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