City Council Agenda Packet 10-12-2009AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 12, 2009 – 5:30 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski
1. Call to Order.
2. Workshop – Capital Improvement Plan.
3. 2010 Budget update.
4. Adjournment.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 28, 2009 – 7 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
2A. Approve minutes of September 14, 2009 Regular Meeting.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates.
a. Public Service Announcements, if any:
1) Wine Tasting – October 30th
b. Council Updates:
1) Wright County Sheriff
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for MCC.
B. Consideration of adopting a Resolution to approve final payment to Allied
Blacktop and accept work on the 2009 Sealcoating Improvements.
C. Consideration of approving a request for an amendment to Chapter 14, B-4
(Regional Business) District, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to allow
Veterinary/Animal Pet Clinic/Hospitals and Animal Retail and Accessory
Services, a request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development, and a request
for a Conditional Use Permit for Veterinary/Animal Pet Clinic/Hospital and
Animal Retail and Accessory Services in a B-4 (Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc.
D. Consideration of approving a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for
a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access, and a request for Final
Plat for Riverview Square Second Addition. Applicant: Broadway Market
Investors, LLC.
E. Consideration of purchasing a Sign Printer/Cutter, Laminator and Software for
FiberNet Monticello.
F. Consideration of approving a permit for the Wright County Snowmobile
Association for an access easement over the SE corner of parcel #6 at Bertram
Chain of Lakes.
G. Consideration of adopting a Resolution declaring costs to be assessed, ordering
preparation of assessment roll, and Calling for an Assessment Hearing for Fallon
Avenue Rehabilitation Improvements, City Project No. 09C005.
H. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution of Intent to Reimburse from Bond
Proceeds for Fallon Avenue Rehabilitation Improvements, City Project No.
09C005.
I. Consideration of approving start-up Change Fund for FiberNet Monticello.
J. Consideration of adopting a Resolution for an Official Holiday Tree as
recommended by the Monticello Parks Commission.
K. Consideration of extending the Final Plat Approval for the plat of First Minnesota
Bank Commercial.
L. Consideration of adopting a Resolution to approve final payment and accept work
on Dalton Avenue Improvements, City Project No. 06C015 (2006-15C).
M. Consideration of approving the revised contract for the Comprehensive Revision
of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. REMOVED FROM AGENDA
8. Consideration of approving preparation of an application for the new Parks and Trails
Legacy Grant for acquisition funds for the Bertram Chain of Lakes project, in
conjunction with Wright County.
9. Consideration of establishing a Council/Staff task force to review building and
development related fees.
10. REMOVED FROM AGENDA
11. Consideration of accepting bids and approving contract for exterior improvements for the
Monticello Fire Hall.
12. Approve payment of bills for September 28th.
13. Adjournment.
Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for MCC. (TE)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Council is asked to ratify the hiring and departures of employees that have occurred
recently in the departments listed. It is recommended that the Council officially ratify the
hiring/departure of all listed employees including part-time and seasonal workers.
A.1 BUDGET IMPACT: None
A.2 STAFF WORK LOAD IMPACT: Until the positions are filled again, existing staff
would pick up those hours.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached list.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. There is no
other recommendation but for the Council to exercise the authority given to them by state
statute.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new/terminated employees.
Name Title Department Effective Date Class
Christopher Saavedra Climbing Wall Attendent MCC 9/9/09 PT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
Heidi Weeres Involuntary MCC 9/15/09 PT
Clinton Dixon Voluntary MCC 8/28/09 PT
Jessica Dullinger Voluntary MCC 9/1/09 PT
Vanessa O'Gara Voluntary MCC 9/22/09 PT
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A council_employee list.xls: 10/8/2009
Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5B. Consideration of approving temporary liquor license for Hi-Way Liquors wine tasting
event. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Hi-Way Liquors is requesting a temporary liquor license for their wine tasting event at the
Mississippi Room in Monticello Community Center on October 30, 2009 from 7 p.m. to 9
p.m. An application has been completed and will be submitted to the State of Minnesota
after approval by Council.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve a temporary liquor license for Hi-Way Liquors for their wine tasting event.
2. Do not approve the temporary liquor license.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation by staff that the Council approve the temporary liquor license for
Hi-Way Liquors for October 30, 2009.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of liquor license application
Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5C. Consideration of accepting contribution of $250 from Tom Perrault to go into the
General Fund. (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received a donation of $250 from Tom Perrault to go to the General Fund
As required by state statute, if the City accepts the donation of funds, the City Council
needs to adopt a resolution specifying the amount of the donation and its use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the contribution and authorize use of funds as specified.
2. Do not approve the contributions and return the funds to the donors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2009-57
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-57
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept
contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections
465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain
such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the
donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895.
WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute
contributions or gifts to the City as listed:
DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE
Tom Perrault Cash (Sept) $250
WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing
facilities, operations or programs within the city’s jurisdiction either alone or in
cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the
contributions offered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as
follows:
1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of
Monticello.
2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the
donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another
entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose:
DONOR/ENTITY RECIPIENT PURPOSE
Tom Perrault City of Monticello General fund
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 12 th day of October , 2009.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5D. Consideration of accepting contribution of $1,200 from PowerTel Supply, CCG, and
Spectrum for FiberNet Monticello Ribbon Cutting Ceremony. (MB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has received a donation of $600 from PowerTel Supply, $300 from CCG, and
$300 from Spectrum Engineering for the purpose of sponsoring food for the FiberNet
Monticello Ribbon Cutting Ceremony to be held on Tuesday, October 27, 2009. As
required by state statute, if the City accepts the donation of funds, the City Council needs
to adopt a resolution specifying the amount of the donation and its use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the contribution and authorize use of funds as specified.
2. Do not approve the contributions and return the funds to the donors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2009-58
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-58
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept
contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections
465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain
such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the
donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895.
WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute
contributions or gifts to the City as listed:
DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE
PowerTel Supply Cash $600
CCG, Inc Cash $300
Spectrum Engineering Cash $300
WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing
facilities, operations or programs within the city’s jurisdiction either alone or in
cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the
contributions offered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as
follows:
1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of
Monticello.
2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the
donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another
entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose:
DONOR/ENTITY RECIPIENT PURPOSE
PowerTel Supply City of Monticello/FiberNet Sponsor ribbon cutting ceremony
CCG Inc City of Monticello/FiberNet Sponsor ribbon cutting ceremony
Spectrum Engineering City of Monticello/FiberNet Sponsor ribbon cutting ceremony
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 12 th day of October , 2009.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5E. Consideration of approving apportionment of special assessments for Union Crossings
Fourth Addition. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On February 9, 2009 the City Council approved the final plat for Union Crossings Fourth
Addition. The plat created two lots from Lot 2, Block 2, Union Crossings. The original
parcel had assessments levied against it in the amount of $331,320.75. The balance as of
December 31, 2009 will be $231,924.61, which is proposed to be assessed against the two
newly created lots as shown on the attached sheet. The split is proposed at 25% for Lot 1 and
75% for Lot 2 which is based on the land acreage.
The final plat does need to be filed with Wright County in order for this apportionment to take
effect with the 2010 tax statement. It is anticipated the filing will take place around October
15th. If the final plat is not filed in time, the assessment apportionment would be held until the
property is split by the County and the assessment will remain on the original parcel for 2010.
The City Council is being asked to approve the special assessment apportionment in order to
comply with State Statute 429.071. In previous assessment apportionments, the Council
waived the requirement of the property owner furnishing a surety bond.
The assessment amounts, terms and interest rate were not changed by the platting process.
The split of the existing assessments was spread against the newly created lots based on
acreage. The property owner has been notified by mail of the assessment apportionment and
the date the Council would be acting on the matter.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion to approve a 25% / 75% assessment apportionment for the plat of Union
Crossings Fourth Addition and approve the waiver of the required surety bond.
2. A motion to approve an alternate assessment apportionment for the plat of Union
Crossings Fourth Addition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 for approval of the assessment apportionment for the
plat of Union Crossings Fourth Addition. This action ensures that the levied assessments for
improvements will be collected when the property is split into the new parcels.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed assessment apportionment – Union Crossings Fourth Addition
Aerial photo of Lot 2, Block 2, Union Crossings
Plat drawing of proposed Union Crossings Fourth Addition
Statutes 429.071-.081
Original Balance as of
Existing PID Levy Code Assessment 12/31/2009
155-178-002020 27211-2 $82,830.19 $57,981.13
Lot 2, Block 2
Union Crossings 27211-3 $82,830.19 $57,981.13
27211-4 $82,830.19 $57,981.13
27211-5 $82,830.18 $57,981.12
TOTAL ASSESSMENT $331,320.75 $231,924.51
Original Balance as of
New PID Levy Code Assessment 12/31/2009
155-xxx-001010 27211-2 $20,707.55 $14,495.28
Lot 1 Block 1
Union Crossings 4th 27211-3 $20,707.55 $14,495.28
25%
27211-4 $20,707.55 $14,495.28
27211-5 $20,707.55 $14,495.28
155-xxx-002010 27211-2 $62,122.64 $43,485.85
Lot 2 Block 1
Union Crossings 4th 27211-3 $62,122.64 $43,485.85
75%
27211-4 $62,122.64 $43,485.85
27211-5 $62,122.64 $43,485.84
TOTAL ASSESSMENT $331,320.76 $231,924.51
ASSESSMENT APPORTIONMENT
UNION CROSSINGS FOURTH ADDITION
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5F. Consideration of accepting quotes and awarding a contract for an acid storage room for
the Monticello Community Center. (KB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Our Maintenance Supervisor, Brian Weldon, has been concerned about the storage of
Muriatic Acid (acid) in our pool equipment room for quite some time. Acid is necessary for
proper maintenance of the pH levels in a pool. The concerns were further addressed by one of
our pool maintenance vendors because of the significant maintenance issues evident from
having the acid in our pool equipment room. After discussions with the Building Department,
we determined that the best solution to correct this possibly dangerous or expensive situation
was to construct an addition to the building to house the acid separately from all other
equipment and chemicals.
Because our acid is stored in the same open space as our pool equipment and our other
chemicals, like chlorine, it creates some safety and maintenance hazards. The first and most
important concern is the possibility that the chlorine and the acid could come in contact with
each other due to an accidental spill or leak. If this happened it would create a potentially
deadly gas that would most like involve some facility evacuation and hazmat clean up. The
other concern, which directly impacts budget, is the maintenance concerns that happen due to
the corrosive gases or fumes from the acid. Brian has identified a number of areas where he is
seeing a rapid deterioration that will require repair or replacement or parts or equipment.
These areas include; the UV sanitation system controllers which can cost $2,500 for the
smaller controller and up to $5,000 for the larger controller. Our UV maintenance vendor has
already identified corrosion problems with the controllers. Brian is also noting corrosion in
the copper lines that carry natural gas for our pool heaters. His staff has been painting them
regularly with a rust inhibiting paint to try and keep them from corroding further and
producing pinhole leaks. We’re also seeing problems with our electrical conduits, corrosion
on the I-beam supports, problems with the roofing material and additional piping and
plumbing concerns.
The building addition that we are proposing, with the advice of our Building Official, would
be a concrete enclosure on the west end of building in the area that we used as our bike park
area. The outside of the addition would match the rest of the exterior using the same bricks
and copper to have it look compatible. The outside dimensions would be eight feet wide by
eight feet deep by eight feet high. There would be a fiberglass door on the south side of the
addition and all of the conduit would be plastic. There would be no heat in the addition, but it
would have vents for air flow and to allow any fumes to escape. The current exterior wall of
the community center would remain in place and form the fourth wall of the addition. The
acid would be brought into the building by tubing that is checked regularly to ensure that it is
in good shape and will not allow for leaking or spilling. There would be a concrete curbing
around the inside of the addition to contain the acid if there were to be a spill. We would be
putting electricity in the space allowing for one light and one outlet.
A1. Budget Impact: The lowest quote from Bruce Dalbec Contracting Co, Inc out of
Maple Lake for this addition is $16, 000. This quote, nor either of the other two,
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
2
includes the electrical work for the addition. Brian Weldon is still getting quotes for
that part of the project, but the two quotes he has currently received are at $700. This
would bring the total project to just under $17,000. The community center projected
$10,000 in the 2009 budget. We expect to take the balance of approximately $7,000
out of other expense reductions like reduced life guard hours in the morning, savings
on bank fees from a change in our processor and, if necessary, delaying or deleting
equipment purchases as yet to be identified.
We would expect to see reduce maintenance dollars being spent in this area as the
equipment would not be subjected to the corrosion from the acid. We may find that
some equipment may need replacement or repair over time from the years of corrosion
already affecting the area. Those maintenance dollars are not known at this time.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The construction of this addition will reduce the
maintenance needs in the pool equipment room into the future otherwise will not
impact the staff workload appreciably.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the quotes received and awarding the contract for the construction
of an acid storage room addition to the community center, with the project total not to
exceed $17,000 including electrical work.
2. Motion to deny the quotes and awarding the contract for the construction of an acid
storage room addition to the community center.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommend alternative #1 for the safety of the employees of the community center
and for the protection of the valuable and expensive equipment necessary for operating the
pool and hot tubs for the community center. The Chief Building Official, Gary Anderson, has
been extremely helpful with construction information and vendor references for this project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Quotes from Bruce Dalbec Contracting Co. Inc., F.H. Schmidt & Sons, Inc, and Apex
Concrete Specialties
Pictures of corrosion damage in the pool equipment room
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5G. Consideration of approving an amendment to Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition
Development Contract extending the deadline for installing a signal system at the
intersection of Cedar Street and School Boulevard. (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As Council will recall, the Development Contract for Monticello Business Center 3rd
Addition calls for Walmart and Ocello to pay equal assessment amounts of $128,000 for a
signal system at the intersection of School Boulevard and Cedar Street as long as the signal is
warranted and constructed by October 12th, 2009, but if it is not constructed by that date
neither developer will have further obligations to pay for any part of it.
On April 30th, Ocello submitted a letter to the City requesting a 10-year extension from the
current expiration date for constructing this signal system, and requested that Walmart be
advised accordingly. Per Council direction staff contacted Walmart to see if they were
agreeable to this extension and was recently informed via email that they are. Copies of the
letter from Ocello and email from Walmart are attached for reference.
The City Attorney drafted an amendment to the development contract extending the deadline
for constructing the signal system as requested by Ocello and agreed to by Walmart. Staff
has mailed three original copies of the amendment to Walmart for signature. When Walmart
returns the signed originals they will be presented to Ocello for signature, after which the
City will then execute the amendment. A copy of the amendment is attached.
A1. Budget Impact: There are no impacts to the budget at this time.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Impacts to staff are negligible.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve and authorize execution of the attached amendment to the
Development Contract for Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving Alternative Action No. 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Amendment to Development Contract – Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition
Letter from Ocello dated April 30, 2009.
E-mail from Walmart dated October 1, 2009.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
5H. Consideration of accepting a Deed for fee simple title to Outlot D, Union Crossings. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to consider accepting a deed for fee simple title to Outlot D of the
Union Crossings development. The outlot is currently owned by Ryan Companies.
Outlot D is a .487 acre parcel located between 7th Street and I-94 and is illustrated on the
attached site plan. The outlot is a remnant piece created by the configuration of 7th Street for
the CSAH 18/I-94 interchange project. The site is situated at the north terminus of the I-94
pedestrian bridge, along the CSAH 18 pathway.
In original discussions regarding this outlot, the City negotiated with Ryan Companies for
Ryan to retain ownership of this outlot and maintain it in perpetuity. The negotiations also
included Ryan’s agreement to install initial landscaping improvements.
In the time since the original development agreement was executed, this outlot has become a
maintenance issue for both Ryan and the City. While Ryan complies immediately with City
requests for site maintenance, at varying points, the outlot has gone unmowed and the trees on
site are not receiving required pruning.
It is important to note that Outlot D is located at the intersection of two major collector routes,
CSAH 18 and 7th Street, making it a focal point at a primary entrance to the community. It is
also directly along the CSAH 18 pathway and due to this location and amenities in effect
serves as part of the pathway system. In fact, the landscaping design and pedestrian seating
was added by Ryan Companies specifically for that purpose. In looking at the location of the
property, which is completely disconnected from the Union Crossings by 7th Street, the City
could have accepted the parcel with the original plat.
Ryan Companies, as the site developer, may eventually sell their remaining interests at Union
Crossings. Although a Common Area Maintenance Agreement is in place between the
property owners for the balance of Union Crossings, perpetual maintenance of the site may
become a problem without direct oversight by the property owner.
Ryan Companies and City staff have held preliminary discussions regarding the possibility of
the City taking ownership of the property. If accepted by the City, the outlot would be
incorporated into the Parks Department’s regular maintenance schedule for mowing and
maintenance.
A1. Budget Impact: There will be a small cost for the fee simple title transaction
($10.00), recording, and for the preparation of the title documents.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff impact will minimal. The Parks Department will
complete any needed mowing and limited site maintenance for the trees and shrubs
already in place.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
2
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to accept a deed for fee simple title to Outlot D, Union Crossings and to
authorize preparation of the required legal documentation for the transaction.
2. Motion to deny acceptance of a deed for fee simple title to Outlot D, Union Crossings.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This outlot is a remnant parcel created by the interchange construction. At the time of
interchange construction, it made sense for the developer to complete site improvements and
initial maintenance. However, as time goes on, the regular maintenance of this outlot by the
developer will become more of an issue, consuming more staff follow-up time. It appears to
be more efficient and effective, particularly given the site’s very visible location, for the City
to own and maintain this small outlot. The Parks Superintendent has noted that this area
contributes to first impressions for the City and it is important for it to look clean and well-
maintained.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Site Plan
Exhibit B: Site Images
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
7. Consideration of revocation or other action for the Conditional Use Permit for Joint
Parking and Drives and a Conditional Use Permit for Drive Through-Facility for a
commercial development in the CCD (Central Community District). (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In June of 2009, the City Council granted a one year CUP extension to Masters 5th Avenue for
their Landmark Square II project. The City Council conditioned the extension on all
originally assigned conditions, as well as the re-grading, re-seeding and regular maintenance
of the property. The staff report provided to the City Council and the corresponding minutes
are provided for reference.
The applicant is completing regular maintenance of the site at the request of City staff.
However, the applicant has failed to comply with condition requiring re-grading and re-
seeding of the site.
On August 24th, 2009, the applicant was sent a letter requiring compliance with these
conditions by September 14th. Up to and since that time, staff has had a number of
conversations with the applicant about how to properly meet Council’s expectations. To this
point, the applicant has not met the required conditions.
Staff recommended that the applicant come directly to the City Council to discuss the
approved conditions. The applicant will be present at Council on Monday evening. He has
indicated that it is his intention to comply with the clarified requirements.
As part of this discussion, Council can provide the applicant with clarity in terms of specific
site improvements and regular maintenance and then allow for an extension in the timeline to
complete those improvements. Alternatively, Council has the option to consider revocation of
the CUP due to non-compliance with required conditions.
The Council will want to provide the applicant with a clear timeline for completing the
conditioned work. Failure to meet that timeline will then require the Council to consider
revocation of the CUP.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to direct the applicant to complete improvements as directed by the City
Council no later than (date to be specified by Council).
2. Motion to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for Masters 5th Avenue for the
Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parking and Drives and a Conditional Use Permit for
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
2
Drive Through-Facility for a commercial development in the CCD (Central
Community District), based on non-compliance with conditions assigned to the permit
on June 8th, 2009.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council may consider providing the applicant with final clarity on the expectations for the site
as a necessary step in granting the continued approval of the request. In discussions with the
applicant, it appears that it is the intention to meet Council’s requirements.
Future revocation of the CUP may be an appropriate step if the applicant fails to comply with
these re-stated requirements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: City Council Agenda Report – 06/08/09
Exhibit B: City Council Minutes – 06/08/09
Exhibit C: August 24th, 2009 Compliance Letter
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
8. Consideration of approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory
storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District.
Applicant: Kjellberg’s, Inc. (NAC/AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed this item during their regular meeting on August
4th. As the applicant was not present to answer questions from the Commission, the
Commission continued action on this item. On September 1st, the Planning Commission
had the opportunity to discuss the request with the applicant. In particular, the
Planning Commission expressed concern regarding adequate landscape screening for
the accessory building.
The applicant’s attorney indicated during the hearing that the applicant felt that the
landscaping on site was sufficient to meet the code requirements. However, the
Planning Commission indicated that a concern remained relating to adequate screening.
The Commission also indicated that the landscape plan provided, which was an aerial
image with landscaping notations, was inadequate in terms of determining whether
appropriate screening was provided.
The Commission recommended approval of the CUP request in a 5-0 vote, conditioning
their recommendation on the requirement that the applicant provide an updated
landscape plan for staff review prior to the City Council meeting. At the time of this
report, no landscaping plan has been provided.
It should be noted that the application was considered complete for the August Planning
Commission cycle. Per State statute, the City has 60 days to act on a complete land use
request, with one optional 60-day extension. Staff has sent the required 60-day
extension notice per State statute. The City is required to act on this request no later
than October 31, 2009, unless the applicant supplies a letter requesting an extension.
The Planning Commission report is provided below.
The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an accessory storage
building. The applicant previously applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached
accessory structure on the site. The application was denied in late 2006. Subsequently, the
storage building was constructed without the required zoning approvals or building permits.
The construction of the building without the required approvals represents a clear violation of
the City building and zoning codes.
In response to this violation, the City did proceed with legal action against the applicant. That
action was dismissed conditioned on the owner applying for after the fact permits for the
building. City Attorney Joel Jamnik will be present to answer additional questions in this
regard.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
2
The applicant indicates in the project narrative accompanying the application that the building
has been inspected and passed for fire code compliance by Monticello Fire Department
officials. City building inspectors have/have not inspected the structure and have/have not yet
issued a building permit.
The Zoning Ordinance, in Chapter 9, R-4, Mobile Home Park District, makes the following
provisions:
9-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-4"
district:
[A] Accessory Storage Buildings subject to the following conditions:
1. If associated with any open storage, the storage area is
screened from surrounding mobile home units.
2. The storage area is surfaced to control dust and drainage.
3. The storage area and building(s) are for the sole use of the
residents of the mobile home park and are not available for use
by non-residents.
In Section 9-3 [A] 1. (g), the ordinance further requires: “All structures (fences, sidewalks,
roads, storage, cabana, or other) shall require a building permit from the Monticello Building
Inspector.”
The building is a 30 foot by 36 foot cold storage building. It has been located within a storage
yard of about 120 feet by 200 feet. The storage area is surfaced with a gravel Class V surface
and is enclosed by a 6 foot tall chain link fence, strung with barbed wire along the top. There
is a line of lilac shrubs along the eastern edge of the storage area. The storage area is open to
view from the west and south.
Conditional Uses are considered to be an approved use of property, provided the conditions
required by the Ordinance and other reasonable conditions imposed by the City are met. In
reviewing this CUP application, it is necessary to consider the request as if the building had
not already been constructed. In doing so, staff would make the following observations:
1. The storage yard is not fully screened in accordance with the requirements of the CUP
provisions. As a part of any CUP consideration, the applicant should be required to
submit a landscaping plan that provides screening in accordance with the ordinance
section screened from surrounding mobile home units. Landscaping plans are
common requirements of Conditional Use Permit applications, and are specifically
called for in the Mobile Home Park District, Section 9-2 [A] 3.(g) iii as follows: All
areas shall be landscaped in accordance with landscaping plan approved by the City.
2. The storage area is surfaced with Class V gravel. It appears that the requirement for
control of dust and drainage is met by the existing surface.
3. The applicants indicate that the building will be used for operations integral to the
needs of the Mobile Home Park and its residents. While the building will be used by
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
3
employees of the facility, and not the residents themselves, the applicant does not
indicate any intent to use the building for outside users.
As noted above, the applicants constructed the building without the required building permit.
Such a permit is generally required for any building in the City, but is also specifically
required by the language of the zoning district. The City’s Building Code provides for a
double fee attached to the review of any building so constructed.
As a part of this CUP, the applicant should be required to submit to a full inspection of the
building, including corrections as noted by the Building Official resulting from said
inspection(s).
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with the following conditions
(see draft findings attached to this report):
a. Submission of a landscaping plan to City Staff showing full screening around the
boundaries of the storage area no later than October 15th, 2009. Said landscaping
should be designed to provide year-round screening to a height of at least six feet.
b. Pending the outcome of the landscape plan review, installation of any planned or
required landscaping should be required to be completed at a date to be specified by
the City Council.
c. Any fencing proposed as part of the plan shall receive the proper permits from the City
of Monticello
d. The building shall receive full inspections by the City of Monticello Building
Department, and be subject to double fees as provided by the City’s Building Code.
e. The applicant shall make all corrections directed by the Building Department in a
timeframe as directed by the Building Official
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit. This motion should be based on
the following findings, and other findings to be made by the City Council:
a. The associated outdoor storage area is not screened as required by the applicable
zoning ordinance section (9-4 [A] 3).
3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
4
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 3 above. The revised landscape plan is needed to properly
evaluate conformance with the conditions as specified by ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Site Plan and Application Materials
B. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Kjellberg’s Inc.
1000 Kjellberg Park
9127 State Highway 25, NE
Monticello, MN 56362
1. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will provide
screening as required by the zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will meet the
requirements of the Monticello Building Code.
3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit meets all other applicable conditions and requirements
of the zoning ordinance.
4. With adherence to these conditions, the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not be a threat
to public health, safety, or welfare.
5. The proposed CUP will meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan relating to this use.
6. The proposed CUP will not tend to depreciate the value of the area in which it is located.
7. The applicants have demonstrated a need for the Conditional Use through their application
materials.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
9. Consideration of approving electrical improvements at Well #5 to run a new electric
service from the 4th Street Warming House to Well #5 Well House to heat the
building. (MT, BP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello constructed Well #5 in 2003/2004. Well #5 went online January
12, 2004. Well #5 information:
Well Depth: 148’
Casing Depth: 100’
Casing Diameter: 18”
Static Depth: 14’
Drawdown Depth: 25’
150 HP Vertical Turbine
460 Volt
1700 GPM
The electric for Well #5 comes from Xcel Energy and the way they bill us is by demand.
It is a bracket demand whereby they take our highest month demand for a 12-month
period and we pay a percent of that for a 12-month average.
Because of that demand we use our 200 KW stationary generator at Well #5 to pump
between 500,000 to 1 million gallons of water per month to keep the well active. We do
that for the months of January, February, March, April, October, November and
December. For those seven months the only thing we use electric for is heating the
building. We have three rooms with three separate heaters (one in each room). What we
recommend is to run a separate electric line from the warming house to Well #5. This
would be done by:
Installing 1/0 aluminum feeder from meter socket on warming house underground
to Well #5 west wall, and establish a 100 amp service, 1 phase inside main pump
house.
Supply and install three 5 amp unit heaters, one in three individual rooms. The
unit heaters are a wall or ceiling mount with a 3 kw/5 kw selector switch, t-stat
controlled.
Supply one 20-am duplex receptacle, one sp switch and one light in each room for
maintenance purposes.
Includes electric inspections, permits and fees.
Supply and install transfer switch for 120-volt control panel.
The following three (3) quotes were received from local companies for providing the
work as referenced above:
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
2
Wes Olson Electric $4,800.00
Double D Electric $5,515.00
Olson & Sons Electric, Inc. $6,240.00
Quotes were requested to run a 2” conduit from the warming house to Well House #5.
Two (2) verbal quotes were received, one from MP NexLevel of Maple Lake and one
from TelCom Construction of Clearwater. Both companies quoted $8/foot x 210’ for a
total cost of $1,680.00.
A1. Budget Impact: The cost savings of running the new electrical service is as
follows:
MONTH
ELECTRIC
BILL
ESTIMATED BILL
FROM NEW SERVICE
SAVINGS
2008
JAN $1,100.00 $250.00 $850.00
FEB $1,012.00 $250.00 $762.00
MAR $596.00 $250.00 $346.00
APR $1,049.00 $250.00 $799.00
OCT $340.00 $250.00 $90.00
NOV $1,073.00 $250.00 $823.00
DEC $1,172.00 $250.00 $922.00
TOTAL COST SAVINGS $4,592.00
2009
JAN $1,126.00 $250.00 $876.00
FEB $1,070.00 $250.00 $820.00
MAR $779.00 $250.00 $529.00
APR $925.00 $250.00 $675.00
TOTAL COST SAVINGS $2,900.00
The pay-back would be approximately 1 ½ years.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
3
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve quotes and award the electrical work for Well House #5 to
Wes Olson Electric in the amount of $4,800.00 and running the conduit to MP
NexLevel in the amount of $1,680.00 for a total amount of $6,480.00.
2. Motion to deny the quotes and to not complete the electrical work to Well House
#5 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends that the City Council approve the quotes and award the work for
Well House #5 as outlined at Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the three (3) electrical quotes received.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
10. Consideration of approving purchase of an electronic driver feedback speed display sign
for Trunk Highway 25. (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On September 14th Council directed staff to explore the costs associated with purchasing an
electronic driver feedback speed display sign to be mounted adjacent to southbound TH 25 at
the south end of the Mississippi River Bridge for the purpose of slowing traffic approaching
the City. Staff therefore searched the internet and tabulated information from four
manufacturers of driver feedback speed display signs including 3M Traffic, Traffic Logix,
Radarsign, and Ingram Tech.
One of the primary differences between the four signs is the size of the electronic number
displays. Both 3M Traffic and Traffic Logix manufacture signs with 15” numbers on a 30”
wide by 41” or 42” high base sign, and have permanent block letters reading “YOUR
SPEED” above the electronic numbers. Both Radarsign and Ingram Tech manufacture signs
with 12” numbers on an electronic case like the one on our speed trailer. The size of the
numbers is important for legibility, especially from a distance. If the intent of the sign is to
get drivers to react to the read-out and slow down before they reach River Street, the larger
numbers should work better since drivers should be able to read them from a greater distance.
The base price for all units with AC power supply ranged from $3,014 (3M) to $4,534
(Ingram Tech). The addition of a lower grade solar panel increases the cost of the units by
about $2,000, with the exception of the Ingram unit, but when factoring in the extra signage
needed to make them comparable they are all in the $5,000 range. It should be noted that the
lower cost solar panel does not guarantee 24/7 run time as there may be some “down time” in
the late night/early morning hours, depending on the sunlight received the day before.
Based on the information above, staff recommends purchasing either the 3M Traffic or the
Traffic Logix sign as they have the largest (15”) numbers, are better suited to post-mounted
applications, have nearly identical total sign areas, include a 2 year warranty, and include
Bluetooth capabilities for remote data retrieval.
Below is a summary of the 3M and Traffic Logix costs:
3M Traffic Traffic Logix
Basic Unit $2,640.00 $3,600.00
AC Module $ 374.00 Included
Solar Kit $2,640.00 $2,000.00 (Est.)
2 Yr. Warranty Included Included
Data Collection Included $350.00
Computer Control Included Included
Bluetooth Capable Included Included
Shipping Included $200.00
Total Cost w/ AC module & sales tax $3,221.21 $4,435.31
Total Cost w/ solar kit & sales tax $5,643.00 $6,572.81 (Est.)
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
2
AC power is available in close proximity in West Bridge Park so a solar kit is not required
unless Council feels it is important for the sign to function in the event of a power outage.
Attached is a printout from our speed trailer showing vehicle speeds on southbound TH 25
north of River Street last week. As Council will note, the 85th percentile speed shown on the
cover page is close to 39 mph. This is the information that Mn/DOT uses to set speed limits
so if they were using this information they would recommend posting the speed limit on this
section of southbound TH 25 at 40 mph. Council will also note that numerous vehicles are
traveling well in excess of 50 mph which indicates there is a speeding issue on southbound
TH 25 north of River Street. Based on this information this issue will be discussed at the next
Police Advisory Commission meeting.
A1. Budget Impact: If Council authorizes purchasing this sign the funds would come
from the budget.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Street Department staff would be responsible for installing
and maintaining the sign.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve purchase of 3M Traffic sign with AC module and fluorescent
yellow-green background at a cost not to exceed $3,225.
2. Motion to approve purchase of 3M Traffic sign with solar kit and fluorescent yellow-
green background at a cost not to exceed $5,645.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
For the reasons stated above, City staff recommends purchasing the 3M sign with the AC
module and no solar kit. Based on the speed trailer results staff recommends purchasing the
fluorescent yellow-green background on the sign to increase visibility, which is noted in
alternative actions 1 and 2.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Speed trailer printout for SB TH 25 north of River Street (3 pgs).
Product information sheets for 3M and Traffic Logix signs (2 pgs).
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
1
11. Consideration of adopting Resolution No. 2009-59 calling for a Feasibility Report for
2010 Street Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 10C001. (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff is requesting Council authorization to prepare a Feasibility Report for the 2010 Street
Reconstruction Project which, if approved, would be a continuation of the City’s Overall
Street Reconstruction Program as approved by Council on February 9, 2004. The Feasibility
Report will address the need for the project and define the scope, current conditions, proposed
improvements, required permits and approvals, additional right-of-way and/or easement
needs, estimated costs, funding splits, availability of funds including the potential for
assessments, and proposed project schedule.
Areas 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3 and a portion of 6 of the overall program have been previously
reconstructed. Based on the pavement condition of the streets in area 4A it is identified in the
overall program as the next area needing reconstruction. The streets in area 4A include:
West River Street – Chestnut Street to Pine Street (TH 25)
Front Street – Linn Street to Locust Street
Elm Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Vine Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Minnesota Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Maple Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street
Linn Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Locust Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street
Walnut Street – Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River/Front Street
These streets, which total about 1.5 miles, were originally constructed in 1977 and are
reaching the end of their design lives. Reconstruction will include improvements to the
pavement, curb and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain, along with other
appurtenant work. Sanitary sewer improvements will include rebuilding the Chestnut lift
station (doors, pumps, controls, rails, etc.) and repairing and/or replacing deteriorated and
leaking trunk and service lines. This work will prevent thousands of gallons of ground water
from infiltrating into our sanitary sewer system each day, which is routed to our wastewater
treatment plant thereby increasing operational costs through the treatment of clean water and
reducing the plant’s capacity. Watermain improvements will include the repair and/or
replacement of deteriorated trunk lines, valves, hydrants and services, including the
replacement of an old, undersized trunk line under the Walnut Street driveway/parking lot.
Additional elements to be explored in area 4A include the addition of pathway lighting for
West Bridge Park and Front Street, TH 25 pedestrian underpass improvements, and the
installation of underground conduit for FiberNet Monticello. Also, based on recent input
from area residents and businesses, the addition of concrete sidewalk along West River Street
from Otter Creek Road to Pine Street (TH 25) with several connecting walks to Broadway
will be proposed. This sidewalk is necessary to allow pedestrians to safely access area
businesses, parks, and our pathway system.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
2
Staff also recommends reconstructing Prairie Road between Nicholas Circle and Broadway
(CSAH 75) to urban standards with the 2010 Street Reconstruction Project. Originally
constructed in 1980, this section of Prairie Road, which is about 1,800 feet in length, was
originally planned to be reconstructed as part of area 6 but due to poor pavement conditions
staff is recommending to reconstruct it in 2010, including the construction of concrete
sidewalk along the south side of Prairie Road to connect the existing sidewalk that dead-ends
east of Nicholas Circle to the bituminous pathway that runs along the south side of CSAH 75.
This sidewalk is necessary to allow pedestrians to safely access our pathway system.
Maps of area 4A and Prairie Road are included in the supporting data for reference.
As part of the Feasibility Report, the Streets Department will complete a review of the street
condition ratings for all streets within the project to determine if there have been any changes
since the streets were rated in 2003. This will ensure that the proper reconstruction treatment
is applied; i.e. a full pavement reconstruction versus a mill and overlay.
A1. Budget Impact: Considering all the items discussed above, a reasonable cost
estimate for reconstructing area 4A would be about $2,000,000. The City’s 5-year
Capital Improvement Plan includes $1,886,750 for this project and identifies the
following funding splits:
$540,000 – State-Aid funds
$125,000 – Storm sewer access funds
$329,000 – Water access funds
$200,000 – Sanitary sewer access funds
$ 87,250 – Street reconstruction funds
$605,500 – Bond funds and/or special assessments
The estimated cost to reconstruct Prairie Road will be identified in the Feasibility
Report however, based on 2009 construction costs a reasonable estimate for this work
would be $500,000, including sidewalk. Sidewalk funding will be proposed to be
acquired through an area-wide assessment, similar to the program that was used to
fund the sidewalk on River Street during the 2006 Street Reconstruction Project.
It should be noted that if we do not spend some of our State-Aid funds in 2010,
thereby reducing our account balance, we will lose some of our annual allocation next
year. A portion of the engineering costs to prepare the Feasibility Report can be
funded with State-Aid funds. Also, because bond rates are so low right now, staff
would recommend the use of bonds to fund the entire project. The bond payments
would then be made from the funds above.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff, which will include various staff from the Engineering
and Public Works Departments, will spend a considerable amount of time working on
the Feasibility Report. Staff will also need assistance from WSB and Associates in
regards to certain technical input and the development of graphics as needed, but staff
will prepare as much of the Feasibility Report in-house as possible.
City Council Agenda: 10/12/09
3
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2009-59 calling for a Feasibility Report for 2010
Street Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 10C001.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. 2009-59 at this time.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends moving ahead with this project for the following reasons.
First, at the time the Overall Street Reconstruction Program was adopted, area 4A was
planned for reconstruction in 2006. However, since the program was adopted the
reconstruction of various streets and areas within the overall program have been omitted
and/or delayed for various reasons. In fact, there have been no street reconstruction projects
approved since 2007. However, all the while our streets continue to age and degrade so by
moving ahead with this project we will be taking a step forward toward getting back on track
with our Overall Street Reconstruction Program which will help us incrementally and cost-
effectively budget for maintenance of our streets in the future. If we do not maintain our
streets on a routine basis we will likely find ourselves in the position of needing to reconstruct
numerous miles of streets in the near future, adversely impacting our budget.
Secondly, the bidding environment for street improvement projects has been very favorable
over the last couple of years due to the economy. In fact, bid prices have been coming in 20
to 40% less than similar projects constructed several years ago. All indications are that this
favorable bidding environment will continue into next year which will likely result in
significant savings for the City if we move ahead with this project in 2010.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2009-59
Area 4A Map - Figure A
Prairie Road (Area 6) – Figure B
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-59
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
CITY PROJECT NO. 10C001
2010 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve area 4A and a portion of area 6 as identified in the Overall
Street Reconstruction Program including West River Street from Chestnut Street to Pine Street
(TH 25); Front Street from Linn Street to Locust Street; Elm Street, Vine Street, Minnesota
Street, and Maple Street from Broadway (CSAH 75) to West River Street; Linn Street and
Locust Street from Broadway (CSAH 75) to Front Street; Walnut Street from Broadway (CSAH
75) to West River/Front Street; and Prairie Road from Nicholas Circle to Broadway (CSAH 75)
by the reconstruction of streets including the construction, removal, and/or repair of pavement,
curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, watermain, drainage and storm sewer improvements, sidewalk,
and other necessary appurtenant work, and to assess the benefiting properties for all or a portion
of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer for study, with assistance from
WSB and Associates, Inc., and that the City Engineer is instructed to report back to the Council
with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed
improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as
proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement
as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments
for affected parcels.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 12th day of October, 2009.
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator