 12 -inch watermain at
the Robert Krautbauer residence. There is approximately 700 feet of farm
land between Mr. Krautbauer and the last house, Mr. and Mrs. John
Peterson. Mr. Krautbauer at this time has no immediate plans for
development, and we would therefore receive no assessment payments on
this portion of the watermain. In addition, the watermain is so located
that it could be put in later across this property without significant
disruption of the county roadway system. A third reason is that the
watermain would hold approximately 4,000 gallons of water between
Mr. Krautbauer's home and Mr. Peterson's home. At the expected rate of
-2-
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
usage by Mr. Peterson, his water would be two weeks old before it reached
his house. We discussed this scenerio with Mr. Peterson. He had
requested both water and sanitary sewer improvements to his property with
the questionnaire. He does have odor problems with his existing well.
we, therefore, decided to have his well water tested. We will have the
results for Monday evening's meeting. If Mr. Peterson's well water turns
out to be okay, we would recommend stopping the watermain at
Mr. Rraubauer's. If the water is not safe to drink, of course we would
then extend the city water to Mr. Peterson's.
The timetable that we would like to meet for the proposed project is as
follows:
Bid opening
March 24
Bid Award
March 28
Construction Start Date
on or before May 1, 1988
First Stage watermain
I-94 to Service Road
June 1, 1988
Completion of Sanitary Sewer Lines
June 20, 1988
Completion of Water Lines
June 24, 1988
Completion of Lift Station
and Project
September 1, 1988
This project will be intermingled with the county improvement project,
and there will be significant penalties for the contractor not meeting
the above completion dates.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve the preliminary plans and
spec's as presented with the changes or modifications as recommended
by staff and authorize advertisement for bids.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the plans and spec's
but to delay action until the final plans and spec's are completed.
Because of our very aggressive timetable on this project, this may
not be practical.
3. The third alternative would be to stop the project or to make major
modifications. This does not appear to be practical, as the primary
reason we are doing this project at this time is for the significant
cost savings of not having to replace the roadway.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director and City Engineer
that you approve the preliminary plans and spec's as detailed in
alternative number one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of plans are available at City Hall for your review.
-3-
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
6. Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow a Proposed Residential Lot,
When Platted, to Have Less than the Minimum Lot Frontage on a Public
Right-of-way. Applicant, Charles Ritze. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Charles Ritze will be back before you with the variance request to
have a residential lot, when platted, with less than the minimum lot
frontage on a public right-of-way. In discussions with Mr. Ritze today,
he has still been unable to come up with an agreement with the abutting
property owner, Mr. Reinhold Yager, on his preliminary plat request. The
variance request must show some type of hardship other than financial for
the variance request. In Mr. Ritze's request, we fail to see the
hardship in his request in that reworking of his plat can be done to
allow other means of access to serve this proposed lot in question.
When the ordinance was amended back in February of 1986, the main
emphasis of the ordinance being amended was to get away from the creation
of lots with less than the minimum lot frontage on a public
right-of-way.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a proposed residential lot,
!( when platted, to have less than the minimum lot frontage on a public
right-of-way.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a proposed residential lot, when
platted, to have less than the minimum lot frontage on a public
right-of-way.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow a proposed
residential lot, when platted, to have less than the minimum lot frontage
on a public right-of-way. city staff fails to see the hardship other
than financial created by the applicant's request. The access to this
lot in question can be accessed by other means by reworking of the
existing platted Lot 8 to accommodate access to a public right-of-way.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the variance request: Copy of the preliminary
plat of the Ritze Manor Second Addition, Copy of the Planning Commission
meeting minutes.
-4-
'-_ eat�t? alio~=°fian
-`- ••r..; m ieA�* • of°l yOs' , . tris.•
to teg'+ y8 88
Ott a-
. iat 4s°t'ta9
rr � t • Via. .
z—
F41
4
L OCA rION AM P
i\I
Ax
S, rz
VP
TAYLOR I LA . NO 1. SUWEY0,l;,.§ I it ',
r el 2
y
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/9/88
4. Public Rearing - A variance request to allow a proposed residential lot,
when platted, to have less than the minimum lot frontage on a public
right-of-way. Applicant, Charles Ritze.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Planning Commission
members that Mr. Ritze was back before them with a variance request to
have less than the minimum lot frontage an a public right-of-way. As
indicated on the enclosed preliminary plat site plan, Mr. Ritze currently
has 15 feet of frontage an a public right-of-way. Chairperson Richard
Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Randy
Yager, son of abutting property owner Reinhold Yager, questioned why the
reed for a minimum amount of lot frontage. Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated to Mr. Yager the intent of it was to allow sufficient room to
accommodate a driveway and the removal of snow so that when snow is
removed from the driveway it is placed onto one's own property.
Mr. Yager also indicated that Mr. Ritze has not talked to his father,
Reinhold Yager, to discuss some sort of possible exchange of land or a
monetary amount for the land which is needed for the total frontage on a
public right-of-way. With no further input from the public, Chairperson
Richard Carlson closed the public hearing and entertained for any
additional comments from Planning Commission members.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to deny the variance
request to allow a proposed residential lot, when platted, to have less
than the minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way. Motion carried
unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent. Reason for denial: Commission
members failed to see any undue hardship created by such a variance
request and there simply is not sufficient lot frontage on a public
right-of-way.
9
j Council Agenda - 2/22/88
T. Consideration of a Tabled Request for a Preliminary Plat Review of a
Proposed New Subdivision Plat. Applicant, Charles Ritze. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
If you choose to approve the previous variance request of Mr. Ritze's,
you can also consider the tabled preliminary plat request for the
proposed new subdivision plat, Ritze Manor Second Addition. The proposed
preliminary plat of the Ritze Manor Second Addition has been prepared in
its entirety with the preliminary plat meeting all of the minimum
requirements except the previous variance request for creating a
residential lot with less than the minimum lot frontage on a public
right-of-way.
8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat request for a proposed new subdivision
plat.
2. Deny the preliminary plat request for a proposed new subdivision
plat.
C. STAFF RF UMATTON:
If the City Council approves the previous variance request of
Mr. Ritze's, the City staff recommends denial of the preliminary plat
request. Approval of this preliminary plat request would be approving a
lot with leas than the minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way.
However, if Mr. Ritze is able to work out an agreement with Mr. Yager for
the purchase of the needed additional right-of-way on a public
right-of-way, we recommend approval of Mr. Ritze's preliminary plat
request. with the writing of this agenda supplement, we feel that the
applicant and his abutting property owner, Mr. Yager, are not very close
to reaching some sort of an agreement for the additional right-of-way
needed by Mr. Ritze. Mr. Ritze may have to choose the legal services
route for further clarification of the section line property dispute of
which the City of Monticello should not he involved in any way in any
legal action.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed preliminary plat request: Copy of
the proposed preliminary plat.
-5-
A request for a preliminary plat
review of a proposed new subdivision
plat.
\� Charles Hitze.
-----------------
� �\
IL
el
L. •i\\
PON •
777
i3+�]hRiRTl.1?�W�
1
.lf/bY sa/ 1 Mi✓! ..;.1�• u...l � � - — tiw• w. - ...e.. w. n.r•rw •
LOCATION MAP -
ct/ ly
S/ re
0.1— PIP.
TAiLoR LAib'-q.AWvEyoks 'W�
Planning commission Minutes - 2/9/88
Planning Comission Minutes - 2/9/88
Tabled request for a preliminary plat review of a proposed new
subdivision plat. Applicant, Cnaries Rit2l.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that with the previous public hearing and the variance request by
Mr. Ritse being denied, there is no further action needed on this
preliminary plat request.
0
CI
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
B. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow as a Home Occupation
a Beauty Shop in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. Applicant,
Karla Dickey. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mrs. Dickey is proposing to be allowed to have a beauty shop business in
a portion of her residential home in an R-1 (single family residential)
zone.
Mrs. Dickey's intention is to create only one room within her existing
house for the operation of her proposed beauty shop business. In review
of her existing residence, Mrs. Dickey does not have an attached or
detached garage to her existing residence. without a garage, sufficient
off-street parking space can be accommodated for the prospective clients
of this proposed beauty shop business. Mrs. Dickey will be the only
operator or employee for this proposed beauty shop business. Included in
this agenda supplement is a copy of the definition section of our
ordinance under Home Occupation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow as a home occupation a
beauty shop in an R-1 (single family residential) zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow as a home occupation a
beauty shop in an R-1 (single family residential) zone.
C. STAFF RECUMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow as
a home occupation a beauty shop in an R-1 (single family residential)
zone. Under the definition section of our ordinance, the home occupatinn
conditions associated with her proposed beauty shop business would meet
or exceed all the minimum conditions attached with it.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed beauty shop businesas Copy of the
definition section of the ordinance under Home Occupations Copy of the
Planning Commisoion meeting minutes.
-6-
. at
o
cel ."c-9, Zone.
cold
10% ILI
as 4,t%
(HH) HOME OCCJPATION: Any gainful occupation engaged in
by the occupants of a dvelling at or from the dwelling.
Such activity shall be clearly incidental and secondary
to the residential use of the premises. Permissable
home occupations shall not include the conducting of
a retail business ocher than by mail, manufacturinq
business, or a repair shop of any kind on the premises,
and no stock in trade shall be kept or sold. No other
than persons residing on the premises shall be employed,
and no mechanical equipment shall be employed that is
not customarily found in the home and no more than one �
(1 ) room may be devoted to home occupation use. Such
home occupation shall not require internal or external
altaretions or involve construction features not custormarily
found in dwellings. The entrance to the space devoted
to such occupations shall be within the dwelling. There
shall be no exterior display, no exterior signs except
as allowed in the sign regulations for the zoning district
in which such home occupation is located. •.•.
Thare shall be no exterior storage of equipment or
materials used in the home occupation. No home occupation
shall be permitted which results in or generates more
traffic than one (1) car for offstseet parking at any
given point in time. Permissable home occupations include,
but are not limited to the following: art studio, dressmaking,
special offices of a clergyman, lawyer, architect, engineer,
accountant, or real estate agent or appraiser, when
located in a dwelling unit occupied by the same: and
teaching, with musical, dancing and other instruction
limited to one (1) pupil at one tire.
❑o
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/9/88
6. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow as a home occupation
a beauty shop in an R-1 (single family residential) zone. Applicant,
Karla Dickey.
Karla Dickey was present to propose a conditional use request to be
allowed as a home occupation a beauty shop to be operated out of her
single family residential home. Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the
meeting for any input from the public. With no input from the public, he
turned it back to any discussion amongst the Planning Commission
members. A question was raised by Commission member Richard Martie if
Mrs. Dickey was aware of the conditions which go along with a home
occupation. Mrs. Dickey indicated she was aware of the conditions that
go along with the home occupation section of the ordinance. Chairperson
Richard Carlson questioned how many of these home occupation beauty shop
businesses we currently have in the city. Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated that since he has come here in 1983 there has only been one
issued and that was this past September of 1987 to Mrs. Hoerschler, with
the other one being approximately one block from her residence an
existing beauty shop operated out of a house. If this one was approved,
we would have a total of three that have been allowed to exist as a home
occupation only under a conditional use.
With no further discussion, Chairperson Richard Carlson entertained for a
motion. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lem, to approve the
conditional use request to allow as a home occupation a beauty shop in an
R-1 (single family residential) zone. Motion carried unanimously with
Joyce Dowling absent.
zt
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
9. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of More
Than One Building on an Unplatted Lot. A Conditional Use Request to
Allow Construction of an Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum
Number of Units Allowed. Applicant, David Hornig. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. David Hornig is proposing to develop the former Lucius Johnson
unplatted property. Mr. Hornig is proposing to develop this unplatted
piece of residential land into two phases, with the first phase being the
construction of a 12 -unit family subsidized building and the second
building to be a 36—unit elderly subsidized apartment project. On the
enclosed site plan you will note the first phase was scheduled to have a
40 -unit apartment building but has been down -scaled for a 36 -unit elderly
subsidized apartment. The second phase of the development of this
unplatted residential land is with the construction of two 12 -unit family
subsidized buildings. To develop this unplatted residential land in two
phases requires first, a conditional use request to allow more than one
building unit on an unplatted piece of land. The second conditional use
request is that one of these buildings proposed to be constructed in
phase one is proposed to be 36 units, which is 24 more units than the
maximum number of units allowed. This proposed development, with it
being phased in two separate projects, does meet or exceed all of the
minimum lot area square footage, setback requirements, and off-street and
enclosed parking spaces as required by ordinance.
Also as a condition to the conditional use requests, we are requesting
that the developer dedicate the area shown on the south portion of the
enclosed site plan for public right-of-way for the extension of Seventh
Street.
B. ALTERNATIVE: ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow construction of more
than one building on an unplatted lot, and approve the conditional
use request to allow construction of an apartment building in excess
of the maximum number of units allowed.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow construction of more than
one building on an unplatted residential lot, and deny the
conditional use request to allow construction of an apartment
building in excess of the maximum number of units allowed.
3. Approve the conditional use request to allow construction of more
than one building on an unplatted residential lot, and approve the
conditional use request to allow construction of an apartment
building in excess of the maximum number of unite allowed with the
following conditions:
a. The buildings be allowed to be constructed in two phases.
d� h. A portion of this unplatted residential property be dedicated to
the City as shown on the enclosed site plan for the proposed
extension of Seventh Street.
-7-
A
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
C. STAFF RECONUMATION:
City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow
construction of more than one building on this unplatted residential lot
and also recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow
construction of an apartment building in excess of the maximum number of
units allowed. We also recovmwnd as conditions to this that the
construction of these proposed apartment buildings be constructed in two
phases as shown on the enclosed site plan. We recommend also as a
condition to the conditional use request that the developers dedicate to
the City the necessary public right -of -gray needed for the construction of
the extension of West Seventh Street.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use requests! Copy of
the site plan for the proposed apartment buildings in phase one and phase
twoj Copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes.
-a-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/88
7. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow construction of more
tzar. one ouiiding on an unplatteo lot. A conditional use request to
allow construction of an apartment ouilptna in excess of the [taximum
nunzer of units aliowec. Appiicant, David Hornig.
Mr. David Hornig was present to propose his conditional use requests, the
first one to allow construction of more than one apartment building on an
unplatted lot, and the second tc allow an apartment building to be
constructed in excess of the maximum lumber of units allowed. Mr. Hornig
indicated that under phase one, which would be approximately the notherly
one-half of this unplatted tract of land, he is proposing to construct
one 36 -unit elderly housing project and one subsidized family housing
project. The second phase proposes to be two 12 -unit family subsidized
housing units. Mr. Hornig indicated according to the Wright County
Assessor, the 36 -unit elderly and 12 -unit family subsidized
apartment building would approximately bring an additional $31,000 to the
city's tax base. Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the public
hearing portion of this request. with no input from the public,
Mr. Carlson entertained for any discussion from the Planning Commission
members present. Mr. Carlson questioned as to what type of construction
these apartment buildings would be. Mr. Hornig indicated the apartment
building units would be approximately 80-856 brick with the balance being
cedar. Mr. Carlson also questioned a time table for phase two.
Mr. Hornig indicated it could possibly be one to two years after the
completion of the first phase of the project should funding be approved
for his project. The applicant, Mr. Hornig, would have to have aro:her
certificate of needs study done to see if there is a need for additional
units to be constructed first of all. Mr. Carlson also questioned
whether the west Seventh Street extension would be done at the same time
as the completion of the phase two of this project. Zoning Administrator
Pnderson indicated to Mr. Carlson that the extension of west Seventh
Street would more than likely be completed at the same time as the
completion of phase two of Mr. Hornig's project in that future
development would dictate as to when west Seventh Street would be
extended and completed.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Chairperson Richard Carlson
that he received a letter from one of the affected property owners, and
he would like it read aloud as public testimony in this conditional use
request. Chairperson Richard Carlson read the letter that was received
from Mr. John Beattie representing his company, J.B. Properties, and all
of the owners and investors of the apartment buildings which his firm
manages for these investors. with no further input from Planning
Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy
Le=, to approve the conditional use request to allow construction of
more than one building on an unplatted lot, and approve the conditional
use request to allow construction of an apartment building in excess of
the maximum number of units allowed with the following conditions:
A. The buildings be allowed to be constructed in two phases.
B. A portion of this unplatted property be dedicated as shown on the
enclosed site plan to the City for the public right-of-way needed for
the proposed extension of west Seventh Street.
Motion carried unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent.
6)
OSITE PLAN
e.n nr► -wr.. i
aw IyJH..w•1 w.w.
r .
.iwwrw w
rrs+r. — - •..u.w
.r wr ,r.rw•
MVS �
•..N. wl •Nrrw. '
rV .M rw
w U•wr ^ww t � u.�.+w
Ml, q�rw
•..u�ul .waw
rl'. •...rw -
..w�_I •w�� �..w
a
Iwo
•
ro
8jP--
'I'll
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
10. Consideration of a Rezoning Request to Rezone Part of an Unplatted Tract
of Land from B-3 (highway business) to PZM (performance zone mixed)
Zoning. If Property is Rezoned, a Conditional Use Request to Allow
Construction of an Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum Number of
Units Allowed. Applicant, Metcalf 6 Larson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Metcalf and Larson are proposing to have part of an unplatted piece of
property rezoned to allow construction of a 26 -unit subsidized family
apartment building. The portion that is proposed to be rezoned is
included in your agenda supplement. As you will note on the enclosed
map, the developer is proposing to rezone only a portion, approximately
2-1/2 acres in size, of this unplatted tract of land.
We, as City staff, feel that the developer is creating a spot zoning to
meet his particular need and that if the developer, along with the owner,
would like to plat the entire tract of land, we would look at possibly
rezoning at that time. with the applicant's proposed rezoning request,
we could end up with a metes and bounds description for just this
rezoning request and possibly other rezoning or other requests of this
unplatted piece of land to be developed by metes and bounds
descriptions. This, however, is not good planning purposes, as land that
is developed should be created as a new subdivision plat for a planned
unit development with blocks and lots within it.
The Planning Commission at their Tuesday, February 9, Planning Commission
meeting agreed to approve the developer's rezoning request with the
condition that the entire tract of this unplatted piece of land be
rezoned. If the entire unplatted tract of land was rezoned, they also
approve the conditional use request to allow more than the maximum number
of units allowed. In review of the Planning Commission's action, the
City staff feels the City Council could do likewise contingent upon the
owner rezoning the entire unplatted tract of land. If the owner agrees
to do that, we would then file a new public hearing notice for the entire
tract of unplatted land to be rezoned in a separate request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone part of an unplatted tract of
land from B-3 (highway business) to PZM (performance zone mixed)
zoning. Also approve the conditional use request to allow
construction of an apartment building in excess of the maximum number
of unite allowed.
2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone part of an unplatted tract of
land from B-3 (highway business) to PZM (performance zoned mixed)
zoning. Also deny the conditional use request to allow construction
of an apartment building in excess of the maximum number of units
allowed.
-9-
C
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
3. Consider approval of the rezoning request to rezone this part of an
unplatted tract of land from B-3 (highway business) to PZM
(performance zone mixed) zoning. Also approve the conditional use
request to allow construction of an apartment building in excess of
the maximum number of units allowed with the following conditions:
a. Approval for the rezoning request only be granted if the owner
approves of the entire tract of land to he rezoned from B-3
(highway business) to PZM (performance zone mixed).
b. with a new rezoning request, file public hearing notice for the
entire unplatted tract of land to be rezoned from B-3 (highway
business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning.
C. STAFF RECOsMMNIMTIOM:
City staff recommends denial of the applicant's proposed rezoning request
for only a portion of this unplatted tract of land. we feel the
developer should go back to the owner of the property and have the entire
tract of land rezoned. :f you choose to approve the rezoning of part of
this unplatted tract of land, we recommend you make it contingent upon
the entire tract of land being rezoned from B-3 (highway business) to PZM
(performance zone mixed) zoning. If you approve rezoning part or all of
this unplatted tract of land, we would also recommend approval of the
conditional use request to allow a 26 -unit apartment building to be
constructed in excess of the maximum number of units allowed. The land
area needed to accommodate this 26 -unit apartment building has exceeded
the minimum requirements of the ordinance in that additional land was
needed to accroamiodate on-site storm water retention areas be created. If
part or all of the rezoning is approved and the conditional use request
for more than the maximum number of apartment units allowed be approved,
the owner may subdivide off this portion of. the entire unplatted tract of
land to accommodate this 26 -unit apartment building. But this would be
the only piece of land that the owner would be able to subdivide off in
that unplatted tract of land can only be split once before he has to go
through the subdividing or platting process by ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed rezoning request; Copy of the site
plan for the proposed subsidized apartment building site; Copy of the
Planning Commission meeting minutes.
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/9/88
8. Public Hearing - A rezoning request to rezone part of an unplatted tract
of land from B-3 (highway business) to PZM (performance zone mixed)
zoning. If property is rezoned, a conditional use request to allow
construction of an aoartsxnt ouilding in excess or the maximum numcer of
units allowed. Applicant, Metcalf 6 Larson.
Mr. Jim Metcalf was present to propose a rezoning request to rezone a
portion of an unplatted tract of land owned by Mr. Stuart Hoglund.
If the property is rezoned, Mr. Metcalf would like to be allowed to
construct a 26 -unit family subsidized apartment building on this site.
In review of the site plan which was submitted by the applicant, the
minimum lot square footage, building setbacks, open parking spaces, and
enclosed garage spaces have met or exceeded the minimum requirements of
our ordinance, one thing to note is that additional land area was
required to accommodate on-site holding area ponds for water run-off from
the building and the asphalt parking lot and driveways for this
particular project.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened it for any input from the
public. With no input from the public, he opened it for discussion that
the planning Commission members may have with the applicant. Commission
members thought the project would be a good project for the area. They
were very uncomfortable with just rezoning a portion of this unplatted
land. Commission members felt that if the entire area of land owned by
Mr. Hoglund would be proposed to be rezoned, they would look favorably at
rezoning of the entire area.
With no further input from the planning Commission members, motion was
made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lem, to approve the rezoning
request to rezone part of an unplatted tract of land from B-) (highway
business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning with the following
condition: That the entire unplatted tract of land be rezoned. Motion
carried unanimously with .byte Dowling absent. notion was made by
Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the conditional use
request to allow construction of an apartment building in excess of the
maximum number of units allowed with the following condition: That the
entire area of this unplatted tract of land be rezoned. Motion carried
unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent.
2
.ire•- ::�. •IC,f:., :?-b' „i.':• ..i.-. _ .r .ti• •e, �.'r•='•r%=w:'.�� _'ti'. - _.y,•f;:
7-.:: ,:'o c4 -. 7f .: -•.� =�" .. �••- .+..:.�r.a%t•��;.�L` t. .4<Y->.d'+-�a' ti�-°:1•,d
♦ y'� � . -.. ��X.a .t;. :,y•�•.i :.11 :d r -.t?: t;�d... Jl.aw.+•t•�i�•:: •.•:•'�' a�
• i Ham.. tpf.I� .. - - �� •'
J t
:N" 117 r. -:S �• ```. IK::. •^; �•, r...,.J ... �•, -� ��: L•i_��_�t••:F � �Y*�-:'�..T �i.,•:_c.•.a"��i�l��
SM COVERAGE OM
1 Io>•oa�•
to. u•• 4� I
I
_a•
I _ ; ! 1 `�g.. e _ _ � . - . � -==--1:1:11 •. ' _ . iTT {
w` i x S?DI1Y, roar r ,�ss•�• �'
' 1
T.
-- — ""'
Tli 1 51. . o d a aloes
. _ 1 �_o� _ �,• ��_ � �, Holm. o�u�r� �-
4, 1 j — �� _ j fin( f,
%a • 1
O s" PLM
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
i
ii.
Consideration of a Rezoning Request to Rezone Platted Lots from B-4
(regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) Zoning. If Property
is Rezoned, a Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction of an
Apartment Building in Excess of the Maximum Number of Units Allowed.
Applicant, Metcalf a Larson. (G.A.)
C
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Metcalf and Larson are proposing to rezone a portion of the downtown 9-4
(regional business) zoning district to accommodate a proposed 28 -unit
subsidized elderly housing project. The land area that would be needed
for this proposed elderly project would encompass the former Monticello
Ford property site, existing Jones Manufacturing, Monticello Truck
Repair, and Stelton's Laundry building sites. If the rezoning request
and conditional use request are approved by the Planning Commission and
the City Council, the applicants wi 11 submit their application to the
Farmers Home Office in St. Cloud for possible approval of a 28 -unit
subsidized elderly housing project on this site. If rezoning is approved
for this project, the period of approval shall not be longer than
December 31, 1988, or sooner if the applicants do not receive approval of
their application for the proposed subsidized elderly project. One thing
to note is that this is in the very early stages of the application
process for a subsidized apartment project. As part of the application
process, it requires zoning approval to allow such a project to be built
on the proposed prcject site.
There are several steps to go through before all of the land is acquired
with three business sites demolished before we would have the property
available to sell to the proposed developers. The City of Monticello,
through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, is negotiating with the
other three property owners, Jones Manufacturing, Monticello Truck
Repair, and Stelton's Laundry for the possible purchase and demolition of
their existing business buildings to accommodate the proposed sale to the
developers for this 28 -unit elderly subsidized project.
City staff members can update you at the Monday night meeting on further
progress in negotiations with the three affected property owners.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone platted lots from B-4
(regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. Also
approve the conditional use request to allow construction of an
apartment building in excess of the maximum number of unite allowed.
2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone platted lots from B-4 (regional
business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. Also deny the
conditional use request to allow construction of an apartment
building in excess of the maximum number of units allowed.
-11-
11
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
3. Approve the rezoning request to rezone platted lots from B-4
(regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. Approve
the conditional use request to allow construction of an apartment
building in excess of the maximum number of units allowed with the
following conditions:
a. The rezoning approval be good for a period of time not to exceed
December 31, 1988, or sooner if the applicants do not receive
approval of their subsidized elderly housing project.
b. The enclosed site plan for the proposed 28 -unit elderly apartment
project be brought back to the Planning Commission and the city
Council with its revised final layout prior to application for
building permit.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the rezoning request to rezone platted
lots from B-4 (regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed)
zoning. Staff also recommends approval of the conditional use request to
allow construction of an apartment building in excess of the maximum
number of unite allowed with the following conditions:
a. The rezoning request be approved for a period not to exceed
December 31, 1988, or sooner if the application for the proposed
subsidized elderly apartment project is not approved.
b. A revised site plan be submitted to the Planning Commission and the
City Council in its entirety prior to application for a building
permit. In review of whether or not to even think about an apartment
building in a downtown area, we looked at several possibilities and
the current market that we are in for possible business building
expansion, we felt that an apartment building project of the
subsidized elderly kind would be a positive redevelopment of this
corner of the downtown business district.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed rezoning request; Copy of the site
plan for the proposed rezoning request[ Copy of the Planning Commission
meeting minutes.
-12-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/9/88
9. Public Hearing - A rezoning request to rezone platted lots from B-4
(regional ousiness) to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. if property
` is rezoned, a conditional use request to allow construction of an
apartment ouilding in excess of the maximum numoer of units allowed.
Applicant, Metcalf s Larson.
Mr. Jim Metcalf was present to propose rezoning of a portion of Block 51
from B-4 (regional business) to PZM (performance zone mixed) to
accommodate construction of a proposed 28 -unit subsidized elderly
project. The site plan as presented met the minimum requirements of the
ordinance. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated there were three
additional properties with businesses currently operating that would have
to be purchased or obtained on an option prior to this becoming a
proposed project. These properties could be acquired, relocation of
these three businesses could take place, demolition of their buildings,
and we would then have a site that would be ready to sell to the
applicant, Mr. Jim Metcalf.
Mr. Ken Maus, President of the Monticello BRA, was present to update the
Planning Commission members on the progress they have accomplished in the
negotiations for the purchase of these three business buildings. With no
input from the public, Mr. Carlson opened it up for any discussion with
Planning Commission members. Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned as
to what would be happening within the alley. Currently as it exists,
there is no alley there even though it's being used as alley; it's all
private property. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated it could be
negotiated for purchase of that as part of the tax increment district to
re-establish the alley -way through there with the City retaining the
ownership of that.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the rezoning
request to rezone platted lots from 3-4 (regional business) to YZM
(performance zone mixed) zoning with the following conditions:
1. The rezoning request be approved for a period not to exceed
December 31, 1988, or sooner if the application for the proposed
subsidized elderly project is not approved.
2. A revised final site plan be submitted to the Planning Commission in
its entirety prior to the application for a building permit.
Motion carried unanimously with Joyce Dowling absent. Motion was made by
Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the conditional use
request to allow construction of an apartment building in excess of the
maximum number of unita allowed. Motion carried unanimously with Joyce
Dowling absent.
' ,�, °w i ••w hYM
C
Ilt
Meg
0
N�
Ma'
too* ,s�•
' ,�, °w i ••w hYM
C
Ilt
Meg
0
•
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
12. Discussion of Concession Stand at NSP Softball Field Complex. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The primary purpose of this agenda item is two -fold, first to update the
Council on the expenditures to date on the softball field complex and
second, to receive input from the Council on future improvements, mainly
discussion on a concession stand. With winter hopefully coming to an
end, it won't be long and the Softball Association will be anxious to use
our new complex this spring. The Public Works Department is currently in
the process of completing the bleachers for the softball fields and minor
work has to be still conpleted, including some grading and additional
seeding: but generally, the softball fields should be ready for use this
spring.
As most of you are aware, the softball relocation started in 1986 with a
grant application from the State of Minnesota covering approximately
$26,000 of the cost. Over the past two years, the City has spent over
$91,000 for improvements to the softball complex and an additional labor
cost for City personnel working on the project totaling another $47,000
to date. As you can see, the City has quite a bit of money invested in
this complex and additional improvements are still being considered for
future years, including additional landscaping, possible lighting of one
or two fields, possible blacktopping of parking lot areas, and of course
the concession stand.
As part of the 1988 Budget, the Public Works Department had during the
preliminary budget review proposed approximately $30,000 in the park fund
for a concession stand at the softball complex. Due to budget cutbacks
and levy limitations, this item was deleted from consideration for 19881
and it was originally felt by the City staff that the softball fields
should be used for one or two years by the Softball Association and other
interested parties to see what need there was for a concession stand in
the future. A few months ago, Parke Superintendent, Roger Mack, and
myself met with members of the Softball Association to review with them
the anticipated maintenance cost of the new facility for such items as
mowing, etc., and to find out what type of contribution we could expect
from the Softball Association to help defray the City's cost. During our
discussions, the Softball Association felt that at a maximum they would
only be able to contribute approximately $2,000 to help defray the City's
maintenance cost until more teams and leagues were formed to use the
facilities. -hey noted that most of their fees charged to the teams are
used to pay cost for umpiring and supplies but that they could use
revenue from their concession sales to come up with the $2,000
contribution to the City. Preli-minary indications by Roger Mack are that
the City will spend approximately $6,000 annually to maintain the
softball field complex, and an a result, the Softball Association would
only be at thin point reimbursing the City for approximately one-third of
the cost.
-13-
0
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
In recent discussions with the Softball Association, they have questioned
when the City is planning on building a concession stand; and they were
informed that at the present time the City did not budget for this
expenditure in 1988, as the staff felt there were other areas within our
park system that could use the money from our tax levies. Although we do
not have an actual cost of a new concession stand with restrooms, etc.,
it's certainly the staff's opinion that if the City builds a concession
stand at this softball complex, the appearance of the concession stand
and bathroom facility should match the investment the City has already
made in the new fields. Members of the Association had indicated to
myself that they could probably arrange for volunteer labor to construct
all or a portion of the facility if the City would supply the materials,
as they felt it was important that they had a concession stand in order
to generate sufficient revenue to help reimburse the City for maintenance
costs. Originally, the City staff felt the Softball Association could
use other methods of selling concessions such as a portable van or a tent
structure and that a $30,000 to $50,000 complex was not necessarily
needed just for the Softball Association convenience.
At this point, to summarize, the City did not budget for a planned
concession stand and bathroom facility at the softball complex for 1988
but was planning on operating the facility a few years to see what
additional interest has been generated by the Softball Association before
proceeding with this large of an investment. If the Council feels that
with the amount of money already spent on the facility that a concession
stand with bathrooms should be constructed now, the staff needs that
direction from the Council. I can certainly sympathize with the Softball
Association wanting a nice facility to sell their concessions from, but
the City has already invested quite a lot of money in this one location
and we may want to see what type of use this facility receives before
investing anymore. On the other hand, I think we all agree that
eventually a bathroom and concession building will be necessary at these
ballfields; but the question is, when.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACtIONS:
After discussing the possibility of a concession stand at the softball
fields, if the Council feels that there is an immediate need for a
concession stand and bathrooms, direction can be given to the staff
members to proceed with design alternatives and cost estimates for
construction yet this year. Although the City does not have an amount
placed in its budget to cover this expenditure, funds could be made
available from the capital outlay revolving fund to complete this
project, especially if some volunteer labor could be received from the
Softball Association, etc. On the other hand, there certainly is merit
In the fields being used by the Association for a year or two to see what
interest there is from Lhe Softball Association and baseball teams to see
whether facilities are warranted. As mentioned earlier, at this point,
Lhe City will not receive more than about one-third of the maintenance
Council Agenda - 2/22/88
cost reimbursed: and before more investment is made for this location, we
may want to see greater reimbursement from those that use the facility
before investing more money for other amenities. Primarily, I believe
the Softball Association needs to know whether the City is considering a
concession stand yet this year so they can make appropriate arrangements
on how they would handle their concession sales without a building.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although the staff certainly understands a concession building would be
nice for the Association members to use, we don't believe that it's
absolutely necessary that one be constructed immediately for the softball
members to sell concessions. This could easily be accomplished by a
portable van or trailer or whatever method they wanted to use, and
waiting a year or two would give us a better indication of the use the
fields will see from the members and whether additional teams will begin
playing on the fields. If new teams can be attracted, more money would
be available for reimbursing the City in the future for maintenance cost
and then the City could consider additional investments. On the other
hand, if the Council feels that the complex is incomplete without a
restroom and concession stand building, the staff is certainly willing to
investigate building designs and proceed with a construction project yet
this year.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-15-
GENERAL FUND - JANUARY DISBURSEMENTS - AMOUNT CHECK NO.
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. for Dec.
R. Wolfsteller - Mileage expense for Dec.
Anoka Social Services - Payroll Deductions for Dec.
I.C.M.A Retirement Corp. - Payroll Deductions for Dec.
PERA - Insurance premium - Dec.
Gruys, Johnson b Assoc. - Computer Charges for Nov.
Mr1s. Star 6 Tribune - Ad for Assist. Admin. position
011ie Koropchak - Mileage expense
Horizons. Inc. - Topographic maps
David Anderson - Reimburs. for Partial payment of delinquent
sever and water account
Buffalo Bituminous - Otter Creek Rd. Realignment Project
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs and parts
U.S. Postmaster - postage
Lynnea Cillham - mileage expense
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library - Dec.
David Stromberg -Animal control payment - Dec.
PERA - PERA Withholdings - Dec.
Wright County State Bank - FICA. Federal Withholdings - Dec.
S b L Excavating - Payment on 86-7 Project
The Innovation Croups - Micro computer software directory
Assoc. of MN. Emergency Manager - Civil Def. Membership dues
MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Reg.
MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile Reg.
MN. Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV Reg.
Frank Madden 4 Assoc. - Legal fees
Mobil 011 Credit Corp. - Gas
Smith, Pringle, 8 Hayes - Legal Fees for Nov.
Construcclon 5, Inc. - Reimburs. for storm sever stub - Laurieg Lan
Ramier and Gries - Professional services
Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Professional services
Century Labs - Supplies - St. Depart.
Viking Pipe Services Co. - Televising 6 Inspect. sanitary sewdrs
D. Jacobson - Mileage expense
Water Products Co. - Clamp - Water Depart.
Double D Electric - Repair liteent Hockey rink
Phillips 66 Co. - Gas
Prentice Hall - Subscription of Magazine - P.W. Depart.
Road Machinery 6 Supplies Co. - Truck Rental for Xmas lites
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal Control expense
Richard Marcie - Planning Commission salary - Dec.
Cindy Lemm - Planning Commission salary - Dec.
Richard Carlson - Planning Commission salary - Dec.
Arve Grimsmo - Council Salary - Dec.
Fran Fair - Council Salary - Dec.
Bill Fair - Council Salary - Dec.
Dan Blonigen - Council Salary - Dec.
Warren Smith - Council Salary - Dec.
Beverly Johnson - Animal control contract - Dec.
123.04
300.00
204.00
759. 34
27.00
290.00
172.48
24.50
10,570.00
32.00
4,615.45
477. 37
500.00
31.25
216.67
302.00
1,353.04
4,507.62
24,470.30
29.95
20.00
196.00
242.00
36.00
182.00
96.00
609.00
e 460.00
141.25
4,148.92
212.47
440.00
59.60
443.25
146.25
50.85
44.93
470.00
40.00
49.27
49.27
49. 27
175.00
125.00
125.00
125.00
123. 19
275.00
Preusse Cleaning Service - Cleaning contract - Flre Hall 6 Cily Hall 450.00
YMCA of Mp1s - Contract paymant for Dec. 583. 33
Liquor Fund - Interest income on investments 2,107.67
Petty Cash - 40.79
Monticello Fire Department - Firemen's wages for Dec. 2,200.26
Monticello Fire Department - Reimbursement for supplies for 1187 590.90
25326
25327
25328
25329
25330
25331
25332
25333
25334
25335
25336
25337
25338
25339
25340
25341
25342
25343
25344
25345
25346
25347
25348
25349
25350
25351
25352
25353
25354
25355
25356
25357
25358
25359
25360
25361
25362
25363
25364
25365
25366
25367
25368
25369
25370
25371
25372
25373
25374
25375
25376
25377
25378
25379
GENERAL FUND - JANUARY AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Wright County State Bank - Investments
99,000.00
25380
Trojan Industries, Inc. - Fence - Park Depart.
3,098.71
25381
MN. Depart. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile Reg.
430.00
25382
MN. Depart. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Reg.
200.00
25383
MN. Depart. of Natural Resources - ATV Reg.
112.00
25384
Voss Electric - Bulbs - Street Depart.
284.52
25385
Big Lake Machine - Repairs
11.00
25386
MN. Conway Fire d Safety - Educator, hose, etc. - Fire Depart.
1,376.00
25387
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Paper towels for Library
34.78
25388
Buffalo Vacuum - Vacuum bags - Library
25.80
25389
Red's Mobil - Repairs
45.30
25390
Holmes b Graven - Professional Services
113.42
25391
Sc hluender Const. Co. - Services rendered at Senior Cit. Bld.
561.00
25392
Bowman Barnes Distribution - Supplies - Street Depart.
91.18
25393
Marco Business Products - Maintenance Agreement on typewriter
78.00
25394
Local ®49 - Union dues
115.00
25395
Monticello Family Practice Clinic, LTD - Physical - Al GapinsWi
54.00
25396
Fire Safety 6 Communications Corp. - GLoves 6 Coggles - Fire Dept.
93.24
25397
Un itog Rental - Uniform rental
102.40
25398
David Spinler - Demolition of old Ford Garage Bldg.
5, 944.00
25399
Automatic Systems Co. - Repairs of Water Tower
451.29
25400
Maus Tire Service - Tire repair
6.50
25401
Could Brothers Chev. - Repairs
51.75
25402
Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford Co. - Repairs
64.26
25403
McDowall Company - Repairs - City Hall, Library.
312.73
25404
Co rrow Sanitation - December contract payment
7,001.40
25405
KN. Depart. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile reg.
770.00
25406
MN. Depart. of Natural Resources - Watercraft reg.
335.00
25407
MN. Depart. of Natural Resources - ATV reg.
130.00
25408
I.C.M.A Retirement Corp. - Payroll Deductions - Dec.
759.34
25409
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll deductions - Dec.
123.04
25410
Busse Construction, Inc. - Construction work on Chelsea Road
12. 316.50
25411
Jerry Hermes - Library j anitoral services
216.67
25412
David Stromberg - Animal control expense
302.00
25413
Rick Wolfsteller - Misc. LTI87gr
35.12
25414
J.M. Oil Company - Gas
1.678.03
25415
Monticello Times - Advertising
103.20
25416
Fe edrite Controls, Inc. - New pump
I. 550.81
25417
Northern Oxygen Services . Inc. - Supplies - Fire Depart.
11.70
25418
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare Withholdings
4.419.28
25419
Commissioner of Revenue - State Withholdings for Dec.
1,981.00
25420
PERA - Pere withholdings
1,318.62
25421
Cr iefnow Sheet Metal - Sewer 6 water card holders
48.00
25422
Automatic Garage Door Company - Repairs at Fire Station
62.00
25423
Fy la's Excavating 6 Honey Wa goon - Digging fees
490.00
25424
Monticello Office Products - office supplies
158.70
25425
Rainier 6 Cries - Professional services
135.00
25426
Monticello Printing - office supplies and printing
52.70
25427
Maus Foods - supplies
138.12
25428
Seitz Servi Star Hdwo. - Supplies
52.41
25429
Earl P. Anderson 6 Assoc . - Sign poste
342.81
25430
Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. - Winter Mix for streets
350.00
25431
Harry's Auto Supply - Parts and supplies
329.45
25632
State Bldg. Inspector - Bldg. permit surcharge - 4th Quarter
409.01
25433
Monticello Times - Advertising
546.75
25434
Olson b Sons Electric - Services performed
185.21
25435
t
GENERAL FUND - JANUARY AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Coast to Coast - Supplies
134.91
25436
Bauerly Brothers, Inc. - Class V
350.00
25437
Kitowski Auto Sp. b Welding Co. - Bolts - Street Depart.
112.00
25438
Big Lake Lumber - Panel Door - P.W. Depart.
130.00
25439
Monticello Public Library - Reimburs. of Petty Cash Fund
378.90
25440
Business Records Corp. - Receipt Books
242.23
25441
Carroll, Franck b Assoc. - Computer consulting fees - Balance )us
1,000.00
25442
Data Management Design, Inc. - Computer charges
1,614.34
25443
Corrow Sanitation - Add'l land fill charges for Dec.
1,336.40
25444
Liquor Fund - Reimburs. for interest earned on C.D.
2,118.00
25445
Bridgewater Telephone - Phone Charges
891.88
25446
Feedrite Controls, Inc. - Potable sample - Water Depart.
10.00
25447
Duerr's Water Care Service - Water softner rental - Bland Hous!
12.25
25448
Unocal - Gas
162.05
25449
Northern Oxygen Services, Inc. - Supplies
23.40
25450
North Central Public Services - Utilities
1,695.32
25451
Smith, Pringle b Hayes - Legal fees for Dee.
462.00
25452
Hoglund Bus Company - Parts
936.75
25453
Northern States Power Company - Utilities
6,227.15
25454
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax Due
546.95
25455
Central McGowan - Supplies
38.49
25456
Adam's Pest Control Inc. - Contract payment for Library
42.00
25457
Professional Turf Renovation - Seeding baseball fields
5.700.00
25458
Safety-Kleen Corp. - Maintenance of. equipment
40.00
25459
Acucraft, Inc. - Parts - Street Depart.
20.00
25460
Earl F. Anderson 6 Assoc. - Signs
1.064.57
25461
Lindberg Decorating Center - Paint for 4th St. Park
325.97
25462
Purcell Plumbing b Heating - Repairs at old Fire Hall
135.59
25463
Foster Franzen Insurance - Fire Depart. insurance policy
60.69
25464
Monticello Fire Depart. - Firemen's Wages - Jen.
1.751.05
25465
Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile reg.
166.00
25466
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft reg.
307,00
25467
Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV reg.
148.00
25468
Norwest Investments Services - Computer contract payment - Jan-.
2.407.61
25469
Professional Services Group, Inc. - WWTP Contract Feb.
22,083.35
25470
Principal Mutual Life Insurance - Insurance premium for Jen.
4,633.87
25471
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions - Jan.
123.04
25472
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll Deductions - Jan.
204.00
25473
Rick Wolfeteller - Mileage allowance for Jan.
300.00
25474
PERA - Insurance premium
27.00
25475
SWC4 - 1988 Cable Commission Contribution
6.411.00
25476
Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile Reg.
202.00
25477
Void
- 0 -
25478
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Reg.
159.00
25679
Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV Reg.
54.00
25480
I.C.M.A Retirement Corp. - Payroll Deductions - Jan.
786. 17
25481
Jerry Hermes - Library contract services
227.50
25682
David Stromberg - Animal control expense
302.00
25683
David Stromberg - Animal control chargee for adoption of animate
286.00
25684
PERA - PERA Withholdings - Jan.
1,394.51
25485
Wright County State Bank - FICA. Federal 6 Medicare Withholdin;s
4,875.06
25486
Minnesota Depart. of Health - Fee for review of plane for new ;all 250.00
25487
Granite Electronics. Inc. - Repairs for Fire Department
57.75
25488
Tri County Humane Society - Animal control expenses
40.00
25489
Government Finance Officers Assoc. - Membership dues R. Wolf.
70.00
25490
GENERAL FUND - JANUARY AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
A T 6 T Systems - Phone Charges - Fire Depart. - Jan.
3.96
25491
Local 949 - Union Dues - Jan.
92.00
25492
MDRA - Deputy Reg. Dues
140.00
25497
MN. GFOA - Membership dues for R. Wolfsteller
10.00
25494
Wang - Maintenance Agreement for Computer - Jan. payment
426.00
25495
League of MN. Cities MAP Program - Membership dues
96.00
25496
MN. Park Supervisors Assoc. - Membership dues for R. Mack
15.00
25497
Marquette Bank Mpls. - G.O. Bonds due
10.270.00
25498
American National Bank 6 Trust Co. - G.O. Bonds due
85.469.67
25499
Norwest Bank Mpls. - G.O. Bonds due
629. 321.00
25500
First Trust Bank - G.O. Bonds due
471, 217.50
25501
N.A.D.A Used Car Guide Co. - Subscription - Deputy Reg.
32.00
25502
Plumbery - Repairs at Old Fire Hall
36.79
25503
Monticello -Big Lake Pet Hospital - Animal Control Expense
135.00
25504
Wahl 6 Wahl, Inc. - Office supplies
95.85
25505
Monticello Senior Citizen's Center - Info Center Salaries for
1987 payable to Center
660.55
25506
Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Sheriff's contract for Jan.
11,896.62
25507
Simonson Lumber - Supplies
31.98
25508
Stadiums Unlimited. Inc. - Bleachers 6 benches for parks
7, 332.00
25509
Foster Franzen Agency - Ins. for boiler machine 6 Fire Dept. bond
1,278.00
25510
Crysteel Dist. Inc. - Snowplow
3.526.00
25511
Gary Anderson - Mileage expense
135.02
25512
Mobil 011 Credit Corp. - Gas
33.97
25513
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal control expense
50.00
25514
Chapin Publishing Co. - Ad. for bids for new well
87.55
25515
Glacier Park Company - Agreement Fee
7.50
25516
Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile Reg.
560.00
25517
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Reg.
43.00
25518
Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV Reg.
36.00
25519
Fyle's Excavating - Digging water service at Fire Hall
225.00
25520
The Dickson Company - Office supplies
48.38
25521
Phillips 66 Company - Gas
55.97
25522
McDowall Company - Repairs to furnace
177.92
25523
011ie Koropchok - Expenses
17.00
25524
Road Machinery 6 Supplies - Truck rental for Xmas lites
250.00
25525
Dept. of Natural Resources - Water permit
100.00
25526
Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile Reg.
226.00
25527
VOID
- 0 -
25528
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Reg.
12.00
25529
Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV Reg.
94.00
25530
Corrow Sanitation - Garbage contract payment for Jan.
7,016.70
25531
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions for Jan.
123.04
25532
I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll Deductions for Jan.
786. 17
25533
Jerry Hermes - Janitoral services at Library
227.50
25534
David Stromberg - Animal control contract
302.00
25535
Beverly Johnson - Animal control expense
275.00
25536
Frank Madden 6 Assoc. - Legal Fees
247.00
25537
Taylor Land Surveyors. Inc. - Surveying fees - Oakwood Indutrial
Pk.2.300.0O
25538
Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Professional services
300.00
25539
Cyr Construction - Sign construction fees for City Hall
423.50
25540
Marco Business Products - copy paper and typewriter ribbons
98.95
25541
Flicker's T.V. 6 Appliance - Scanner for Fire Depart.
139.95
25542
National Bushing 6 Parts Co. - Supplies
90.46
25543
Liquor Store - Reimbursement for interest due to Liquor Store
311.76
25544
YMCA of Mple. - Contract payment for Jan.
625.00
25545
GENERAL FUND - JANUARY AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
James Preusse - Cleaning contract payment - City Hall d Fire lept.
450.00
25546
Richard Carlson - Planning Commission salary - Jan.
49.27
25547
Joyce Dowling - Planning Commission salary - Jan.
49.27
25548
Arve Grimsmo - Mayor Salary - Jan.
175.00
25549
Dan Blonigen - Council Salary - Jan.
125.00
25550
Fran Fair - Council Salary - Jan.
125.00
25551
Bill Fair - Council Salary - Jan.
125.00
25552
Warren Smith - Council Salary - Jan.
123.19
25553
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal withholdings
4,752.68
25554
Commissioner of Revenue - State Withholdings for January
2,124.00
25555
PERA - PERA Withholdings
1,377.22
25556
Corrow Sanitation - Add'l land fill charges - Jan.
1,076.40
25557
O'Connor 6 Hannan - Professional Services - Airport Commissior
2,632.41
25558
Dept. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile Reg.
260.00
25559
Dept. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Reg.
99.00
25560
Dept. of Natural Resources - ATV Reg.
22.00
25561
Monticello Deputy Registrar 0002 - Truck 6 Trailer renewals
122.00
25562
Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Telephone Charges
1,388.36
25563
North Central Public Service - Utilities
2,878.07
25564
Professional Services Group, Inc. - WWTP Contract Payment - Feb.
22,083.35
25565
Northern States Power - Utilities
7,107.62
25566
Norwest Investments Company - Computer payment for Feb.
2,407.61
25567
Dyna Systema - Supplies
127.79
25568
Hawkins Chemical Inc. - Chloride - Water Depart.
514.91
25569
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
119.16
25570
Simonson Lumber Co. - Material
20.82
25571
Foster Franzen Agency - Insurance premium
4,248.00
25572
Pitney Bowes - Postage machine rental
72.00
25573
State Chemical Manufacturing Co. - Supplies - Park Depart.
157.68
25574
Share Corporation - Epoxy Bond for Park Depart.
260.95
25575
Wright County Treasurer/Auditor - Sheriff's Contract for Feb.
11,896.62
25576
Maus Foods - Supplies
182.00
25577
Unitog Rental Services - Uniform rental
175.60
25578
Automatic Garage Door Company - Idler sprocket - St. Depart.
33.00
25579
Audio Communications - Repair radio - P.W. Depart.
94.80
25580
First Trust Center - Issuance fee for 84 G.O. Bonds
982.00
25581
Maus Tire Service - Repairs
10.40
25582
MN. Geophysical Assoc. - Gamma Logging of new well
550.00
25583
MacQueen Equipment - Crane
2,000.00
25584
Unocal - Cas
95.94
25585
Duerr's Water Care - Water softner rental - Bland House
12.25
25586
Monticello Printing - Office supplies and printing
316.15
25587
Nelson Oil Company - Gas
367.54
25588
Harry's Auto Supply - Parte
383.03
25589
Coast to Coast - Supplies
107.72
25590
Big Lake Machine - Parts
21.00
25591
Hoglund Bus Company - Parte
1.68
25592
Smith, Pringle b Hayes - Logal fees
1,141.00
25593
Moon Motors - Snowblower 6 parte
4,287.95
25594
Premier Fastener Company - Sawblades
141.02
25595
Sentry Systems - Alarm system - Fire Depart.
54.00
25596
Cartner's Office Products - Supplies
6.75
25597
Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban - Streetscaps fees
2,043.11
25598
Seitz Servistar Hdwe. - Supplies
101.11
25599
Northern Oxygen Service - Supplies - Fire Depart.
11.70
25600
St. Cloud Appraisal Inc. - Appraisal Fees for Steltone, Monti
Truck Repair b Jones Manufatt.
1,800.00
25601
GENERAL FUND - JANUARY AMOUNT
CHECK NO.
Companion Pets - Cat Pens - Animal Control
27.92
25602
Al 6 Julie Nelson - Star Tribune Renewal
13.72
25603
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Towels for Library
15.39
25604
Jim Ennis Cabinets - Shelves for Library
3,679.00
25605
Milbank Mutual Ins. Co. - Ina. premium - Johnson rental house
387.00
25606
Norwest Bank - Interest on 1973 G.O. Bond
287.80
25607
Wang - Computer Maintenance contract payment for Feb.
426.00
25608
Quinlan Publiehing Co. - Zoning Bulletin renewal
61.81
25609
I.C.M.A. Retirement Corp. - Payroll deductions - Feb.
786.17
25610
PERA - Insurance premium for Feb.
27.00
25611
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll deductions for Feb.
123.04
25612
University of Minnesota - Reg. Fee Shade Tree Program for
R. Cline b R. Mack
30.00
25613
Monticello Fire Department - Firemen's Wages for Feb.
1,499.32
25614
MN. Depart. of Natural Resources - Snowmobile Reg.
174.00
25615
MN. Depart. of Natural Resources - Watercraft Reg.
36.00
25616
A T d T Systems - Fire Phone Chargee
3.96
25617
Wright County Assessor - Cost of mailing homestead cards
318.07
25618
Anoka County Social Services - Payroll deductions
204.00
25619
Rick Wolfsteller - Mileage expense for Feb.
300.00
25620
MN. Pollution Control Agency - WWTP Annual Permit Fee
240.00
25621
Marlene Hellman - Mileage expense
30.00
25622
Principal Mutual Life Insurance - Insurance premium - Feb.
4,897.01
25623
Fresh Mort Foods - Supplies for Dog Pound
7.19
25624
Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
227.50
25625
David Stromberg - Animal Control Contract Payment
302.00
25626
David Stromberg - Reimburse, for adoption of animals
108.00
25627
PERA - Pets Withholdings
1,374.99
25628
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 6 Medicare Withholdim,i
5,061.70
25629
International Conference of Building Officials - 1988 Member. ,lues
15.00
25630
Citizens State Bank - Payment for Tax Increment Bond
4,283.83
25631
Marco Business Products - Copy Paper
31.95
25632
Fitzharris Athletic Supply - Rubber pitchers, etc.- Softball f �.elde
39.02
25633
United States Salt. Inc. - Sand/salt mix for streets
1,509.21
25634
Stave Berndtson - Reimburse. for damage done to mailbox by snowplow
30.00
25635
Lawrence M. Jude- Reimburse. for damage done to mailbox by snorplov
58.00
25636
MacQueen Equipment - Freight for new crane delivered
160.00
25637
Humane Society of Wright County - Animal Control Services
115.00
25638
Monticello Times - Advertising 6 Legal Publications
550.22
25639
December Payroll
January Payroll
24,445.69
24,963.96
Total Disbursements for December 6 January 1,682,454.44
LIQUOR FlUND
DISBURSEMENTS FOR LIQUOR FUND - JANUARY
AMOUNT
CP_,'CKNO.
Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor
1,363.00
13502
Griggs, Cooper 6 Company - Liquor
4,330.71
13503
Wright County State Bank - Federal 6 FICA Payroll Deductions
608.28
13504
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll tied.
170.00
13505
NCR Corporation - Maintenance Agreement on Cash Register
1,587.00
13506
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for November
6,868.46
13507
Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company - Insurance premium
388.37
13508
KMOM Radio - Advertising
180.00
13509
Cruys, Johnson 6 Assoc. - Computer Charges for November
110.00
13510
Buffalo Bituminous - Liquor Store Parking Lot Improvement
3,939.45
13511
PERA - PERA Withholdings
198.61
13512
Griggs, Cooper 6 Company - Wine
80.03
13513
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Wine
1,233.23
13514
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Co. - Liquor
2,900.69
13515
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Go. - Liquor 6 Wine
2,498.39
13516
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
3,173.40
13517
Rubald Beverage Co. - Wine
319.60
13518
Ron's Ice Company - Ice
163.08
13519
St. Cloud Refrigeration - Repair cooler
44.13
13520
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
6,385.78
13521
Eagle Wine Company - Wine
1,178.70
13522
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Wine 6 Llquor
1,458.00
13523
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Co. - Wine
2,874.15
13524
City of Monticello - Assessment payoff
4,776.47
13525
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Co. - Liquor
3,576.76
13526
Ed Phillipe 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
76.98
13527
St. Cloud Restaurant Supply - Garbage Liners
29.18
13518
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
143.98
13529
McDowell Company - Furnace Repair
78.00
13530
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
170.00
13551
Wright County State Bank - FICA 6 Federal Withholdings
677.02
13532
Commissioner of Revenue - State Withholdings for December
212.00
13533
PERA - PERA Withholdings
212.07
13534
Raymond Gay - Security at Liquor Store on 12/31/87
117.00
13535
OSM - Engineering fees
456.67
13536
Carol Lessard - Salary for Inventory taken at Liquor Store
22.00
13537
Kolles Sanitation - Garbage service for Dec.
133.50
13538
Monticello Times - Advertising
197.80
13539
Coast to Coast - Supplies
11.80
13540
Maus Foods - Supplies
4.57
13541
Liefert Trucking - Freight Charges for Dec.
664. 13
13542
Johnson Brothers Wholesale Co. - Liquor
566.88
13543
Monticello Office Products - Office Supplies
19.14
13544-
3544Cloudy
CloudyTown Distributing Co. - Supplies
160.00
13545
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco Co. - Supplies
774.44
13546
Dahlhoimor Diet. Co. - Beer
13,194.45
13547
Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Co. - Pop
522.65
13548
Grosslein Beverage, Inc. - Beer
16,651.35
13549
Thorpe Distributing Co. - Beer
10,357.65
13550
Ed Phillipe 6 Sone Co. - Liquor
742.16
13551
Seven-up Bottling Company - Pop
199.15
13552
LIQUOR FUND
ii
AMOUNT
CFECK
DISBURSEMENTS FOR LIQUOR FUND - JANUARY
NO-
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Pop
309.95
13553
Granite City Jobbing Co. - Supplies
119.09
13554
Granite City Cash Register Co. - Tape for cash register
153.97
13555
Ron's Ice Company - Ice
99.90
13556
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
1,472.35
13557
Day Distributing Co. - Supplies
769.00
13558
Minnesota Bar Supply - Supplies
123.49
13559
Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Phone Charges
63.34
13560
North Central Public Service - Utilities
166.04
13561
Northern States Power Company - Utilities
554.55
13562
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax for December
9.868.4 0
13563
Moon Motors - Snowblower
325.00
13564
Principal Mutual Life Insurance - Insurance premium
388.37
13565
Servicemaster of Monticello - Cleaning carpet at Liquor Store
150.00
13566
Griggs. Cooper b Co. - Liquor
6.472.40
13567
Ed Phillips b Sone Co. - Liquor
1,502.31
13568
Eagle Wine Co. - Liquor
34.02
13569
Gronseth Directory - Advertising
51.00
13570
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Liquor and Wine
640.52
13571
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
170.00
13572
PERA - Insurance premium
9.00
13573
PERA - PERA Withholdings
222.32
13574
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal 4 Medicare Withholdings
704.72
13575
Ed Phillips 6 Sone Co. - Liquor
1.681.73
13576
Griggs, Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
1,425.11
13577
Gary Reitan - Security at Liquor Store Xmas eve
108.00
13578
Johnson Brothers Wholesale - Liquor
577.91
13579
Ed Phillips b Sons Co. - Liquor
63.72
13580
Johnson Brothers Wholesale - Liquor
1,174.32
13581
Sheraton Park Place Hotel - Reservation Deposit for Liquor Conven
60.00
13582
?^1. Municipal Liquor Stores - Reglstrarlon Fee for Convention
40.00
13583
Eagle Wine Company - Wine
188.00
13584
Griggs. Cooper and Company - Liquor
2,193.51
13585
McDowall Company - Repairs
89.20
13586
Eagle Wine Co. - Wine
392.73
13587
Wright County State Bank - FICA, Federal, b Medicare Withholdings
720.66
13588
Commissioner of Revenue - State Withholding tax for January
244.00
13589
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
170.00
13590
Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor
2.367.27
13591
Criggs. Cooper b Co. - Liquor
3.495.43
13592
City of Monticello - Purchase C.D.
65.545.34
13593
PERA - PERA Withholdings
223.97
13594
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co. - Wine
580.49
13595
Johnson Brothers Co. - Liquor
1.032.31
13596
Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2,502.27
13597
Bridgewater Telephone Co. - Phone Char Flea
75.18
13598
Northern States Power Company - Utilitie: for Jan.
605.86
1 359 9
North Central Public Service - Utilities
281.06
13600
Minnesota Sheriff - Advertising
58.50
13601
Dahlhei.mer Distributing Co. - Beer
13,353.25
13602
Coast to Coast - Supplies
26.92
13603
ii
c,
LIQUOR FM
DISBURSEMENTS FOR LIQUOR FUND - JANUARY
SUNT
CHECK
NO.
Olson 6 Sona Electric - Repairs
96.27
13604
Service Sales Corp. - Supplies
76.44
13605
Grosslein Beverages, Inc. - Beer
10.238.50
13606
Day Distributing Co. - Beer and Supplies
570.25
13607
Seven-up Bottling Co. - Pop
55.70
13608
Minnesota Bar Supply - Supplies
117.06
13609
Dick Beverage Co. - Beer
1,409.40
13610
Jude Candy b Tobacco Co. - Supplies
552.90
13611
McDowall Company - Repair furnace
169.40
13612
Thorpe Distributing Company - Beer
4,197.75
13613
Cloudy Town Distributing Co. - Supplies
88.00
13614
Maus Foods - Supplies
27.32
13615
Liefert Trucking - Freight Chargee for Jan.
413.84
13616
Granite City Jobbing Co. - Supplies
122.36
13617
Viking Coca - Cola Bottling Company - Pop
186.45
13618
Monticello Times - Advertising
69.00
13619
St. Cloud Refrigeration - Cooler repairs
246.14
13620
Bernick's Pepsi Cola - Pop
171.80
13621
Bolles Sanitation - Garbage service for Jan.
133.50
13622
City of Monticello - Sever 6 Water Bill - 4th quarter - 1987
30.64
13623
Ed Phillipe 6 Sone Co. - Liquor
3,946.66
13624
Quality Wine 6 Spirits Co - Beer
35.10
13625
Eagle Wine Company - Wine
247.72
13626
Monticello Office Products - Office supplies
25.26
13627
Cragg Sign, Inc. - Nev Liquor Store Sign
6.669.00
13628
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repair 6 Maintenance of New Sign 6 Lights
475.58
13629
Johnson Brothers Wholesale - Liquor
1.075.86
13630
Principal Mutual Life Insurance - Insurance Premium for Feb.
388.37
13631
Griggs. Cooper 6 Co. - Liquor
2.116.07
13632
Wright County State Bank - FICA. Federal, Medicare Withholdings
688.84
13633
PERA - PERA Withholdings - Insurance
9.00
13634
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll Deductions
200.00
13635
PERA - PERA Withholdings
216.87
13636
Ron's Ice Company - Ice
62.40
13637
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales Tax due for Jan.
5.917.06
13638
December Payroll
3.697.25
January Payroll
3,995.80
Total Disbursements for December and January
269.186.90
CITE Or wrricruxt
iL,Udy-1ulldLlg
0epert-t Report
1
W-th of NWAU-19yg
,
1'TIIJUTS w,d U313
..a.s
6-. ni.." '•1:iLT.'cr-l9Ti.
4:v 1
rDULIT3 ISSUED
11 -LI, Ib"LI' 3ene.ry
Le.t Te OrTo Do'
To D.Le !
.
ILM I L)VITl AL
• 1
11 11
1
Dumber .
V.1 -tion
S
1140,700:00
1" 5.000.00
1552..100.00 1552,100.00
1 S.D00_0o
le0e
1,698.37
50.00
3,260.31 ],268.]1
50.00
Sur.herge4
70.35
2.50
261.04 261.04
0O7D3IC1AL
.
)lumber
7
1
43 ]
1
VeluaLlal
60,000.00
225,000.00
.44;430.80 44.430.00
.?25,000.00
ise.
549.50
•17.80 417.80
..1,077.00
Surchw•geo
40.00"
,1,077.00
n2.50,
; 22.20 22.20
112_50
INWSYttIAL
J
11ue,bar
_
�
Yalu a Lion
I
Fee. .
Bus
PW1031110
2
9 P
2
)lumber
Foe.
2
47.00
40.00
217.00 217.00
40.00
9ureLerg..
1.00
1.00
4.50 4.50
1.00
OIilflt4
(lumber
1
Voluetlm
.00
,
rese
! 9w•charge.
;00
'
TOIAL 110. rFIUUv3
9
4
SJ 23
4
TWA[. VAl11AT1011
220.700.00
230.000.00 S66_S30g00 546,530.00
1i30.OQ0.Q0 -
TOTAL FrF3
2.294.87
1,167.00
3.901.11 3,903.11
1,167.00
101" 6unc..nC1:1
III .,IS
116.00
267.74 287.74
116.00
iURRrIfT Itl'itlt
'
rn•-'
�IlmArer LA .QpLO
1'710117 17ATVR0
Ihmbnr
"Iit
7.It :P. Voluotlan 71lo vent
Lnnt rss
511Ig1e Tue11y
1 1
t '� 0
0
tAvplcu
0
0
Ih1lt1-[nilly
,0
0
Com.erd.l
0
0
lllduvtrl.l
0
0 ...
0
Itrs: C-ogs.
0
0
0
Sl IV, e
O
.
• ru611e Pv1141n/.
I
AL7'IILU I L11 09 IUJ'Alll
1I+dILIE•
1
50.00
2.50 I 5.000.00
4125,000.00
Comnnrcf sl
Indun1.r141
1
1,077.00
112.50
t• 0
0
FWlmnle
1
7
P
All lyp.o
?
40.00
1.00
ACCC160R1 6TRUC I VIIT.P
'
0
0
Ori.e.inp roele
}.. •.
♦ 0
0'
O.rho
0
0
IRIU'ORMf ►ERIOT
t
00101,I1100
T0I AL3
4`
• 1,167.00
17%.00 ?30,00P.80 4
1
t�
I'IDIVIbUAL PENT I TIVITY REPORT
.' MONTH OF �dE1t.A3T_._= 1981,
ii
PERMIT
I. DESCRIPTION P�
NAME/LOCATION. VALUATION
PERMIT
CCC
SURCHARGE
PLUMBING
SURCHAR,;-
NNUMBER
86 - tit?
in orlo RamoaAl $ Addoilmm
Arsc" L"104/104 ala at. - 6115,000.00
RA
s1,077.00
$111.50
$17.00
s .50
6a -/t46
mttar/or Raaadal AD
'
Lyle Trumoll /001 S"t 6roodway. 5�000.00,�
.1-062-20,2003$1,117.
90.00
ID
1.50
a1I5.00`ZOMOF
11.00
31-00
TVTAIA
PIAN REVIEW
•-
• TOTAL PLR RCVICW $ .00
.'•
- TOTAL RCVCROa 0 1.161.00
.