City Council Agenda Packet 11-28-1983r AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 28, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan B lonige n, Ken Maus.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on November
14, 1983, and Special Meeting Minutes of November 14, 1983.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Old Business
4. Consideration of a Request to Rezone from R-1 to R-3; Applicant -
John Sandberg.
5. Consideration of a Request for a Simple Subdivision; Applicant -
John Sandberg.
6. Public Reading and Consideration of Adopting an Ordinance Authorizing
Ge.: hl ing .
7. Consideration of a Resolution SetLing License and Permit Fees.
Now Business
B. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use to Allow More
Than 12 Units in a Multiple Dwelling; Applicant - Construction 5.
9. Conoideration of a Rededication of Hennepin Street.
10. Consideration of tlic Quarterly Liquor Store Financial Statement.
11. Consideration of NovemYr Bills.
12. Adjournment.
C
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 14, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Jack Maxwell,
Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
Members Absent, None.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Pair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 24 and
the special meeting held October 29, 1983.
3. Citizens Comments.
Mr. Mel Wolters informed the Council that with the recent truck
traffic through Monticello hauling loads of clay to the Becker
Power Plant site, he has noticed that some of their loads are
dropping chunks of clay dirt on Highway 25 in the City limits.
it was the Council's consensus to have the City Administrator
contact either the contractor for this project or NSP representatives
to request that the trucks not be overloaded to eliminate chunks,
of clay dropping on City streets during this project.
4. Public Hearing - Adoption of Assessment Roll on 82-2 Improvement,
Project - Meadow Oak Subdivision.
John 8adalich, City Engineer, reviewed with the Council the proposed
assessment rolls for the 82-2 Improvement Project for Meadow Oak
Subdivision. The estimated total project cost for the construction
and all indirect costs has been estimated at $1,008,252.68 of which
$702,104.00 was proposed to be assessed to the Meadow Oak Subdivision
with an additional $162,978.00 proposed to be assessed for water main
running through Mr. Jim Boyle's property from Oakwood Industrial
Park to Meadow Oak Development. The balance of the project coati
totaling 8143,171.00 was proposed to be placed on ad valorem texas
for oversiaing.
Mor. 8adalich noted that the City staff along with the engineering firm
held a meeting with the owners of Meadow Oak Subdivision for the
purpose of arriving at a suitable arrangement for assessing all the
property benefiting from the improvements. From this meeting, a
compromiss was agreed upon l,y the City staff and City Engineer that
would allow the placement of approximately $95,090.00 in assessments
against Outlot G of the Meadow Oak Plat, which is not currently
- 1 -
0-4-
City Council Minutes - 11/14/83
platted into residential lots but will be completed by January 1, 1984.
The developers had requested the shifting of some assessments to this
outlot in an effort to equalize their assessment cost per parcel
within their development. It was noted by the staff that if Oetlot
G is assessed for part of this improvement project, the developers
should Le aware of the requirement that the City will not allow
future outlots to be platted and built on until a majority of the
15 lots in outlot G are first developed.
After review of the alternatives for the assessments, motion was
made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to adopt
the assessment roll for Improvement 82-2 as recommended by the
City staff, which would place $95,070.30 in assessments against
Oudot G with the balance of the proposed assessments per City
Engineer's recommendation. The assessments will be payable over
a period of ten years at an interest rate of 9.375%. The proposed
assessments against Mr. Jim Boyle's property lying between Oakwood
Industrial Park and the Meadow Oak Subdivision shall be deferred
for one year with interest added to the original assessment amount
with the first payment due in 1985. See Resolution 1983 #85.
5. Public Bearinq - Consideration of issuinq IRB's - Fulfillment
Systems, Inc.
At the boptember 2b, 1983, Council meeting, concept approval was
granted to Fulfillment Systems' propoual to expand within the J
City limits and utilize industrial Revenue Bonds, Tax Increment
Financing, and UDAG Funding. The City was recently notified that
the UDAG application had been denied for this funding cyclo, but
the IIUD office in Washington, D.C., has requested that the City
leave its application active in their office and it will be ro-
sulmittod for the January 1 funding cycle.
Since Fulfillment Systems, Inc., is still intorcoted in pursuing
the UDAG funding for their expansion project, it was recommended
that the City continue with its public hearing regarding preliminary
approval for Industrial Revenue Bonds. The preliminary approval
would nimply auLhorizu Lha praparotion of the necessary paperwork
for when and if Lila City gets eontirmatton of the UDAG funding.
If approved, the preliminary application will bo submitted to the
State and then Lha cntiro project will to put on hold until word
IL; hoard from IIUD regarding Lila grant funds.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried
to adopt a resolution giving preliminary approval by the City for
Lilo iususnco of Industrial Revenue Bondu for Fulfillment Systems'
- 2 -
City Council Minutes - 11/14/83
proposed expansion project. See Resolution 1983, 086.
L, G. Public Bearing - Consideration of Tax Increment Bonds - Metcalf
and Larson.
Although previously the City Council held a public hearing on the
Tax Increment District and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
proposed Metcalf and Larson office building, itwas recommended by
the City's consultant, Iiolmes and Graven, that the City Council
adopt another resolution approving the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for this proposed project whereby all the determinations of
fact are listed in the Plan. Motion was made by Fair, seconded
by Maus, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution approving
the Tax IncremenL Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District,
02 to be known as the Metcalf and Larson Project.
As part of the financing plan, the consultants recommended that
the City Council issue the $32,000 Tax Increment Financing Bunds
on behalf of the BRA, rather than the HRA issuing their own bonds.
Because this bond will be a general obligation lend wherein the
developer will guarantee the total proceeds, it was recommended
that the City Council actually issue and authorize the bonds to
be sold. The bonds are proposed to be placed with the Citizen
State Bank of Big Lake with a maturity schedule of 14 years at an
interest rate of 9%.
AThe tax increment generated annually from the construction of the
new Metcalf and Larson office building will pay the debt payment
annually and, in addition, a guarantee will be made by Metcalf
and !arson requiring Ll,cm to pay the City the difference should
the tax increments be below anticipated levels needed to pay off
the debt.
Motion was made by Maun, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution auttiorizing the issuance and sale
of $32,000.00 yunoral obligation tax increment note of 1983.
Sao Resolution 1983 087 and Resolution 1983 988.
7. Mayor Update - Reconstruction of Biahway 25 and Bridge - Minnesota
[)apartment of TranspurLation.
Mayor Gr'imemo gave a brief review of Lha present slates of the
MB/DOT proposal to improve Ilighway 25 from 1-94 to the river and
the construction 01' t.ho new bridge. The Council proviously
approved Uel construction of the new bridge proposed by MN/DDT
but rrequoslud LlwL M1J/IxYV Inv:patu alt,auaLivun fur the Improv„m,!nL
Ir of Highway 2S withouL it center median. MN/Dar hau officially
1
3
D
City Council Minutes - 11/14/83
indicated that their only alternative for improvements along
Highway 25 would be to improve Highway 25 from the Interstate
to approximately Third or Fourth Street with the balance of
the property to the river being left as is.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that the businesses located along Highway 25
near the Interstate are negotiating with the downtown business
people along Highway 25 who are opposed to the raised channel ization
and indications are that possibly an agreement can be reached
between the two groups on a proposal for improvements to Highway 25.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that the Council will hopefully make a final
decision at their December 12 meeting on what improvements, if
any, should be done on Highway 25.
S. Consideration of Wine Ordinance.
Previously, Mr. Floyd Kruse had request.ed that the City consider
issuing wine licenses to restaurants within Monticello. A wine
license ordinance was prepared from a sample ordinance of St.
Cloud, Minnesota, which authorizes the issuance of wine licenses
and/or a combination wine and 3.2 beer license.
A public reading of the proposed ordinance was held by the City
Administrator and a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen,
12, authorizing the louuances of wino licenses,.
9. Considuration of Gamblinq ordinance.
Currently, State lawn allow non-profit organizations to conduct
certain typed of gambling activities such as paddle wheels, tip
boards, raffles, and pull Labs or ticket jars. In order for
these activities by non-profit organizations to Ix legal, the
City must firut adopt an ordinance allowing gambling devices
and requite licensing of such organizations for this purpose.
1tt ordinance was prepared that would allow the current organizations
such as the American Legion and VFW Clubs and other non-profit
organizations to conduct legal gambling duviceu. Council members
questioned whether this typo of ordinance would W hard to enforce,
especially for small raffles that may be conducted by ehurchuu,
1■iy scouts, and other uimilar typo organizations. It was noted
that although State regulations roquire licensing by tho City if
gambling is to occur, questions were raised as to whother an
ordinance could he ootabliahed by the City that would allow blanket
- 4 -
City Council Minutes - 11/14/83
r
approval to all non-profit organizations [o have gambling devices
approved by the State without any fees or licensing requirements.
It was the consensus of the Council that the City Administrator
check on the legality of an ordinance that would allow blanket
approval to all non-profit organizations for gambling activities.
As a result, no action was taken on the adoption of the gambling
ordinance at this time.
10. Consideration of Transient Merchant Ordinance.
An amendment to the Transient Merchant Ordinance was originally
generated by inquiries this past summer to allow flea markets
and other businesses to set up in Monticello. one issue that was
raised was that if the City doesn't allow transient merchants
to set up in parking lots, etc., without restrooms, off street
parking, or meeting other City regulations, how can the City
allow the commons area of the Monticello Mall to have transient
merchants. Currently, the City's Transient MerchanL ordinance
requires a $50 per day permit fee from any person or company
that wishes to rent a motel room, etc., for the purpose of
conducting sales of merchandise. One alternative or possible
amendment to the Transient Merchant Ordinance would be to license
annually a facility such as a motel or hotel, shopping mall,
service club, wherein the transient merchant could lease or
occupy space from that business. The daily lee could 1x GUMeWnat
lower in this case provided the annual permit has been obtained
by the motel or shopping mall facility, etc.
r
The Council discussed whether an ordinance should be established
to regulate areas such no the mall, which is an indoor facility.
The discussion centered on whether any type of permits would be
necessary if these activities were done inside a building rather
than outdoor as associated with a flea market. If the transient.
merchant were to conduct buainclua inuide a current establishment
indoors, possibly the only regulations that would have to be met
are that the present establishment needs current zoning and
busin000 regulations. A public reading of the proposed ordinance
amendment was hold by the City Administrator noting that a daily
permit would be required for a transient merchant and the transient
merchant would have to be located within a permanent structure with
no outdoor sales from parking late, etc., bring allowed. In addition,
no holder of on annual permit such ss a motel, shopping mall, or
other business outabliahmont, shall allow more than 12 vendors or
merchanto to operate per day without permission from the City
Council. The ordinance would also eataillioh daily pormit fees
from each transient merchant and ales an annual feu Crum thoue
0
City Council Minutes - 11/14/83
businesses which permit transient merchants to operate from their
business .
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried
to adopt Ordinance Amendment No. 129 regulating transient merchants.
Voting in favor: Grimsmo, Fair, Maus, Maxwell. Voting in
opposition: Blonigen, who felt that this type of ordinance would
prohibit many activities currently taking place at the shopping
malls for people setting up booths or displays for their, crafts and
hobbies .
11. Consideration of Resolution Setting Fees for New Licenses and
perm, its -
A resolution was presented whereby fees would be established by
the City Council for the newon-salewine license and the transient
merchants.
A fee of $1,000 annually for an on -sale wine license was recommended
by the City staff based on the assumption that wine is 1/3 of the
product sold ljy the current liquor license fee of $3,300 annually.
The current liquor licenses allow wine, boor, and liquor on -sales.
The Council questioned what otheL communities who have on -sale
wine li<=cnsys charge annually. It was noted that a comparison of
m-1-. rr.mmnni r -Inn ww, nn1 mad.. 1 1. rnnld h- rnn..a rrhnA Iv(n... a
decision was made. Concerns were also expressed by the Council
that a wine license can ofay be is::ued to establishments that J
serve food and wine would more than likely be looked upon as a
cervico for the natnurant customers rather than a money making
proposition. It appeared to be the consensus of the Council that
the City may not want to entabl iah too high of a fee I)CCau9e of
this.
It an the consensus of the. Council to table any action on nutting
fees for the wine licenses or transient. merchant licenses until
a review of other communities could b.: researched.
12. Consideration of Planninq Commission Appeal to Build a Garage in
lixcess of 1,000 Square Foot - Marvin Scherer.
Mr. Marvin Scherer, who currently owns a one acro parcel directly
north of the Bridgewater Telephone Company building on County
Road 39 west, had requested a Variance to allow for the conotruction
of a 4, 860 sq. ft. building to Store caro. The Planning Commission
at Choir last meeting granted a Variance. to Mr. Scherer for the
4,660 sq. ft. building under the assumption that all that was needed
wan a Variance from tho City's Ordinance requiring a building to
bu 1,000 aq. ft. or loss.
13. Consideration of Planninq Commission Apocal - Denial of Request
to Rezone an Area from R-1 to B-4 - Murfin lA nscapinq.
Murfin landaeaping had requeated rezoning from R-1, ainglo family
residential, to B-4, commercial, a triangular piece of property
located between Hart Boulevard and County Itoad 75 currently owned
by John Rondhuu. Mr. Murfin would bo leasing the land from Mr.
Bondhun for the purpose of establishing a sales area for landscaping,
shrubbery, decorative rocka, otc. To allow for this typo of
activity, the property would have to be rezoned to commercial and
a Conditional Use Permit bo granted. in addition to the rezoning
and Conditional Use Permit Request, Mr. Murfin also roqueltcd a
Variance from the hard surfacing of the parking lot and the ro-
quiremcnt to acreon tlw property from abutting reaidontibl areas.
The Planning Commission, at their lout merting, denied tine rezoning
request. A motion wau made by Blonigen, soeondod by Maus, and
unanimously carried to also Bony the request of Murfin nnndsraping
to rozone to ccmumarcial.
City Council Minutes - 11/14/83
After Planning Commission approval, the City Administrator
researched the Zoning Ordinance further and found that a Variance
could only be granted for this type of a building in an R-1
residential zone if the building was an accessory use to the
principal structure on the property. Normally, an accessory
building of this nature would be accessory to a residence but
the property in question is currently vacant; and as a result
the Planning Commission approval of a storage building would
actually be the principal use of the property and is not allowed
in a residential area.
The Council and Planning Commission representatives in attendance
at the meeting noted that the surrounding property adjacent to
Mr. Scherer's property is :zoned residential but currently exists
with non -conforming uses such as the City's Public Works Garage,
Northern States Power Service facility, Bridgewater Telephone
Company building, and Gricfnow Sheet Metal. As a result, it
was the recommendation by the City Council that the Planning
Commission and City Council seriously take a look at this area
for possible rozoning to a commercial area. If the property was
rezoned, Mr. Schorer'c request for a storage building would
appear to meet City regulations. As a result, a motion was
made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to
deny (reverse) the Variance granted by the Planning Commission
� t
and to refer oacx to etc Planning Commission for uw purpose vi
reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for possible rezoning of the
�..
property in this area to commercial.
13. Consideration of Planninq Commission Apocal - Denial of Request
to Rezone an Area from R-1 to B-4 - Murfin lA nscapinq.
Murfin landaeaping had requeated rezoning from R-1, ainglo family
residential, to B-4, commercial, a triangular piece of property
located between Hart Boulevard and County Itoad 75 currently owned
by John Rondhuu. Mr. Murfin would bo leasing the land from Mr.
Bondhun for the purpose of establishing a sales area for landscaping,
shrubbery, decorative rocka, otc. To allow for this typo of
activity, the property would have to be rezoned to commercial and
a Conditional Use Permit bo granted. in addition to the rezoning
and Conditional Use Permit Request, Mr. Murfin also roqueltcd a
Variance from the hard surfacing of the parking lot and the ro-
quiremcnt to acreon tlw property from abutting reaidontibl areas.
The Planning Commission, at their lout merting, denied tine rezoning
request. A motion wau made by Blonigen, soeondod by Maus, and
unanimously carried to also Bony the request of Murfin nnndsraping
to rozone to ccmumarcial.
City Council Minutes - 11/14/63
14. Consideration of Planninq Commission Approval of simple Subdivision
of Residential Lots and Variances Granted With It - Marilyn Lanz.
Marilyn Lanz requested approval to subdivide the two houses located
on one parcel, Lots 9, lo, 11, and 12, Block 1, Lower Monticello.
Previously, a smaller home had been built on parts of Lots 11 and
12, but the property had never been officially subdivided into
two separate parcels. Mrs. Lanz would now like to sell the properties
to soparate individuals and, as a result, would need City approval
for the subdivision to allow a smaller home to have a lot area
smaller than the minimum 12,000 sq. ft. required by the City. In
addition, variances would be needed, as the existing small home
would only be 8.4 feet from the sideyard lot line where 10 feet
is required under City ordinances. Also, the garage located on
Lots 10 and 11 would need a Sideyard Setback Variance, as the
proposed subdivision lot line would only be 15 feet.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the simple subdivision request of Marilyn Lanz
regarding Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1, Lower Monticello,
and to approve the Sideyard Setback Variances for both parcels
as rcques ted.
15. Consideration of Transfers from Capital Outlay Fund to Library
Motion was mddu by Blanigun, seconded by Maus, and unanimocoly
carried to authorize the transfer of $28,068.88 from the Capital
Outlay Rovolviny Fund to the Library Construction Fund for the
purposes of closing out the recently completed library pruject.
17. Cunuidoration of Approval of l¢etirement Letter - Richard Brooks.
The City CegnCi 1 was informed that Mr. Dick Brooks tendered a
resignation effective January 1, 1984. Motion was made by Fair,
seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to accept Mr. Brooks'
resignation effective January 1, 1964.
16. Consideration of Authorizinq Help wanted Ad.
In light of the recent resignation of Mr. Brooks effective January 1,
Public Works Director requested that the City authorise advertising
for an operator/mechanic position. Motion made by Blonigen, seconded
by Maxwoll, and unanimously carried to outhorixs the public Works
Director to advertise for nn operaLor/mechanic for the Street and
Parka Dupartment with applications to close November 29, 1983.
- B -
City Council Minutes - 11/14/83
r-
18. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Ordering the Preparation
I, of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Meadow Oak Subdivision.
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board through the Minnesota
Code of Agency Rules stipulates that an Environmental Assessment
worksheet must be provided for any residential development in
excess of 150 units in any city of the fourth class. while the
Meadow Oak Project is proposing less than 100 units per phase,
the overall effect of the phased action would be well in excess
of the limit and, as such, the City Council must order the
preparation of an Environmental Assessment worksheet on this
subdivision.
The E•AW is a standard form prepared by the State of Minnesota,
and it was recummended by the staff that McCombs -Knutson,
engineering firm for the Meadow Oak Subdivision Plat, be responsible
for providing all the data needed to fill out the form and complete
the process. The EAW would then be reviewed by the City or its
consultants before being submitted to the State.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to adopt a resolution ordering the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment worksheet for the Meadow Oak SulAivision
and requiring the developer to W responsible for all costs
j associated with the EAW. see kesolutlon ijaj Nov.
Rick Wolfatci{er
Assistant Administrator
r
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
November 14, 1983 - 6:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen,
Ren Maus, and Jack Maxwell.
Members Absent: None.
A special meeting of the City Council wan duly held at 6:30 P.M. in
City Hall on Monday, November 14, 1983.
Members present were Grimsmo, Fair, Blonigen, Maus, and Maxwell.
Members absent: None. Also present was City Administrator Eidem.
The Mayor called the meeting to order. The Mayor began with some opening
comments that he was dissatisfied with the results of the meeting of
October 29, 1983, and felt it was in the beat interest of the City over-
all to reconuider their action of that day. lie stated that the Council
had agreed to delegate a major part of the salary negotiations with
department heads to the City Administrator, but in the end he felt they
took back that responsibility. Mayor asked Eidem to address his concerns.
Eidem stated that he understood the rola of the Council was to make a
budgetary or financial decision: that they must decide how much money
can be spent. Eidem urged that personalities, performance, employee
hlutory, and salary history really shouldn't enter into a financial
decision. lie noted that it was his assumption that, being hired as a
professional administrator, it should Lx_, his obligation to assign the
individual salaries.based on performance, etc. He also noted that,
having no authority over wages and salaries tended to leusen accountability,
thus compromising the effectiveness of his supervision. Eidem added that
certainly the Council would be responsible for final ratification of
salary arraignments.
Eidem want on to express one other concern over the action of October 29,
1983. fie said he thought tiro 3% figure was not tied to anything external,
that it seemed to Como out of the air and be arbitrary and capricious.
lie said he could be totally comfortablo with any figure so long as there
wan a sound rationale for selecting those figures. Hiotoric ally, he noted,
the Council used C.P. 1. an their rationale and doing tine Game this year
Ire was roquonting a salary "pool" of $15,000.00 from which ha could then
assign salaries. lie noted this was 5.5% of lout year's total salaries
for the soma positions, and that he had arrived at this percentage by
utilizing the projections of professional economic forecasters. In closing,
ho ro-amphasized his concern that whatevor figure was decided upon, it
should have a sound rationale.
U
Special Council Minutes - 11/14/83
Councilmember Blonigen stated his rationale for no increase was that a
great many taxpayers, people who pay city salaries, are getting no
increase, some taking pay cuts, and that responsible government should
respond to those people. He urged that the Council should be alert to
the conditions of the public and make its decisions accordingly. Council -
member Fair countered that the Council ought not treat its employees
based on the misfortune of others, that because some businesses are
facing troubled times does not justify cutting City employees. Mayor
Grimsmo and Councilmember Fair also speculated that a substantial number
of people were getting increases because their employers were financially
healthy.
Councilmember Maus stated that, right or wrong, there is often a tendency
for business people to compensate their employees based upon the kind
of success they experienced. He indicated that two prominent Monticello
business people would not be giving any raise this year because their
businesses were not good. On the other side, he noted that NSP and the
school district likely would give in excess of 5%. Maus indicated his
agreement that the assignment of funds should be tied to some sort of
verifiable data, and since the City had used C.P.I. in the past it may
very well be the beat to stay consistent for now but investigate this
matter before next year.
Maxwell indicated that his original motion was intended to be a compromise
iiy— —1 iL .,.., f,0. rcz,'.. L.. ... c_..cr -_..-_ --_-. .._ -___
he was basically conservative and felt that performance of some employees
should be carefully evaluated.
There was some discussion over comparable salaries, with general agreement
that for every comparison favoring one position, another comparison could
Ix: made favoring the other side. It was agreed that comparisons had certain
limitations and must be used cautiously.
Motion by Grimsmo to establish a pool of funds equal to 5% of the 1983
payroll, for the same: jobs, and delegate the responsibility of individual
salary negotiations to the Administrator. Motion seconded by Fair.
Under discussion Maus asked Eidem what he saw as the basic coot of living
increase. Maus said his concern was would Eidem juat give all 5% straight
across the board. Eidem said that while he had not done formal evaluations
as yet, and fiance, was unsure if any merit increases would be warranted,
based on economic indicators he thought 4% - 4.5% would he a suitable
inflationary adjustment. Ila indicated that any money in excess of that
would be reserved for merit, position adjustmant, bona fide allowances,
etc.
Voting in favor: Maus, Fair, Grimsmo.
voting in opposition: Blonigen, Maxwell.
Special Council Minutes - 11/14/83
The Mayor then turned discussion to the problem of setting the Adminrstrator's
salary. He stated that based on his own research he thought the Council
should consider a salary adjustment and a car allowance. lie noted that
many cities provided either a City vehicle for the Administrator or a
monthly allowance. He stated that he thought the Council should also
address the discrepancy between what the former administrator would have
been earning and what Eidem was earning, being their credentials and
performance were comparable.
Blonigen stated he was opposed to any City owned vehicle being provided
for an employee. Maus asked Eidem what he thought was appropriate.
Eidem stated that comparing with other managers/administrators and with
his predecessor he felt near $40,000 annually would be appropriate with
a car allowance in the $275 - $350 range.
The time now being 7:30 P.M., the Mayor recessed the meeting in order to
convene the regular Council meeting with the condition that this meeting
would reconvene upon adjournment of the regular meeting.
The Mayor reconvened the Special Meeting with Eidem absent. Preliminary
figures and performance was discussed. Eidem was invited to return to
the meeting. Orimsmo and Fair opened discussion supporting a figure of
approximately $39,000 annual salary which would put Eidem at a level in
1984 that his predecessor would have been at in 1983. Maus asked how
.....7..,. L. L.. 6, ,, .:.. .+ .uaL i,u iiia Lirvugi,L h. u... t—
at a level equal to what his predecessor would have been receiving. Maus
noted that prior to Eidem's arrival the Assistant Adminiatrator had
received a salary adjustment to accammodato assuming a number of the
duties done by the former Administriator and, as such, the Administrator'u
position was not the name as it was under the other person.
Maxwell asked how Eidem could be granted a percentage greater than what
the other employees could expect. Maus replied that Eidem was hired at
substantially less than what his predecessor was earning with the express
intention that, based upon acceptable performance, major adjustmentu
would be made over a period of a couple of years until the difference wan
rectified and L•ldem was at the appropriate level. Maus went on to say
that in his opinion an adjunLment thin year should now resolvo any dis-
crepanciou and that, barring any suhnlantial changos in the nature of
Use job, the Administrator will fall under the uame salary consideration
for all employocs in ensuing yoaru.
Motion by Maxwoll to not Eidem's salary at $38,000 annually and granting
an auto allowance of $300 for month, noting that thin was a position
adjustment rather than a coat of Ii vini.1 i,ncreaue. Motion seconded by
Fair.
Voting in favor; Maxwell, Fair, Orimumo, Maus.
Voting in opposition; Blonigon.
There being no further business tho meeting was adjourned.
Thomas Etdmm
City Administrator
3 0
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
4. Consideration of a Request to Rezone from R-1 to R-3; Applicant -
John Sandberg. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
When John Sandberg's request for a simple subdivision was tabled
several weeks back, discussion began to encourage his investigation
of placing multiple dwellings along the river corridor. Any such
proposal, of course, would require that the area be rezoned to
allow for multiple dwellings. In the beginning when we were
discussing this matter, I called John Uban of Howard Dahlgren and
Associates to ask whether or not spot zoning along this area
would be a problem. John indicated to me over the telephone
that no it shouldn't be a problem if there was a finding that
the rezoning was in the public good. I relayed this phone con-
versation to John Sandberg, which in turn prompted him to invest
the money in architectural drawing site plans and an option on
some adjacent land. At t)ie public hearing before the Planning
Commission held on November 8, the final report of the planner
came out stipulating that this was clearly spot zoning and was
inappropriate. Also at that hearing many persons who reside in
the general neighborhood spoke out against the project for various
reasons. As a result of my reviewing the Comprehensive Plan,
I recommended that the decision be postponed to allow for a study
—
Plan so that any decision �that is made, whichever way it went,
would ix: supported and havu a sound foundation in a legal document.
You should have received under separate cover a few days ago a
summary memo reporting the outcome of that meeting.
On Tuesday, November 22, at a special meeting of the Planning
Commission, this matter was again discussed. Prior to taking
formal action on the request to rezone, the Planning Commission
unanimously endorsed the concept that multiple dwellings or an
integrated zone allowing multiple dwellings be investigated and
hopefully developed along the river corridor. They emphasized
that because such a zona is not currently extant, they were ro-
quired to make their decision within the parameters of tiro existing
ordinance. Their final action was to unanimously deny the request
for rezoning.
Mr. Sandberg, speaking with me on an earlier occasion as well as
after the special Planning Commission Mooting, indicated that
he fully undorstood the position the City was in and expected
denial. However, he did not wish to withdraw his application
and, as is the case with any rezoning request, the ultimate decision
- 1 -
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
must be made by the City Council. He also indicated that upon
denial he is requesting that the Council pick up from the table
his request for a simple subdivision on the same parcel. This
subject is explained more fully in the next agenda item.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Support the Planning Commission decision. Such an action would
deny the rezoning request based on the findings of the Planning
Commission and the study committee. I refer you again to the
memo sent out at an earlier time wherein spot zoning is dis-
cussed. The real heart of the question comes down to whether
or not this is spot zoning. In the estimation of the Planning
Commission, it is spot zoning.
2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. This essentially
should be supported by a finding that rezoning this parcel would
not qualify as spot zoning. As referenced in the earlier memo,
if one wishes to rezone, the nine points that are listed in
the Comprehensive Plan must also be addressed before the rezoning
is complete. These have not yet been fully addressed. This
essentially would keep the project alive but perhaps create
substantial inconvenience for the developer.
3. =vc tC t..l7le any dCC'niOz,. Spic. .u-I.LuumLiv. Ui L rae
discussed by Don Cochran of the Planning Commission. A motion
to table is a non -debatable motion. It is an indefinitu sus-
pension of the issue. Cochran's intent was to have the entire
request suspended indefinitely so that the City could pursue
its review and revioion of the Comprehensive Plan, which
ultimately might reveal a need for an integrated zone that
would include this parcel. Part of the rationale for tabling
is that this parcel is one of the only vacant parcels along
the river corridor and with the rezoning request fully denied,
Mr. Sandberg has indicated that he will be in to got a building
permit to start building on it immodiatoly. He further in-
dicated that he will requoat a building permit whether the
simple oubd ivision is approved or not. Oneo this land is
built upon with single family homoo, the notion of rezoning
for multiplo or integrated housing along the river corridor
becomes less likely.
C. STAFF RECOMMCNDATION:
In my opinion, this rezoning is clearly spot zoning and as ouch it
is illegal, which is supportod by corse law and, thus, within Cho
parameters of the oxisting ordinance and Comprehensive Plan cannot
be approved. I think that the tabling tactic would be th o most
- 2 -
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
`- beneficial for the City overall, but the findings of our ii:-
vestigation will not necessarily point to this area as being
the proper area for multiple or integrated housing. The
tabling motion could be clearly seen as a delay tactic and,
as such,generating an economic hardship for the developer.
Lastly, if no action is taken and the lot remains buildable
as a single family dwelling and Mr. Sandberg carries through
with his intent to place a spec house on the front half of
the parcel, then the City and the neighborhood both lose while
Mr. Sandberg will more than likely win, at least financially.
I find it extremely difficult to recommend what tactic should
be deployed beyond the notion that the request be denied.
D. SUPPORTI14C DATA:
Site map indicating the project site, copy of the Planning
Commission Minutes of November 8, copy of the Planning Commission
Minutes of November 22, copy of sketches and drawings relating
to the proposed development, memo you received under separate
cover at earlier date.
. 3 .
tzen+ a Or
to
obIl
411
lip
",q F, -7 AD J!,,
.0 1 46'
CHWAY
NO. 94
z
rr4L)
Ilk 0—
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/81
l'^
- 3 -
Landscaping, for his input into his proposed outdoor sales lot.
Mr. Murfin indicated that this would be just a seasonal lot, and
the business actually would be primarily operated as a display
lot to show the different services and the products which his
company does offer. At his proposed site, not being used for
anything at the present and due to the size of the proposed lot,
the actuality of the building being proposed there would be very
minute due to the setbacks required off of Highway 75 and Hart
Boulevard. Mr. John Bondhus, owner of the property, also eluded
to the fact it would definitely be improving the area that is in
existence already and that the lot would always be kept in the
utmost neat array, which the business is oriented to. Mr. Bondhus
referred to the rezoning request as a buffer none to separate two
zones rather than spot zoning to suit an outdoor sales lot business
as Mr. Murfin has proposed. At this time Chairperson Don Cochran
opened the discussion to public input. Mr. John Kasper was present
to discuss his opposition to the proposed development of the property
due to the viewing and the allowing of a B-4, a business, strictly
in an R-1 Zone. Mr. Kasper also presented the Planning Commission
members a letter from his neighbors, Dan and Betty McConnon, which
was read to the Planning Commission and the people in attendance.
The McConnons voiced their opposition to the potential project an
suffering from significant problems already in existence without
adding another problem to a strictly residential zone. Mr. Larry
l(
Muehlbauer, resident of the City but not an affected paepcLLy uwuuc,
also expressed his opposition strictly from the residential standpoint
that an area that is zoned residential should strictly be residenLial
and not In allowed to have a business within a residential area. City
staff, taking no position at this time on the project, indicated to
Planning Commission members strictly to view it as a rezoning request
and then go from there. looking at it strictly from the rezoning
request, it would definitely be spot zoning, which is not recommended
in the Comprehensive Plan which was adopted some years ago. Staff
also indicated to Planning Commission members that the area proposed
would be a definite improvement to the area, especially during the
summer months when the foliage is on the trace. But than, again,
it is strictly a seasonal business and could be here today and gone
tomorrow. Planning Commission members took the above statements
into consideration. Motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by
Joyce Dowling, to deny Mr. Murfin'u rezoning requout. to rezone Ii -1
to B-4 to allow an outdoor sales lot. Motioned carried unanimously.
OPublic
Ilearinq - John Sandl,ere - Hezoninq Request. R-1 Zone to Ic-7 Zone.
Mr. Sandberg was present to present his proposal request to rezone
le -1 to Ii -1 Zoning. Within Lhe rezoning request. Mr. Sandtx�rq intendn
to build up to a 20-uniL apartment or condominium complex, proforrably
condominium ecoplex, on the proposed site. Mr. Sandberg related
l'^
- 3 -
Planning Coaemission Minutes - 11/8/83
back in time to before the property was originally purchased up
to the present on the options that he has available in the purchase
of the property. Mr. Sandberg indicated to all members present
that condominiums are a housing concern of the present, and right
now, due to the lack of available housing, housing on precious
property next to the river has become a very high commodity in
the real estate market. He is intending to build choice quality
condominium units in hopes of attracting elderly retired people
to relocate into his proposed condominium unit. Mr. Sandberg's
architect was also present to present a proposed building layout
and the amenities to go with it. Mr. Thompson indicated some
of the amenities planned for Mr. Sandberg's proposed condominiums
were very similar to the one which he just completed in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul area, the main emphasis on character and
quality to combine with residential living standards of a single
family home combining it into a one unit complex. Commission
members asked Mr. Thompson regarding Mr. Sandberg's proposed
construction time tabla. He indicated possibly getting started
in the summer with completion by early/late fall next year primarily
depending on what the market analysis is in regard to what the perepectivo
buyers in the Monticello area would be looking for in a building of
this type. Commission members also aakcd him the proposed height
of the top of the building of this proposed plan. Mr. Thompson
indicated it would be just a little more than 28 feet in height,
basically about the came height as the maxim:= height of existing
houses in the area. Chairman fon Cochran opened the public hearing
for public input. Kra. Larry Muahlbauor questioned the difference
in the traffic pattern of the proposed condcaoinium versus the apartment
living. Kr. Larry Muehlbauer presented hie views on R-1 coning and
that his initial investment was for R-1 coning of the property and
that'a what lie intended to remain. The following concerned surrounding
residents in tho affected area also expressed opposition and are
included below:
Don and Kay Hicolai
Don Pitt
Jerry Anderson
Mike Girko
Clarence McCorty,rontal property owner, also expressed his oppouition.
But if Mr. Sandberg'u proposal was granted, he would increase the
uizo of his rental unit from one unit to more than one unit. This
ended the public testimony from the concerned residents in the affected
area. Mr. Sandberg countered that he has no other intentions to
develop other properties in the arca or in any other part of town
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/83
in regard to multi -family condominium units. Mr. Sandberg also
addressed the proposed traffic problem, indicating that in just
taking a random sample of the amount of cars in the area now
with each family having at least two cars, the clientele
that would be buying a condominium would be elderly people and
may have one car and some may not have any at all. Acting Chairman
Don Cochran read three letters from affected property owners in
the area of the proposed development and all had expressed no
interest in the project being approved. The following are those
affected property owners:
Alice and Del Emmel
Roger and Jeannette Host
Alice Menzel - letter was sent by the administrator
of liar estate - Karl Menzel
Cochran referred back to staff for their input in regard to Mr.
Sandberg's propo:;al. Mr. Tom Eidem referred to the language in the
Comprehensive Plan that essentially both parties involved, the
affected property owners in the surrounding area and the applicant
or developer, John Sandberg, are right in that in our Conprohenuive
Plan we do address proposed multi -family dwellings to be built in
come R-1 areas. Also, the homeowners are correct in that in other
areas it states that we Only want P-1 housing and no multi -family
dwellings within our R-1 housing. So it is contradictory. Mr.
Eidem made a suggestion that a study comaittoo be formed of a Planning
Commission member, a Council member, and an administrative staff
member, a consulting planner, and the City Attorney. Zoning
Administrator Gary Anderson presented to Planning Commission members
a phone conversation memo from the consulting planner, John Uban,
to one of our socrotarios. in oosonco, consulting planner John
Uban's concerns wore negative to Mr. Sandberg's proposed development.
Planning Commianion membera took into respect the conflict of inturent
in our originally adopted Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Joyce
Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to table the proposed Sandberg
rezoning request from R-1 to R-3. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to cot up a
special meeting with a utudy committeo formed of Planning Commisnion
member Don Cochran, Councilmember Fran Fair, Adminiutrativo Staff
Person Tom Eidem, Conuulting Planner John Ulan, City Attorney Gary
Pringle, the meeting tentatively net at 4:00 P.M., November 14, 1983.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to not up a
special meotinq date to hear the apecial study committoo'o action,
that date being November 22, 1983, 700 P,M.
12
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/83
7. Planninq Commission Review - John Sandberg - Proposed Par West
Subdivision Plat.
Mr. John Sandberg, along with his engineer, Bob Rohlin of Meyer-
Rohlin and Associates:, were present to present plans for Planning
Commission member's review on a proposed Par West Subdivision
Plat. This not being a public hearing and only for Planning
Commission member's review, they feel it's a worthy project and
set a tentative Planning Commission public hearing date for
the hearing of the proposed Par West Subdivision Plat. Acting
Chairman Don Cochran asked for staff input in regard to the
proposed subdivision plat. Zoning Administrator Anderson responded
that the City has only two problems they see within his proposed
subdivision preliminary plat. One would be he has two areas that
lie would like zoned to R-3 and the area there currently is zoned
R-1. In a preliminary subdivision plat proposal, this would be
looked at as a rezoning of these two lots. If it was looked at as
a Planned Unit Development, a PUD project, the two areas proposed
to be zoned R-3 would be looked at to combine different types of
zoning --commercial, residential, and multi -family --all into one
project. Mr. Rohlin responded that they intended to propose it
as a subdivision plat with Planning Commission members seriously
looking at rezoning of two outlota in a proposad subdivision plat
rezoned from R-1 to R-3 with the westerly most proposed outlot
being for a multi -family apartment building and the easterly most
portion of the outlot being proposed for approximately a 20 -unit
tower house construe tion along the golf course property.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to act a
tentative date of December 6, 1983, 7:30 P.M., for the proposed
preliminary hearing of the Par West Subdivision Plat.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. The next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission
Meotinq will 6: December 6, 1983, 7:30 P.M.
It was presented to the Planning Commission members by Zoning
Administrator Gary Anderson that the date was moved up one week
duo to the Christmas holidaya and also that the City Council
would only be meeting once in December. Motion by Richard Carlson,
seconded by Joyce. Dowling, to set the next regular Planning Commiuuio n
Meeting date for i>acembor 6, 1983, 7:30 P.M. At this time Planning
Commission member Pd Schaffer loft the meeting at approximately 10:03 P.M.
Tho following additional items worn presantod to the Planning
Commission members.
1. Aiderson prouentod tho final plat for Meadow Oak Third Addition.
Anderson pointed out to Comnisaton members a couple of items
that would havo to be dono prior to setting the data for
the Council public hearing of the final plat approval of
Meadow Oak Third Addition. The first item would be that an
environmantal impact study would have to be made. Tho
- 6 -
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran, Joyce Dowling,
Richard Carlson.
Members Absent: Ed Schaffer.
Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Gary Anderson.
The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 7:44 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular November 8, 1983, Planning
Commission Meeting.
A motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
approve the minutes of the regular November 8, 1983, Planning
\\ Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
3.) Continuance of Public Rearing- John Sandberg - Rezoninq Request
// to Rezone from R-1 to R-3.
John Sandberg wau present to relate to Planninq Commission members
in regard to the Planning Commission agenda supplement memo. John
commented on the special committee meeting utating how the Planninq
Commission members must vote in regard to the Comprehensive Plan and
how it was laid out in the overall outcome of the Plan. This is
definitely rezoning, and the Comprehensive Plan does not allow for
R-3 zones within an R -I zone. Planning Commission member Chairman
Jim Ridgeway opened the meeting for public input. Don Pitt asked
the Planning Commission members if they had made their decision.
Planning Commission Chairman Jim Ridgeway answered that the Planning
Commission members had not made their decision yet and that they
would be making a deeiuion on John's rezoning request shortly.
Mr. Pitt commented that buying a home is a married couple's largest
investment. If Mr. Sandberg was granted hie rezoning request, this
could devalue the estimated market value of Mr. Pitt's home and other
neighbors' within the area. M[. Pitt commented if the variance was
granted to Mr. Sandberg, he in turn could do with the property whatever
he so chose, and in doing so, could he soil the property to a now
developer and the developer, upon meeting all the building code re-
quirements and the zoning requirements, build a building completely
different from what John has presented here. Chairman Ridgeway
Commented on Mr. Pitt's remarks and countered that the estimated
market value of the homes would definitely not be dovalued due to the
presence of a proposed condominium unit thorn. Chairman Ridgeway
�l�
9
Planning Commission Minutes — 11/22/83
at this time turned the meeting over to Planning Commission members
for their comments. Don Cochran questioned Thomas Eiden, as to when
and how long the new Comprehensive Plan would take. Tom countered
with possibly starting as early as January and taking up to six to
eight months to complete. Most of the time put into the new Compre-
hensive Plan would be spent by the City staff, Planning Commission
members, and City Cotancil members with outside consulting help from
our Consulting Planner, Howard Dahlgren and Associates. Planning
Commission member Joyce Dowling asked if Planning Commission member
Richard Carlson would toornent on his committee meeting with City
staff. Mr. Carlson commented as to the background of the meeting
and commented on a couple points of interest for him, that being
court decisions in regard to spot rezoning and the original intent
of the 1976 amended Comprehensive Plan not allowing for any R-3
zoning with an R-1 Zone. Chairman Jim Ridgeway commentod on his
perception of a new community outlook within the new Comprehensive
Plan to be adopted and possibilities of a special zoning district
set up specifically for this type of housing combined with other
types of low to medium density housing. Mrs. Nieolai, neighbors ng
resident to the proposed rezoning property, questioned as to where
the location of the government subsidized units would be and questioned
as to why this proposed condominium unit couldn't be located on the
west side of River Street. Chairman Jim Ridgeway indicated that the
specific areas would be brought out in the new Comprehensive Plan
.i L„ public Loarinys LO .... 1,u!J1 a6 G6 i..w. p.upaecd J..eLii.:L. -id
be set up in the new Comprehensive Plan. Jahn Sandberg commented
that the property that is available for the proposed condominium unit
could instead be available for three now homes if the proposed condo-
minium unit request is turned down. lie also commenced that the time
is now to take a serious look at the need for this typo of housing.
Planning Commiouion member Don Cochran commented on John's ideas and
indicated that the issue at hand is rezoning, but he does foresee
a definite need for this type of housing hero in Monticello and stated
that this should be seriously addressed during the preparation for
a now Comprehensive Plan to take place in tho upcoming montho. John
Sandberg questioned Planning Commission members as to other opot
zoning which has taken place within the City, not particularly in regard
to R-3 zoning but rezoning in commercial districts. Jim Ridgway
commented on the fact that, with the increased growth that hoe takon
place in the last couple of years in Montiesllo and the upcoming
projected growth for the City of Monticallo, the time is now hero for
this typo of housing to be adjusted in the Comprehonsiva Plan. He
also stated that the old Comprehensive Plan so a whole be taken into
consideration and al 1 areas of the zoning which has taken place) in
the City be looked at and considered for furthor study in the now
Comprehensive Plan. At this time Chairman Ridgeway called for the
question on Mr. Sandborg's rezoning requesit. Motion was made by
Itichard Carlson to Bony the rezoning request. The motion died for lack
- 2 -
C
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83
of a second. Don Cochran questioned City staff on a point of order
and asked if this could be tabled and picked up at a later Planning
Commission meeting after the new Comprehensive Plan has been adopted.
Thomas Eidem commented on Don Cochran's point of order request and
stated it would just be passing it on to City Council for their
action,as the Planning Commission did not take any type of direction
in Mr. Sandberg's rezoning request. A motion was then made by
Richard Carlson to deny the rezoning request based on the City
Attorney's opinion that this request is spot zoning. Motion was
seconded by Don Cochran. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting
was recessed at 8:17 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 P.M.
4. Public Hearinq - Gus LaFromboise - Conditional Use Request to Allow
More than the Maximum Allowed 12 -unit Apartment Building, and
Variance Request on Minimum Lot Size Requirement.
Mr. LaFromboise presented his plan to Planning Commission members
indicating the reason for his variance request on the minimum
amount of lot size required; that is, it would provide a better
mixture of bedroom units within the proposed 24 -unit building.
What Mr. LaFromboise is proposing in his 24 -unit building would
be 18 two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom units. The minimum
lot size needed for the combination of the above units is 62,500
square feet. Thr. size. of Mr. LoPromboise's lot is 59,941 square
fact. He, therefore, needs a 2,559 square foot variance. Chairman
Jim Ridgeway questioned Mr. LaFromboise and asked if there was
another way he could conform without requiring a variance. Mr.
LaFromboiso countered with he could have the building designed
with 12 two-bedroom units and 12 ono -bedroom unite and, therefore,
meet the requirements of the minimum square foot lot size. He
would have no problem proposing to build a 24 -unit apartment
building with that mixture of bedroom units. However, Mr. LaFromboise
could have a better mix of apartment buildings with 18 two-bedroom
units and 6 one -bedroom units. Motion by Don Cochran to deny Mr.
LaFromboiso's variance request of 2,559 square feet, seconded
by Joyce Dowling. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Joyce
Dowling, seconded by Don Cochran, to grant the Conditional Use
request to build an aparLmont building of more than 12 units.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. I'lanninq Commission Rrview - Monticello Country Club - Pronosed
Country Vicw Terrace Sulxlivieion.
Tito applicant, Mr. Joan Brouillard, along with Iloward Gillham were
present to discuss plana with the Planning Commission members in
regard to their propound Country View Terrace preliminary SuW ivision
Addition, that being 10 residential lots for new single family dwellings.
- 1 -
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83
Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson, to act a
public hearing date for December 6, 1983, 7:30 P.M. for the
preliminary plat review of the proposed Country View Terrace
Subdivision Addition. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce
Dowling to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
l!iaW,144_jA79
Gary A40crscn
Zoning Administrator
- 4 -
J
S F— CT t 0.1-1 —. nRv t7vi"c71-4L7
A
I
CO e*l"cg
lt,Vg,tWOOD CONDOWN'UM QP
I
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
5. Consideration of a Request for a Simple Subdivision; Applicant
John Sandberg. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As referenced above, the entire discussion of rezoning came
from a request for a simple subdivision of the same parcel.
That request was tabled in lieu of expanding research into
multiple dwellings. Mr. Sandberg has indicated that he fully
anticipates denial of the rezoning request and, as such, wishes
to have his request for simple subdivision picked up from the
table. The proper method of taking any action requires a
motion to pick up from the table the request for a simple
subdivision. If there is no successful motion to pick this
item up from the table, it remains tabled and, as such, in-
definitely suspended. The simple subdivision request has
already been unanimously passed by the Planning Commission.
As presented originally, the simple subdivision meets all of
the land requirements. If the item is picked up from the
table, then a final decision should be made.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Do not pick up from the table. Thin indefinitely suspends
the request until due): Lieu ad it )a picked up from L.c
table at a future meeting. This essentially leaves the
parcel as a single building parcel and Mr. Sandberg can
stop in to apply for a building permit.
If a motion is passed to pick up the table then:
2. Grant the simple subdivision. This would create two building
lots, both in conformance with the zoning ordinance, which
would allow for one house on the river and one house on the
street.
3. Deny the request for the aimplo subdivision. Thin would
kava the lot intact as platted and such a decision must
be based on a finding that !.t is not in the public interest
to grant such a subdivision. Not granting tho subdivision
would not prohibit Mr. Sandberg from building a home on
tho front of the lot at tho 30 foot setback lino. As had
boon mentioned a few times, onto the front house is constructed,
Mr. Sandberg could certainly come back and request the simple
subdivision uo that a uocond structure could be built back
upon the river.
- 4 -
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has been unable to arrive at a fomal recommendation on
this issue. The underlying and most problematical issue
involved is the construction of a residence on the south
half of the lot. This is the least desirable use of the
land as near as everyone can tell. However, under the re-
strictions and provisions of the ordinance, we are basically
powerless to prevent such construction - Even the notion of
amending the zoning ordinance to chang4a setback requirements
for river lots would not suffice. Such an amendment would
require public hearings before the Plarining Commission and
published notice and would more than 1 ikely take 30 to 60
days to complete. In the interim, building permits would have
to be issued and Mr. Sandberg could, in fact, still achieve
his desired results. The real difficu 1ty in this entire
question is the dichotomy of the two issues. The issue of a
simple subdivision is not a problem and is clearly addressed
in the ordinance. what can, and probably will, occur on the
parcel whether the subdivision is gran ted or not, is that
which is seen to be the real problems and there is, as far
as 1 can tell , no mechanism for addressing Mr. Sandberg's
construction proposal.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
I refer you back to your minutes and discussion of the mooting
of September 13, 1983.
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
6. Public Readinq and Consideration of Adoptinq an Ordinance
Authorizing Gamblinq. (T.E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last Council meeting you requested that the proposed
ordinance be sent back for legal review to see if some kind
of blanket ordinance which would allow the operation of
gambling devices could be adopted. It was my understanding
that there was sane concern over the need to license these
operations annually and even to have to license the various
religious and civic groups that may run a number of raffles
throughout the year. Upon review of the statute with Gary
Pringle, we have arrived at the following. The statute does
not allow gambling, it allows cities to allow gambling. Further,
MS 349.26 Subd. 8 states that a city may be more restrictive
but it may not be more lenient. Also in that section it
stipulates that any license issued under this section shall be
valid for one year only. Thus, we may not,even if we desire
to, issue blanket licensing. It is also clear from that
section of the statute that if gambling is to occur, it must
be licensed and not just given general approval. Gary Pringle
also concurred that the City could be liable to charges of
neqliqent enforcement were we to allow gambling to occur
illegally. All of the other sections of the proposed ordinance
were taken almost verbatim from the Minnesota Statutes. I
am well aware of your concern about the kind of gambling which
is related to an athletic contest, which is explicitly pro-
hibited by state law,and the enforcement of it. The City should
be expected to use reasonable enforcement procedures to
prohibit illegal gambling, whether we adopt this ordinance
or not. If the ordinance is not adopted, we aro obligated
to enforce the law to prohibit all forma of gambling. If the
ordinance is adopted, at least the forma of gambling which
aro stipulated as allowable under the statute and the ordinance
are legal. Thus, I maintain my previous position of roeommanding
the adoption as written. All supporting data and a copy of the
proposed ordinance is supplied in your November 14 agenda packet.
-
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
1 7. Consideration of a Resolution Setting License and permit Fees. (T. E.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last Council meeting action was postponed on the resolution
setting fees for transient merchants, gambling, and wine licenses.
The gambling question was sent back to the attorney so those
fees would need to be reviewed, and the suggested wine license
fee was referred back to staff for comparison. The resolution
I am requesting at this time contains a blank space wherein you
may cite the particular wine license fee you think is appropriate.
The resolution also eliminates gambling at this point; however,
if the revised ordinance is suitable, you may wish to plug in
a gambling fee alio. For your reference, the following cities
issue on -sale wine licenses at the listed annual rate:
1. Buffalo $100.00 per year
2. Red Wing $100.00 per year
3. Mound $200.00 per year
4. Delano $250.00 per year
5. St. Cloud $300.00 per year
G. Anoka $400.00 per year
7. Elk River $500.00 per year
8. Hutchinson $500.00 per year
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Depending on the outcome of the gambling ordinance,
1. Establish a fee for gambling and for wine and adopt the
ordinance.
2. Leave gambling out of the resolution and simply insert
the wine license fee and adopt the resolution.
3. Entabliah new fees for gambling, wine, and transient
merchant, and adopt.
C. STAFP RECOMMENDATION:
Since the wine license ordinance and the transient merchant
ordinance Dave already boon adopted and put into affect,
it is crucial that fees for at least those two ordinances
be drafted. Based on the comparative list of wine licenses,
I suggest a license fee between $ 300 and $400,and 1 still
hold to my original transient merchant recommendationa. There
in no supporting data for thin agenda item.
C _7
C
RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR
NEW LICENSES AND PERMITS
RESOLUTION 1983
WHEREAS, the official Code of Ordinances stipulate that fees for licenses
and permits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA, that the following fees for the licenses and permits
so designated be and the same hereby are adopted, in accordance
with the provisions of the official Code of Ordinances:
Wine, On -Sale
Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -Salo
Gambling, annual $ : DOZL t AQ__
Gambling, single occasion $ r
Transient Merchant
daily fees, independent transient
merchant $ ,sp/��/pA��
annual fees, private premise $ 76
daily fees, transient merchant
operating under the authority 1 WA
offaaannual nnuel permit $
Adopted this day of November, 1983.
ATTEST:
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
Arvo A. Grimamo, Mayor
0
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
S. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use to Allow More
Than 12 Units in a Multiple Dwelling; Applicant - Construction 5. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. LaFromboise is proposing to build a 24 -unit apartment building
on the corner of Lauring lane and Washington Street. The current
size of Mr. LaFromboise's lot is 59,941 square feet. The minimum
lot size required for the proposed 24 -unit apartment building is
62,500 square feet. The proposed 24 -unit apartment building would
consist of 18 two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom units; therefore,
requiring a total of 62,500 square feet. Mr. LaFromboise is
requesting a variance of the minimum lot size of 2,559 square
feet. mr. -aFromboisc could meet the minimum square foot lot
size that is required for a 24 -unit apartment building by having
12 two-bedroom units and 12 one -bedroom units. The reason for
not going this route is that it is easier to rent
a two-bedroom unit than a one -bedroom unit. You can got too many
one -bedroom units in an apartment building. But this is not our
problem. It is the problem of the developer to meet the minimum
lot size requirements. As you may recall, Mr. LaFromboise also
owns the property adjacent to the most recently completed 12 -unit
apartment building. The size of that lot was large enough to
build at least a 14 -unit apartment building. But due to the
ccnstructicn design of the apartment build -Ing, the .m_ont unite
that he would build on there would be 12 units. Therefore, he
would have excess square footage of lot, which could Lu made up
in this lot with the proposed 12 -unit apartment building built
on the adjacent lot between the 12 -unit apartment building and
the proposed Hennepin Street. If rr.LaFromboiso purchased the 80
foot by 330 foot Hennepin Street from the City along with his
adjacent property between him and the presently built 12 -unit
apartmont building Mr. laFromboiso could make up the 2,559
square fent that he was short on minimum lot size on this proposed
project. ilowever, we must consider this project first, as who
known when any other projects may come up. They could be addressed
when they come up. Mr. Wromboise is also requesting a Conditional
Use to allow him to build a 24 -unit apartment building, which is
12 more than the maximum amount allowed, therefore, necessitating
the Conditional Use Request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the 2,559 aquaro foot variance and approve the
Conditional Una Request to build in excess of 12 units a
proposed 24 -unit apartment building.
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
2. Deny the variance request on the 2,559 square foot variance
request and also deny building an apartment building in
excess of 12 units or the proposed 24 -unit apartment
building.
3. Deny the variance request on the minimum square foot lot
size and approve the conditional use request to build
a 24 -unit apartment building.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny Mr. IVFromboise's
variance request for a 2,559 square foot minimum lot size
variance, an Mr. IAFromboice can build and design a building
to meet the minimum square foot size which is required. We
would also recommend granting the conditional use request
to build an apartment building in excess of 12 units a proposed
24 -unit building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map depicting the location of the proposed 24 -unit apartment
building, a map of the proposed 24 -unit apartment building.
• PluMi..y .ni �iLLi .. a- a spc !al mccting on No CSW C- 2 ,
1983, denied Mr. IaFromboiso's variance request to build an
apartment building with a 2,559 square foot minimum lot size
variance. The reason for denial of the variance is that Mr.
LaFromboise could design and build a 24 -unit apartment building
to meet the minimum square foot requirements. The Planning
Commission also approved Mr. LaFromboise's request to build
a proposed 24-un1t apartment building in excess of the maximum
amount allowed.
C -9-
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST — To build
an apartment building over the
` maximum amount allowed in an R-3 Zone.
VARIANCE REQUEST — To allow less than
the minimum amount of square footage
needed to construct a 24 unit apart-
.® went building.
140.
94
I •'•f
Go
°
�•° M 9
i MV _
Railroad _- —
A I
/ 1• \ � •� I J I I
= t"4 -7 9 Qom - i
cci Cor , I
cr
�/ I ,tri �; � �• , � ' , ;` I ,
iL 1r
Y '
AN090iEd 74 OMIT%/ o r / %—d .� / 1
AP&OTHIENT ewLOOP 0/
// �2417
Ce
I GO Moos J 07
11 I �t %
//
� o
' e I
/PJ "i' Conc./Wsuk�/
2� o
I
NOTF: All dimensions as..shown are to building lines, right
of way lines and/or face of curbs.
Si ze:
No. U:i LS:
1 ilrm.
2 Srm.
Open
Usable Open Space
•Iv,f,OMt
Ic.ii
,.1cr10 6, :001,
° r SITE
--
DATA
59,941 s.f.
I
I Unit. 5,000 s.r.
U - 1 Firm. C 2000 = 12,000 s.r.
lY - 2 13r -n. @ 2500 = 42,500 s.f.
62,500 s.f.
12
36
211 x 500 = 12,000 S.r.
SITE PLAN
For
Construction 5 Inc.
7841 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 111
Minneapolis, Minn. 55426
011 /ILI MO.
83 yMlrt � r 1 5-8310
Q. ,_'-RIMS „ ,
Ramsey
40 40
Street
o \Gq-12 ,
1 I N I ��7. 00 I�\ I II 11 II III 1 1 1 I I I I 1 t
I,y°;, 11 ILII 1 �' '�\ I ��'- / 1 1 ► \ 11 \1 II I 1 1
�- �� I II I s1 1 111 � �. � � �----- _•
'till 11 1 j l 11 11 11 / I ; 1, l is 1 111 1
�' ..- I ,�;'�`e 1111111p1 1 11111 \` �\\;` �� • ' �' ' i',' / 1 .1 111 11 1 11 1 •�
ro
r/ J^ 1 11 I 11 c 01
• 1 �\ 1 1 �,1 9 ,� i / , 1 1 1 1 1 I, 1 7
r
Ii 1 ,
I ► 111 11 I�11 o
0
' i' 1 11 1 1 � t I 111 I ,, 1'.�•
i ,�/ � `1 tl1 111111-111 1 � ��\ 1111 f r I all i 1111 1 t
-r
I/ ;\51111 19 11111 I 1
'
t ,� � \� 11\ °�\\111�11� ► ,�,-'_,ll� �,ue- —' - _ =- ` --^_-r ___- � I 1 1 ��;; 1.1 � I
+ � � � I 1 11` \4e\\\\\1111 �� ,� ✓ � � ;� b _ '"- . ' ;; �, �__: - -- ------'' ►� 1
Hennep�l/ YN
94 X �\1��\ �• !r/ �i�/// iii i /���'� �� - �1 1
ate` �'�—� II �I , z
C
�" '�� \\\ \\\\�� �—,al, 11 11/i �i// i/ ���// nib/��� \�� ` ���- �/�, •�
N � /. 1 1,1 9°3�0 �• \ \ \ \\ � ` � �\��\�` /•l j� � �s�°�isj-� � WOE � J °' �{,,`� �� ` � � � P / �
� '� 111 11�as.o o. � �\ \ \I•$h3�\���/' //�//� / �/i��j9"a' •F � 1 � ` �� � �
� i � 1 �'`e'Z —� —���•- � -�\�-v jlt� r1a/ / i/gao _ soo r4' Sao_ `e+ \ \ -�
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
9. Consideration of a Rededication of Hennepin Street. (T. E. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND :
on October 11, 1983, the City Council voted to vacate Hennepin
Street from the south line of the Burlington Northern right of
way to the northerly line of lauring Lane. That parcel of
property was then offered for sale to Construction 5 at the
appraised price of $24,000. On October 24, Nr. Gus LaFromboise
from Construction 5 came before the Council during Citizen's
Comments to say that he thought the asking price was way too
high and made a counter offer of $6,600 for the same parcel.
The Council rejected that uffer and stood by the appraised
price, but conceded that upon Construction 5's request the
City would authorize a second appraisal. In the interim, we
contacted Construction 5 and Nr. LaFromboise expressed no
interest whatsoever in buying the land. He revised his con-
struction project so that the land was not needed and has
come before the Planning Commission for Conditional Use and
before the Council in the item referenced above.
This, then, leaves the City with a vacated street ti -rat serves
no public purpose, said public purpose to be the rationale
behind any street vacation. Because we were still going through
Llw .., wtim,e,ae 'r. suye ..;..ins .. cauzc t!'x mc,"'Cr
waz
made to vacate and convoy, I have delayed the final certification
to the County Auditor of the vacation of the street . Because
the motion was a two -fold motion, I did not intend to certify
the vacation until the acquisition was agreed upon. Since the
acquisition and conveyance of the land will not occur, it is
my question to you whether or not you wish to rededicate the
street. Again, I emphasize that to vacate a street must be
in the public interest and since this is not going to be involved
in a housing dovelopment, the vacation serves no apparent public
purpose. Because it has neither been cortified nor any land
transfer has occurred, i believe that we can simply rocind the
vacation with a motion to override earlier action.
D. ALTERNATIVE AC1'1UNS:
Let the vacation Grand and authorize certification to the
County. This simply creates one buildable parcel that the
City will own that serves no function until it can bo sold.
2. Rededicate the street. Bocauso we have not gone through
the full procedure for a formal vacation, 1 think we can
avoid the full procedure required by atatuto for rededication.
-
10 -
Council Agenda - 11/28/83
The City is still the underlying fee holder of the parcel
and a motion to override the earlier motion and reinstate
the parcel as a portion of Hennepin Street would suffice.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a motion that would override the earlier motion and
rededicate this parcel as an extension of Hennepin Street.
Any future need for this parcel can be addressed at that time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA;
All supporting data is covered in your minutes of the meetings
of October 11 and October 24.
C - 11 -
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
SEPTEMBER 301 1983
CURRENT ASSETS
CASH IN BANK - CHECKING 6
CHANGE FUND
CASH IN BANK - RESTRICTED
INVESTMENTS
INVESTMENTS - RESTRICTED
NSF CHECK - RECEIVABLE
INVENTORIES
PREPAID INSURANCE
UNAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
PROPERTY AND EOUIPMENI
LAND 1<
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS
PARKING LOT
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
ACCUM DEPR-FURNITURE S FIXTURE
ACCUM. DEPR. - BUILDINGS <
ACCUM. DEPR. - PARKING LOT
TOTAL PROPERTY AND EOUIPHL"N'I
TOTAL ASSETS
ASSETS
449943.40
1#000.00
23#355.20)
186x450.41
479540.20
54.84
98#674.88
5t537.54
752.68
69839.95
151x671.04
8 9515.50
429481.69
259223.08)
2B1215.23)
4x944.75)
6
361x398.75
• 1319125.10
.---_..-----_--- f 3129723.83
Li
4
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL L10UOR
BALANCE SHEET
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
CURRENT LIABILITIES
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PAYROLL W/H - FICA
PAYROLL W/H - FEDERAL
SALARIES PAYABLE
BOND INTEREST PAYABLE
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 8 VACATIONS
PAYROLL W/H - CREDIT UNION
PAYROLL W/H - PERA
PAYROLL W/H - STATE
SALES TAX PAYABLE
TOTAL CURRENI LIABILITIES
LONG -'TERM LIABILITIES
BONDS PAYABLE
TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
TOTAL LIABILITIES
EOUITY
RETAINED EARNINGS
REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES
TOTAL EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EOUITY
SEPTEMBER 30, 1983
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
6 27x319.19
399.06
370.50
989.25
1x518.00
952.81
20.00
60.23
235.00
5.991.23
6 37x835.27
6 85x000.00
• 85.000.00
• ---122985:5.27
• 3309071.63
599796.95
---------- --
• 3699868.58
-------------
• 5129723.85
L�
It
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. 1983
CUICRENT-PERIOD
CUR -PD
YEAR -TO --DATE
Y -T -D
AMOUNT
RATIO
AMOUN(
RATIO
SALES
LIOUOR
f
70x883.02
28.03 *
1959271.55
30.21
BEER
147x447.99
58.34
358,474.28
55.46
NINE
22x448.97
8.88
66x515.73
10.29
O1HER MDSE
9,192.67
3.64
24x975.16
3.86
MISC. NON-TAXABLE SALES
39340.75
1.32
3x340.75
.52
DEPOSITS AND REFUNDS
(
388.21)
( .23) (
2.203.71)
( .34)
TOTAL SALES
$
232,723.19
100.00 $
646.371.76
100.00
COST OF GOODS SOLD
$(
1999596.89)
( 78.98)$(
5149171.59)
( 79.53)
GROSS PROFIT
f
539128.30
21.02 $
1329200.17
20.45
GENERAL AND ADIM. EXPENSES
PERSONAL SERVICES
SALARIES, REGULAR
•
149891.05
5.8Y 6
43,V?3.D7
6.80
PERA
426.54
.17
19800.73
.28
INSURANCE, MEDICAL AND LIFE
592.87
.23
29252.35
.35
SOCIAL SECURITY
641.35
.25
29210.12
.34
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
$
1693591.81
6.54 $
309236.77
7.77
SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
$
93.45
.04 $
373.14
.06
GENERAL OPERATING SUPPLIES
521.90
.21
1.639.21
.23
MAINTENANCE OF BLDG. SUPPLIES
330.50
.13
843.42
.13
SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP.
.00
.00
75.00
.01
TOTAL SUPPLIES
6
945.83
.30 6
29930.77
.43
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIOUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
FOR THE NINE 110N'fHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1983
N
CURRENT -PERIOD
CUR -PD
YEAR -TO --DATE
Y -T-1+
AMOUH'f
RATIO
AMOUNT
RATlzi
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
PROFESSI04AL SERVICES (AUDIT)
$ 330.00
.13 $
21445.00
.38
COMMUNICATION
184.44
.07
507.26
.08
TRAVEL -CONFERENCE- SCHOOLS
160.00
.06
262.83
.04
ADVERTISING
436.80
.17
1.611.50
.25
INSURANCE, GENERAL
2.929.50
1.16
9.159.46
1.42
UTILITIES; ELECTRICAL
2,206.25
.87
51201.27
.80
UTILITIES; HEATING
.00
.00
1.138.76
.18
UTILITIES, S 8 Y
163.03
.06
300.78
.05
MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
287.09
.11
539.09
.08
TAXES AND LICENSES
.00
.00
79.25
.01
GARBAGE
340.30
.13
752.80
.12
DEPR. - ACQUIRED ASSETS
2.277.84
.90
61833.51'+•:
OTHER
130.91
.05
220.91
C•j
FURNITURE AND EOUIPMENT
.00
.00
300.00
v':
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES 1 CHARGES$
-------------
9.446.16
------
3.71 $
--------.----
29.332.42
------
4.55
DEBT SERVICE
INTEREST
$ 11309.63
.60 6
5.209.89
.61
PAYING AGENT FEES
.00
.00
-
10.00
-------------
.00
TOTAL DEBT SERVICES
-------------
$ 1,509.63
----
.60 $
51219.89
------
.81
TOTAL GENERAL 1 ADIM. EXPENSES$
28.453.45
11.23 $
879739.65
13.58
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME
-------------
6 24,674.85
------
9.79 $
-------------
44.460.32
------
6.87
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
1NIEREST INCOME
$ 61205.49
2.46 $
15.226.27
2.36
OTHLR 114CO14E
.00
.00
24.00
.00
CASH LONG/SHORT
104.21
.04
86.36
.01
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSES)
-------------
$ 6.309.70
------
2.50 $
-------------
15.336.63
- -- -
2.37
NET INCOME
-------------
:x
$ 301984.;
r.euua+uvmuua...
------
12.29 6
......
-------------
59.796.95
u.a:nr. c.uuuum ss■
------
9.24
ouuuvm
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
Pare
GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT SOLD
For the Period 07/01/83 to 09/30/83
Current - F•eriod Year - to - Date
Auount X Amount 2
c.i
LIQUOR SALES
COST OF SALES - LIQUOR
GROSS PROFIT
BEER SALES
COST OF SALES - BEER
GROSS PROFIT
L
WINE SALES
COST OF SALES - WINE
GROSS PROFIT
OTHER SALES
COST OF SALES - OTHER
GROSS PROFIT
TOTAL SALES
TOTAL COST OF SALES
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
14
f 709883.02
100.00 f
1959271.55
529936.23
74.68
151099.74
f 17#946.79
25.32 f
43.471.81
147x447.99
100.00
3589474.28
1219124.83
02.15
2929879.95
f 269323.16
17.85 f
65x594.33
229448.97
100.00
669515.73
149429.34
64.28
449050.21
f 89019.63
35.72 f
229465.52
99192.67
100.00
249975.16
309059.78
-- -867.11)
109.43
229307.60
f(
( 9.43)1 -----29667.36
2499304.44
100.00
643031.01
1999596.89
00.04
514#171.59
f 499787.55
19.96 f
1289859.42
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT
CHECK I
Neenah Foundry Co. - manhole lids and frames
256.57
18080
United States Salt, Inc. - Salt for streets
2,067.39
18081
Lindberg Decorating Center - Dog pound supplies
17.07
18082
Ziegler, Inc. - Cutting edge and blade - SL. Dept.
717.51
18083
Flexible Pipe Tool - Hose and fittings - Sewer Dept.
1,355.50
18084
W. W. Grainger - 15" blower 6 supplies
129. 1G
18085
Local 049 - Union dues - October
114.00
16086
First Bank Mpls. - Public Fund activity charge
4.00
1HOR7
Phillips Petro. Corp. - Water Dept. gas
60.01
18088
Continental Safety Equip. - Fire Dept. hose assembly
59.23
18089
Assoc. of Metro. Men. - Fee for salary survey book
45.00
18090
Our Own Hardware - Supplies for all Dept s.
404.45
18051
Smith, Pringle s Hayes - Legal for Oct.
755.00
16092
SMA Const. - Angle cutting
14.50
18093
Marco Business Products - Office supplies
21.79
18094
Gruys, Johnson s Assoc. - Computer fees for Sept.
290.00
18095
North Central Public Service - Meter charge inst.- Hart Blvd.
50.00
1809G
Gould Bros. - Repairs to mise. trucks
149.92
18097
Int. City Mgmt. Assoc. - Sub. to r4ana9cment Int. Service book
195.00
I809H
Fair's Garden Center - Replacement trees
150.00
18099
Wilhelm's Tree Service - Stump removal
45.00
18100
Braun Eng. - Testing at Meadow Oak Sub.
733.00
18101
Wayne's Red Owl - Supplies for St. Dept.
5.15
18102
MI1. Dept. of Economic Security - Unemployment - Loren Klein
2,57G.00
18103
Central McGowan, Inc. - Cylindci runLal
2.40
18104
lioward Dahlgren Assoc. - Professional services for CA:t.
463.70
18105
Sheldon Epstein - Torch for WWTP
34.95
18106
National Bushing - Supplies for St. Dept.
215.42
18107
Monticello Ready ,fix - Cement for skating rink - 40 St.
120.30
18108
Liquor Fund - Return premium on Workmen'o Comp.
216.00
18109
National Life Ina. Co. - Pension - Tom Ei,dem
85.00
18110
Leef Bros. - Uniform rental fee
143.00
18111
Maus Foods - Supplies for all Depte.
103.58
16112
AcucrafL, Inc. - Steel and labor - new motor mount
83.15
18113
Lee Trunnell - Repairs at Fire Hall
35.00
18114
Tom liidem - Mileage and meals - league of Cities cont.
58.28
18115
Snyder Drug - Film for WWTP
16.99
1811G
Ind. lumber Cu. - Dog pound supplies 6 St. suppliou
425.53
16117
Monticello Printing - Business cards for A. Grimsmo
20.15
lolls
K. It. Wast co. - Filter for wood splinter
16.45
18119
Equitoblu Life Assurance Society - Ins. W/II
40.00
18120
Barco Municipal Products - Band, buckles 6 band it Cool - St.
175.81
18121
Monticello Office Products - Offieu supplies
82.64
16122
Marry's Auto Supply - St. Dept. supplies
178.40
18123
Coast to Coast - Supplies - St., Dog, WWTP
97.97
16124
Wright County Ilighway Dept. - Culverts, bands
123.05
18125
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
3.00
18126
1411. State Troaaurer - Dup. Rug. fuss
36.00
10127
Thomas Iifdem - Mileage - Conferences
61.00
181213
Monticello Times - Files for 1981 6 02 - Library
200.00
18129
Gary Anderson - Misc. mileage
113.34
18130
Owens Services Corp. - labor 6 p111*t8 for furnac-, at City Hall
1,242.98
181.11
It s C Associates - 5 gal. I..O.C. 6 gas additives - SL.
131.35
10132
Bon Franklin Store - foam - MLcc. Illdg.
7.76
16133
Equitable Life Ausuranco - Ina. W/11 - Theisen 6 Hanson
40.00
18114
Century Laboratorie o - Rust a Way - St. Dept.
76.00
10135
Earl F. Andersen - SLep signs
- 210.00
19136
NOVEI.4BER -- GENERAL FUND -- 1983
AMOUNT
CHECK N
Monticello Fire Dept. - Payroll for Firemen
t,350.00
18024
Monticello Times - Publishing for Sept. 5 Oct.
4139.38
18025
Corrow Sanitation - Contract payment
4,502.00
18026
U. S. Postmaster - Postage
370.00
18027
0. K. hardware - Misc. supplies
8.38
18028
Dept. of Conferences - Fee for J. Simolo seminar
125.00
18029
Gerald Hermes - Janitorial services at Library
125.00
18030
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
100,000.00
18031
James Preusse - Cleaning City hall
250.00
18032
Mr. Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary
175.00
18033
Mr. Dan Blonigen - Council salary
125.00
18034
Mrs. Fran Fair - Cuuncil salary
125.00
18035
Mr. Ken Maus - Council salary
125.00
18036
Mr. Jack Maxwell - Council salary
125.00
18037
YMCA of Mpls. - Contract payment
284.16
18038
ml:. Assoc. of Civil Defense Directors - Membership application
3.00
18039
Innovations Press - Contracting for City Services manual - J. S.
14.95
IB040
North Central Public Service - Can for October
1,558.75
18041
Northern States Power - Utilities
7,550.91
18042
Wright County State Bank - W. 11. tax - October
3,243.40
18043
M11. Pultlic Employor labor Relations Assoc. - Reg. fees
40.00
1B044
Gwen Bateman - Animal Imp. expense for Oct.
658.82
18045
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg, fees
10.00
18046
NN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
10.00
18047
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll dud.
144.04
18048
MN. State Treasurer - FICA for October - Social Sec. fund
4,321.42
18041)
XN. State Treasurer - Pcra W/11
1,366.94
18050
Edward Reilly - Reimbursement for landscaping
300.00
18051
Richard 1'nutson, Inc. - Payment NG - 82-2 Project
49,309.10
18052
Commissioner of Revenue - SWT - October
2,239.00
18053
MN. State Treasurer - Dop. Rug. face
12.00
18054
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. foes
18.00
18055
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded.
144.04
16056
Gerald Hermes - Janitorial uery ices at Library
125.00
18057
Wright County State Bank - C. D. purchase
30,000.00
18058
David Capps 6 Citizens State Bank of Big Lake - Property purch.
32,900.00
16059
Marge Bauer - Reimburse library petty eauh fund
372.27
1BOG0
MN. State Treasurer - Pore W/B
1,327.92
18061
1411. State Ttcaeurer - Pero - See. - Interest payment
5.00
18062
Halters Cabinet Shop - 11OOLCaW1:: at. library
5,106.8.1
18063
Production Specialties - Nepairs for snow plUw
7.00
18064
Fyle BaCkhoo and ;ewer Service - Pumping t. rodding at Diup. plt.
65.00
18065
Davin EICCLronic Srrvico - Fire D.!pt. repairs - pagero
90.77
18066
Iloglund Bus Co. - Partu
12.67
18067
Rockfort Ind. - St. Dept. - Pipe sealant, adheulvu, net. lock
143.IG
18068
R. S. Meana Co. - Sub. - Ausosuiny m terial
37.25
18069
Mobil Oil Corp. - Gnu and oil - Fire Dept.
73.86
18070
MIDA- Membership renewal
65.00
18071
Monticullo Township - Local Govt. Aid agreement - 2 payments
2,448.67
16072
Wright County Auditor - Anuosuing uervicuu fee for 1983
7,766.00
18073
Banker's Life Inn. - Group Inu.
3,607.64
18074
Rick Wolfatallur - Mileage
34.50
18075
Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone - Octobo r
780.15
18076
Northwestern Boll - Fire phone
36.24
18077
Al tluloon - Sub. payment
11.70
18078
Senior Cititan Center - Raimburnu San. Cit. for Inf. Center
salary reserve 1983 accumulation
739.20
18071.)
I
A
GENERAL FUND
Olson 6 Sons Electric - Repairs at reservoir and Sen. Cit.
MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees
Corrow Sanitation - Contract paymenL
Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Police contract payment
John Jordan - Wheel carts - 2 - WWTP
Johnny's Implement Service - Parts - St. Dept.
North Star Waterworks - Material for lift station
OSM - Eng. fees - Meadow Oaks - $11,924.88
Water Products Co. - Operating supplies Water 6 Sewer Depts
Buffalo Bituminous - Gravel
Safety Kleen Corp. - Parts
Payroll for October
GENERAL DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER
AMOUNT CHECK 1
279.33
18137
72.00
18138
4,486.00
18133
9,041.98
18140
30.00
18141
23.90
18142
263.85
18143
12,597.13
18144
559.64
18145
372.00
18146
32.00
18147
23,239.94
$330,988.34
1
C
LIQUOR FUND
NOVEMBER DISBURSEMENTS -- 1983
AMOUNT
MCE
80.
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,572.39
10959
Ed Phillips b Sons - Liquor
5,844.10
10960
Griggs, Cooper a Co. - Liquor
2,693.16
10961
Northern States Power - Utilities
525.39
10962
Wright County State Bank - Fed. W/H tax - October
339.80
10963
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded _
20.00
10964
MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/I1
139.89
10965
MN. State Treasurer - FICA for Oct. - Social Sec. fund
356.76
10966
Quality wine s Spirits Co. - wine
589.78
10967
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,999.13
10968
Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H tax - October
217.00
10969
State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded .
20.00
10970
MN. State Treasurer - PENA W/H
140.57
10971
Banker's Life - Group Ins.
361.26
10972
Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor
1,202.91
10973
Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for October
5,234.99
10974
Griggs, Cooper a Co. - Liquor
4,733.16
10975
Coast to Coast - Supplies
5.19
10976
Grosslein Beverage - Beer
9,4G9.51
10977
Seven Up Bottling - Misc. mdue.
395.50
10978
Jude Candy 6 Tobacco - Misc. mdso.
399.53
10979
Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse.
694.35
10980
Dick Ocvcrage Co. - Bcur
9,001.40
10981
City of Monticello - Sewor/water - 3rrd qtr.
163.03
10982
Yonak Sanitation - Garbage contract
82.50
10983
Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer
3,075.75
10984
Liofort Trucking - Fraight
363.44
10985
Gruya, Johnson a Assoc. - Computer processing - July, Aug., Sept.
330.00
10986
Bridgewater Telephone - relephone
52.92
10987
Dahlheimer Dist. Co. - Beer
10,330.16
10988
Day Dist. Co. - Beer
478.25
10989
Old Dutch Foods - Misc. mdse.
187.48
10990
Schabol Reverage Co. - Beer
1,526.85
10991
Payroll for October
3,468.96
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER
$66,015.11