City Council Agenda Packet 04-12-2010AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 12, 2010 – 6 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski
1. Call to Order
2. Workshop: Discussion of Feasibility Report for TH 25 and CSAH 75 and Downtown
Concept Planning
3. Adjournment
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 12, 2010 – 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. Approval of Minutes – March 22, 2010 Special Joint Meeting
2B. Approval of Minutes – March 22, 2010 Regular Meeting
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates
a. Citizen Comments:
b. Public Service Announcements:
1) Farmer’s Market
2) Bertram Open House (5/18)
3) Leaf Pickup
c. Council Updates:
1) Clean Water Report – MN Dept of Health
2) MN WWTF Operational Award – MN Pollution Control Agency
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of approving an On-sale and Sunday liquor license application for TMC
& J Taylor Corporation, dba Beef O’Bradys at 254 West Broadway effective June 1,
2010
C. Consideration of approving a 2-day temporary on-sale liquor license to the Monticello
Lions Club for July 10-11, 2010 Riverfest celebration
D. Consideration of approving a 1-day temporary on-sale liquor license to the Monticello
Rotary Club for their Taste of the Town event on September 16, 2010
E. Consideration of adopting amendments to City Ordinance Title 3, Chapters 1 and 2
relating to Sunday liquor hours
F. Consideration of approving reapportionment of special assessments for Muller Theatre
properties
SPECIAL MEETING
6 p.m. – Workshop
Feasibility Report for TH 25 and CSAH 75 and
Downtown Concept Planning Discussions
G. Consideration of authorizing Sheriff’s Department to utilize office space at Prairie
Center building
H. Consideration of authorizing use of City Park and Ride Facility for the Rotary Taste of
the Town event, September 16, 2010
I. Consideration of request to approve a Preliminary Plat, an amendment to Conditional
Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, and a Conditional Use Permit for Joint
Access for a commercial subdivision in a B-3 (Highway Business) District; Applicant:
Chrysler Financial
J. Consideration of authorizing contract renewal negotiations with Veolia Water for
operating the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility
K. Consideration of appointing two Council members to the Embracing Downtown
Steering Committee
L. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-16 calling for a Public Hearing on
issuance of a Cable Franchise
M. Consideration of approving the MCC/Towne Centre parking plan and placement of
signs for Towne Centre parking
N. Consideration of authorizing a Feasibility Study and Engineering Analysis for the NE
Quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and CSAH 75
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion
7. Consideration of adopting amendment to City Ordinance Title 6, Chapter 2 relating to
dangerous dogs and adoption of summary ordinance for publication
8. Consideration of authorizing a supplemental grant match allocation for the 2010 acquisition at
Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park in conjunction with Wright County
9. Consideration of options for on-street parking options for West River Street, 2010 Street
Reconstruction, City Project No. 10C001
10. Consideration of approving a Comprehensive Mowing Management Program for city
properties and rights of way
11. Approve payment of bills for April 12th
12. Closed Meeting – (a) Personnel issue and (b) legal costs associated with FCC complaint
13. Adjournment
Council Agenda: 04/12/10
1
5A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments (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.
A1. Budget Impact: (positions are generally included in budget)
A2. Staff Work Load Impact: If new positions, there may be some training involved.
If terminated positions, existing staff would pick up those hours, as needed, until
replaced.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached
list.
2. Motion to deny the recommended hires and departures.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. City staff
recommends Alternative #1, for the Council to approve the hires and/or departures as
listed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of new/terminated employees
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Genevieve Plude Liquor Store Clerk Liquor Store 3/25/10 PT
Angela Ernst Liquor Store Clerk Liquor Store 3/30/10 PT
Ailia Krause Slide Att/Water Safety Instructor/Life Guard MCC 4/5/10 PT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
Abby Zierdt Voluntary MCC 2/18/10 PT
Aaron Zierdt Voluntary MCC 1/1/10 PT
Brent Thoe Voluntary Liquor Store 4/2/10 PT
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A Council_employee list 2010 (2).xls: 4/9/2010
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5B. Consideration of approval of an on-sale and Sunday liquor license for TMC & J
Taylor Corporation, dba Beef O’Bradys at 254 West Broadway (TK,JJ)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Beef O’Bradys, owned by TMC & J Taylor Corporation, has submitted an application for
an on-sale liquor license and Sunday liquor license. The business will be located at 254
West Broadway, previously occupied by Crostini Grille. Beef O’Bradys plans to be in
business around June 1st.
The annual fee for the on-sale liquor license is set at $3,750 and the Sunday license at
$200. These fees have been prorated and paid for the month of June 2010.
A background check has been conducted on the business owner and passed. The owner
is in the process of acquiring an insurance certificate covering liquor liability and
worker’s compensation as required by state law.
After approval by Council, the application and appropriate documentation will be sent to
the State for processing and granting of the license.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the application for an on-sale liquor license and Sunday liquor
license for Beef O’Bradys at 254 West Broadway, contingent upon submittal of
certificate of insurance covering the period of June 1, 2010 through June 30,
2010.
2. Motion to deny the liquor license application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff recommends Alternative #1, for approval of the application for an on-sale
liquor license and Sunday liquor license for Beef O’Bradys. It will be nice to have
another quality food establishment in the downtown Monticello district. Beef O’Bradys
is a family-oriented restaurant with a community focus and should be a nice complement
to our business community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
License Application
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5C. Consideration of approving temporary on-sale liquor license for Monticello Lions
Club for Riverfest celebration (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lions Club is requesting approval of application for a temporary on-sale
liquor license in conjunction with the Riverfest celebration on July 10-11, 2010. This
will include intoxicating liquor and beer sales at the Community Center parking lot on
Saturday, July 10 and at Ellison Park on Sunday, July 11.
A1. Budget Impact: NA
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal staff time to send application to State Alcohol
and Gambling Division for approval.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the application for a temporary liquor license for the Monticello Lions
Club for July 10-11, 2010 Riverfest celebration.
2. Do not approve the application for temporary liquor license.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 for approval of the application.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Application for temporary liquor license
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5D. Consideration of approving temporary on-sale liquor license for Monticello Rotary
Club for Taste of the Town event (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Rotary Club is requesting approval of application for a temporary on-sale
liquor license for their Taste of the Town event on September 16, 2010. This event is
planned to take place at the City Park and Ride lot pending approval by City Council.
A1. Budget Impact: NA
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal staff time to send application to State Alcohol
and Gambling Division for approval.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the application for a temporary liquor license for the Monticello Rotary
Club on September 16, 2010 for their Taste of the Town event.
2. Do not approve the application for temporary liquor license.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 for approval of the application.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Application for temporary liquor license
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
1
5E. Consideration of adopting amendments to City Ordinance Title 3, Chapters 1 and 2 relating to
Sunday liquor hours (TK, JJ)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On March 22nd, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the city ordinances
to establish Sunday liquor hours to start at 10 a.m. The current ordinances prohibit sales and
consumption prior to noon on Sundays. There are three chapters of the current Ordinance
Title 3 that address Sunday liquor hours: Chapter 1 – Beer, Chapter 2 – Liquor, and Chapter
4 – Liquor by the Drink.
Amendment changes to Chapter 1 (Beer) are proposed to allow holders of on-sale beer
licenses to sell and consume alcohol starting at 10 a.m. on Sundays. Amendments to Chapter
2 (Liquor) as proposed would allow certain establishments with on-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses to sell and consume alcohol starting at 10 a.m. on Sundays. Permitted establishments
under MN State Statutes are a restaurant, club, bowling center, or hotel with a seating
capacity for at least 30 persons and the sale of alcohol for consumption is done in conjunction
with the sale of food.
Amendment changes to Chapter 4 (Liquor by the Drink) would not be allowed under MN
State Statutes Chapter 340A.504 Subd. 5, which prohibits service before noon on Sundays for
holders of Display and Consumption permits (i.e. bottle clubs).
Amendments have been prepared for Chapters 1 and 2 showing the sections with proposed
changes. Please refer to supporting data for the proposed amendments.
It should be noted that these ordinance amendments, once approved, will go into effect on the
date they are published in the official newspaper. It is anticipated that we will be able to
publish in the Monticello Time legal section on Thursday, April 15, 2010.
A1. Budget Impact: There will be minimal cost for review by the City Attorney and for
publishing the ordinance amendments.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff time to prepare and update the City Ordinances.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve Ordinance Amendments No. 612 and 613 to establish Sunday
liquor hours to start at 10 a.m. as allowed by Minnesota State Statutes.
2. Motion to deny Ordinance Amendments No. 612 and 613.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 to approve the earlier start time for Sunday liquor hours
for on-sale beer and on-sale liquor as allowed by MN State Statutes. Businesses holding
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
2
annual on-sale licenses have requested this in the past to enable them to coordinate food and
beverage services with Sunday morning events such as holiday brunches and community
benefits. After checking with neighboring cities, we found that a 10 a.m. Sunday opening has
been adopted in 5 of 6 of those communities. This would be consistent with current area
community practices. Notice of the meeting for consideration of the proposed amendments
was sent to all City on-sale liquor license holders.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Ordinance Amendment No. 612 - Title 3, Chapter 1 – Beer
Ordinance Amendment No. 613 - Title 3, Chapter 2 – Liquor
ORDINANCE NO. 612
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY
CODE RELATING TO BEER LICENSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS:
Section 1. The index of Title 3, Chapter 1 of the Monticello City Code shall be amended by
adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as
follows:
3-1-9: Days and Hours of Sales Closing Hours
Section 2. The provisions of Title 3, Chapter 1-8, Conditions of License, shall be amended
by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as
follows:
3-1-8: CONDITIONS OF LICENSE:
(K) Every licensee shall be prohibited from conducting business on the
premises from 2:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday
inclusive, or on Sunday from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Presence of
customers on the premises is not permitted between the hours of
2:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday inclusive, or on
Sunday between the hours of 2:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Every licensee shall not conduct business on the premises between
the hours of two o'clock (2:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) a.m.,
Monday through Saturday inclusive, or on any Sunday between the
hours of two o'clock (2:00) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon,
nor permit the presence of customers on the premises between the
hours of two thirty (2:30) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) a.m.,
Monday through Saturday inclusive, or on any Sunday between the
hours of two thirty (2:30) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon.
Section 3. The provisions of Title 3, Chapter 1-9, Days and Hours of Sales, shall be amended
by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as
follows:
3-1-9: DAYS AND HOURS OF SALES: The hours of operation and days of
sale shall be those set by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A.504, as it may
be amended from time to time, except that the City Council may, by
resolution or ordinance, provide for more restrictive hours. No sale of 3.2
percent malt liquor may be made between 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on the
days of Monday through Saturday, nor between 2:00 a.m. and 10 a.m. on
Sunday. An establishment serving 3.2 percent malt liquor on Sundays
must obtain a Sunday license from the City.
CLOSING HOURS: No sale or non-intoxicating liquor shall be made on
any Sunday between the hours of two o'clock (2:00) a.m. and twelve
o'clock (12:00) noon. No sale shall be made between the hours of two
o'clock (2:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) a.m. on any week day, Monday
through Saturday inclusive.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this 12th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 613
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 2 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY
CODE RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS:
Section 1. The index of Title 3, Chapter 2 of the Monticello City Code shall be amended by
adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as
follows:
3-2-9: Days and Hours of Sales Restrictions on Purchase and Consumption
3-2-10: Restrictions on Purchase and Consumption Revocation
3-2-11: Revocation
Section 2. The provisions of Title 3, Chapter 2-8, Conditions of License, shall be amended
by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as
follows:
3-2-8: CONDITIONS OF LICENSE:
(C) Every licensee shall be prohibited from conducting business on the
premises from 2:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday
inclusive, or on Sunday from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Presence of
customers on the premises is not permitted between the hours of
2:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday inclusive, or on
Sunday between the hours of 2:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Every licensee shall not conduct business on the premises between
the hours of two o'clock (2:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) a.m.,
Monday through Saturday inclusive, or on any Sunday between the
hours of two o'clock (2:00) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon,
nor permit the presence of customers on the premises between the
hours of two thirty o'clock (2:30) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00)
a.m., Monday through Saturday inclusive, or on any Sunday
between the hours of two thirty o'clock (2:30) a.m. and twelve
o'clock (12:00) noon; however, further provided that no
intoxicating liquor may be sold or served on Sunday, whether
directly or indirectly, except between the hours of twelve o'clock
(12:00) noon and one o=clock (1:00) a.m. Monday, and then only in
conjunction with the serving of food to persons who are seated at
tables within the licensed premises.
Section 3. The provisions of Title 3, Chapter 2-9, Conditions of License, shall be amended
by adding the underlined language as follows:
3-2-9: DAYS AND HOURS OF SALES:
(A) The hours of operation and days of sale shall be those set by
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A.504, as it may be amended from
time to time, except that the City Council may, by resolution or
ordinance, provide for more restrictive hours.
(B) No sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the licensed
premises may be made between 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on
Monday through Saturday inclusive. Sales after 2:00 a.m. on
Sunday are unlawful unless the establishment has obtained a
Sunday liquor license in accordance with state law.
Section 4. The provisions of Title 3, Chapter 2-10, Conditions of License, shall be amended
by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as
follows:
3-2-10: 3-2-9: RESTRICTIONS ON PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION:
Section 5. The provisions of Title 3, Chapter 2-11, Conditions of License, shall be amended
by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as
follows:
3-2-11: 3-2-10: REVOCATION:
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this 12th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5F. Consideration of a request for reapportionment of special assessments for Muller
Family Theatres. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Property owner Mike Muller has requested that the City Council consider a request to re-
apportion the special assessments on his property at Jefferson Commons. The special
assessments are related to the infrastructure and improvements associated with School
Boulevard and Deegan Avenue improvements, sewer extension, and signal and trunk
fees.
There are three separate parcels affected by this request and three separate special
assessments. One assessment for School Blvd and Deegan Ave was originally assessed
for 10 years with 6% interest and has 6 years remaining. It has a balance remaining of
$16,474.29. The assessment for sewer extension was a 6 year assessment at an interest
rate of 5.50% and has 2 years remaining. The balance for that assessment is $10,788.50.
Finally the assessment for signal and trunk fees was an 8 year assessment with an interest
rate of 5.50% and has 4 years remaining with a balance of $59,191.20. Mr. Muller is
requesting that the City restructure the payment schedule, taking the existing principal
amount and amortizing that amount over 15 years.
The current and new payment schedule, as prepared by the Finance Director is attached.
Using the data shown, this will reduce the annual payments for the property from
$27,775.13 to $10,600.94 in 2011.
The City did not issue debt to finance these projects, so the only impact to the City is
having the assessments paid back over a longer period than was originally planned.
However, since the assessments would be spread over a longer period, the City would
collect more in interest over the life of the assessments.
A1. Budget Impact: By extending out the assessments, the City would be repaid
over a longer period for the cost of the improvements. However, by extending the
assessments over the life of the assessment, the property owner would pay more
in interest.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There will be a small amount of staff time involved in
preparing the required assessment information for Wright County.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the reapportionment of remaining special assessment for
parcels 155-164-000070, 155-164-002020, and 155-192-001010 to a 15 year term
at 5.5% and 6.00% interest, with the 15 year term beginning with taxes payable
2011.
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
2. Motion to deny the reapportionment of remaining special assessment for parcels
155-164-000070, 155-164-002020, and 155-192-001010 to a 15 year term at
5.5% and 6.00% interest, with the 15 year term beginning with taxes payable
2011.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This request represents a significant policy decision for the City Council. There are a
number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten years.
Each represents a substantial cost to the City in terms of bond repayment. The Council
will need to weigh the precedent set by adjusting this assessment with the economic
conditions for the development community. The Council will need to consider the basis
of granting or not granting these requests as a whole and individually.
The inability of the property owner to pay the levied assessments also has a negative
impact on the City’s ability to make the bond payment. If by extending the assessment
out, the property owner is able to continue to pay the property taxes and keep them
current, the City is better off receiving a partial payment compared to nothing.
Finally, the City did grant a similar request in 2009 for Outlot D, of Otter Creek.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Mike Muller’s request for reapportionment
Waiver of public hearing notice
Property Tax Statements – 2009
Assessment Reapportionment Illustration
Muller Family Theatres Special Assessments
Current
Parcel: 155-164-000070
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Code # of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
27211-0 10 yrs 2007 6.00%6 yrs 3,605.75 2,163.43 Principal 360.58 360.58 360.58 360.58 360.58 360.53 2163.43
Interest 129.81 108.17 86.54 64.90 43.27 21.63 454.31
Total 490.39 468.75 447.12 425.48 403.85 382.16 2,617.74
Parcel: 155-164-002020
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Code # of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
27211-0 10 yrs 2007 6.00%6 yrs 2,578.75 1,547.23 Principal 257.88 257.88 257.88 257.88 257.88 257.83 1547.23
Interest 92.83 77.36 61.89 46.42 30.94 15.47 324.91
Total 350.71 335.24 319.77 304.30 288.82 273.30 1,872.14
Parcel: 155-192-001010
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Code # of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
25211-2 6 yrs 2007 5.50%2 yrs 32,365.50 10,788.50 Principal 5,394.25 5,394.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,788.50
Interest 593.37 296.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 890.05
Total 5,987.62 5,690.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,678.55
25311-0 8 yrs 2007 5.50%4 yrs 79,513.60 39,756.80 Principal 9,939.20 9,939.20 9,939.20 9,939.20 0.00 0.00 39,756.80
Interest 2,186.62 1,639.97 1,093.31 546.66 0.00 0.00 5,466.56
Total 12,125.82 11,579.17 11,032.51 10,485.86 0.00 0.00 45,223.36
25311-1 8 yrs 2007 5.50%4 yrs 38,868.80 19,434.40 Principal 4,858.60 4,858.60 4,858.60 4,858.60 0.00 0.00 19,434.40
Interest 1,068.89 801.67 534.45 267.22 0.00 0.00 2,672.23
Total 5,927.49 5,660.27 5,393.05 5,125.82 0.00 0.00 22,106.63
27211-0 10 yrs 2007 6.00%6 yrs 21,272.75 12,763.63 Principal 2,127.28 2,127.28 2,127.28 2,127.28 2,127.28 2,127.23 12,763.63
Interest 765.82 638.18 510.54 382.91 255.27 127.63 2,680.35
Total 2,893.10 2,765.46 2,637.82 2,510.19 2,382.55 2,254.86 15,443.98
Parcel
Total 26,934.03 25,695.83 19,063.38 18,121.87 2,382.55 2,254.86 94,452.53
Total All
Parcels 27,775.13 26,499.82 19,830.27 18,851.64 3,075.22 2,910.33 98,942.41
Muller Family Theatres Special Assessments
New 15 Year Reassessment
Parcel: 155-164-000070
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Code # of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
TBD 15 yrs 2011 6.00%15 yrs 2,163.43 2,163.43 Principal 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 144.23 2,163.43
Interest 129.81 121.15 112.50 103.84 95.19 86.54 77.88 69.23 60.58 51.92 43.27 34.61 25.96 17.31 8.65 1,038.45
Total 274.03 265.38 256.73 248.07 239.42 230.77 222.11 213.46 204.80 196.15 187.50 178.84 170.19 161.54 152.88 3,201.88
Parcel: 155-164-002020
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Code # of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
TBD 15 yrs 2011 6.00%15 yrs 1,547.23 1,547.23 Principal 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 103.15 1,547.23
Interest 92.83 86.64 80.46 74.27 68.08 61.89 55.70 49.51 43.32 37.13 30.94 24.76 18.57 12.38 6.19 742.67
Total 195.98 189.79 183.60 177.42 171.23 165.04 158.85 152.66 146.47 140.28 134.09 127.90 121.72 115.53 109.34 2,289.90
Parcel: 155-192-001010
Interest Yrs Original Assessment Annual Assessments
Code # of Years 1st Yr Rate Remaining Assessment Balance 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
TBD 15 yrs 2011 5.50%15 yrs 69,979.70 69,979.70 Principal 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 4,665.31 69,979.70
Interest 3,848.88 3,592.29 3,335.70 3,079.11 2,822.51 2,565.92 2,309.33 2,052.74 1,796.15 1,539.55 1,282.96 1,026.37 769.78 513.18 256.59 30,791.07
Total 8,514.20 8,257.60 8,001.01 7,744.42 7,487.83 7,231.24 6,974.64 6,718.05 6,461.46 6,204.87 5,948.27 5,691.68 5,435.09 5,178.50 4,921.91 ########
TBD 15 yrs 2011 6.00%15 yrs 12,763.63 12,763.63 Principal 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 850.91 12,763.63
Interest 765.82 714.76 663.71 612.65 561.60 510.55 459.49 408.44 357.38 306.33 255.27 204.22 153.16 102.11 51.05 6,126.54
Total 1,616.73 1,565.67 1,514.62 1,463.56 1,412.51 1,361.45 1,310.40 1,259.34 1,208.29 1,157.24 1,106.18 1,055.13 1,004.07 953.02 901.96 18,890.17
Parcel
Total 10,130.92 9,823.28 9,515.63 9,207.98 8,900.34 8,592.69 8,285.04 7,977.40 7,669.75 7,362.10 7,054.46 6,746.81 6,439.16 6,131.52 5,823.87 ########
Total All
Parcels 10,600.94 10,278.45 9,955.96 9,633.47 9,310.98 8,988.49 8,666.00 8,343.51 8,021.03 7,698.54 7,376.05 7,053.56 6,731.07 6,408.58 6,086.09 ########
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5G. Consideration of authorizing Sheriff’s Department to utilize office space at Prairie
Center Building (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to give formal authority enabling the relocation of the Sheriff’s
Department offices from the Fire Hall to the Prairie Center building. Now that space has
been maximized in a fashion enabling all City Hall department staff to stay at City Hall,
the space that was originally set aside for potential City staff use is available for the
Sheriff’s Department staff. After speaking with Deputies Dave Anderson and Todd
Olson, I believe it is appropriate at this time to give them the green light to make the
move.
It is proposed that the deputies utilize the suite on the second floor that faces the parking
lot. There is ample room in this suite which in total area exceeds the space required
under the contract with the Wright County Sheriff’s Department. Office furniture and
supplies will be pulled from existing inventory so there should be no extra costs
associated with the move. However, it should be been noted that the existing door to
office is light duty and the thus the space may need to be made more secure through
replacement with a heavier door and lock. Once authorized to proceed, the dedicated
connection to County computer systems will be facilitated by IT staff.
There does not appear to be any potential conflicts with other users of the site at this time.
Rivers of Hope representatives have indicated to the Sheriff’s Department that their
presence in the building is welcomed.
Signage or other indication of the presence of the office will need to be coordinated with
the overall sign plan as determined by FiberNet. Costs associated with signage should be
funded by the Sheriff’s Department.
A1. Budget Impact: Potential cost to purchase a heavier duty door. The door will be
purchased locally at the lowest price possible. There would be minimal costs
related to installation of phone and internet service.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Some staff time will be needed to set up furnishings
and equipment in the new office, as well as make arrangements for phone and
internet service.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion authorizing the Sheriff’s Department office to be housed at the Prairie
Center building.
2. Motion to deny authorization for the Sheriff’s Department office to be housed at
the Prairie Centre
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
3. Motion to table.
Although the Police Commission has reviewed the office situation recently, there
has been some discussion on the matter by the group. Staff liaison, Bruce Westby
recollects that the group is supportive of moving the office to Prairie Centre.
However, a formal recommendation would not be available until after their next
meeting scheduled for April 21. Therefore, Council may wish to delay this
decision pending formal Police Commission input. Please note that this is being
placed on the agenda to expedite the move; based on previous input by the Police
Commission, it is pretty likely that they would support Alternative #1.
Council could also table this matter if there is a belief that there is a better
location somewhere else.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and members of the Sheriff’s Department recommend Alternative #1. Although
having the Sheriff’s Deputies reside at City Hall is a plus in terms of maintaining close
connections and ongoing productive relations, there simply is no room at City Hall and
Prairie Centre is the next best option. With the deputies located apart from City Hall,
City staff and the deputies will need to take the initiative to overcome the separation by
making special efforts to cross paths and stay connected.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
1
5H. Consideration of authorizing use of City Park & Ride area for Rotary Taste of the Town
event, September 16, 2010 (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to consider approval of use of the park and ride lot just off Highway 25
South for the purpose of a Taste of the Town – a food and beverage fundraising event. The
request has two associated considerations:
a) Approval for use of park and ride lot
b) Approval of temporary liquor license (see Item 5D)
The Monticello Rotary Club is requesting use of the park and ride lot to coordinate a Taste of the
Town food and beverage event, which will be promoted and held in cooperation with
approximately 40 food and beverage vendors. This public community event is proposed to occur
Thursday, September 16.
The event is proposed to be located in the Jefferson Commons commuter lot. Event attendees
will be accessing the area by vehicle from Deegan Avenue. As part of the park and ride lot use,
the group is also seeking City assistance for providing barricades, cones, picnic tables and
garbage cans.
The Rotary Club is requesting that the park and ride lot be partially closed for set-up by
volunteers on Wednesday afternoon with the lot fully closed the entire day of the event for
completion of set-up. As advised by the Public Works Department, the commuter lot will be
signed with sandwich boards 72 hours prior to the event to notify users of the closures. Full
access to a limited number of park and ride stalls will still be made available Wednesday.
The event will occur from 5:30 PM to 8:30 PM on Thursday the 16th. A site map illustrating the
proposed configuration of activities including food and beverage vendor display spaces and areas
for loading/unloading, entrance and exit areas and patron parking areas, is included in supporting
data.
As illustrated, the event will utilize a portion of the Muller Theatre parking lot area on the east
side. The property owner has been contacted and agrees to allow Rotary to use this area for event
parking. During the event volunteers will be directing traffic for parking into the signed
designated areas.
The Public Works department has indicated that, if approved by Council, they are able to provide
cones and barricades for parking areas on Wednesday, along with a site map illustrating their
location for volunteer set-up. Picnic tables and garbage and recycling receptacles will also be
brought to the sight on Thursday. These items will be picked up Friday morning. Directional
assistance for vehicles is limited to parking areas and not required for any city streets. The group
itself will provide an on-site dumpster and will empty all trash and provide full site clean-up prior
to the City removing the garbage cans the following day.
The Monticello Rotary Club has indicated that they will be obtaining insurance to cover the event
and its activities with the City named as second insured. Individual food and beverage vendors
will also have insurance coverage as they will be catering the food and serving beverages
including beer and alcoholic drinks. Small group venues of live performers will provide quieter
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
2
background music during the event. As part of the request, Rotary is also seeking Council’s
approval to move forward an application for permit from the State of Minnesota for a temporary
one day liquor license. That request is covered in item 5D.
It should be noted that Rotary is proposing to set up 3 to 4 large rental tents on the park and ride
lot for the event. To secure the tents, metals stakes will be fastened into the park and ride
pavement surface. The Public Works Department has recommended that the Rotary research a
weighted stabilization system for the tents versus staking. If that cannot be accommodated, as a
condition of approval, Rotary will be asked to reimburse the City for costs associated with the
patch and repair at the stake locations. It is not recommended that Rotary contract the repair
work independently as this would cost more than completing the repair work in-house. The
Rotary group will also continue to work with Public Works staff regarding power supply for the
event and will be asked to comply with the recommendations of staff in that regard.
The property and business owners along this section of the park and ride lot have been contacted
about the taste of the Town event and support the effort.
The Taste of the Town was developed by Rotary as an adults-only destination event that can
bring people together for a social fellowship gathering from not only Monticello but surrounding
communities as well. All patrons taking part in this event must be age 21 or older and
identification will be checked at the entrance door. The Wright County Sheriff will be contracted
by the group to provide added security for the event’s activities. Taste of the Town was designed
to be a fundraiser for this non-profit organization and is modeled after a similar Taste event that
Elk River Rotary has successfully coordinated for several years. The Monticello Rotary has been
working closely with the Elk River Club to ensure their own success as they hold this fundraising
activity for the first time. The group anticipates selling up to 900 tickets for the Monticello Taste
event.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Rotary is requesting City assistance for delivery and
pick-up of barricades, cones, picnic tables and garbage cans. These will be
delivered to the site and picked up during regular staff hours. The Street
Superintendent will also prepare a site plan for barricade and cone placement to
aid volunteer set-up.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the temporary use of the Jefferson Commons park and ride lot for set-
up beginning at 3 PM on Wednesday, September 15 through 10 PM Thursday, September
16, 2010, including the use of public parking facilities and City services as described in
the staff report of April 12th, 2010, contingent on proper proof of insurance coverage and
reimbursement for pavement repair as needed.
2. Motion to deny temporary closure of park and ride lot.
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
3
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 in support of the Monticello Rotary Club’s efforts and does
not object to the temporary use.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A – Aerial Site Image
Exhibit B - Monticello Rotary Club Taste of the Town Site Plan
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5I. Consideration of approving a Preliminary Plat, an amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development, and a Conditional Use Permit for Joint
Access for a commercial subdivision in a B-3 (Highway Business) District, and
Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-17 calling for a Public Hearing on
vacating drainage and utility easements. Applicant: Chrysler Financial (NAC/AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed this item during its regular meeting on April 6,
2010. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the preliminary plat and
amendment to PUD, with the condition that the applicant comply with sign
placement and size requirements throughout the site and that the applicant provide
the required buffer landscaping between the daycare facility and the existing West
Metro car care facility on Lot 1, Block 2. These two items are in addition to the
other conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
The Planning Commission confirmed that at the time of sale of the vacant parcels,
the new property owner will be required to amend the PUD based on the newly
proposed use. At such time, signage, parking, screening and other zoning elements
can be reviewed in relationship to the new use. It was also clarified that the current
user of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1. Block 2, West Metro GMC, is permitted to
continue operations as currently exists under the PUD with the conditions as listed
above.
Jacob Holdings, a parent/financial company of Denny Hecker, is seeking preliminary plat
of nineteen (19) properties located north of Chelsea Road, south of Interstate 94, east of
Marvin Road and west of Highway 25. These properties, referred to as the Carcone
Addition, are comprised of West Metro Buick Pontiac GMC, the former Monticello Ford,
the former Dunlo Motors (currently West Metro expansion site), and the former
Monticello Ford sales/storage lot. The submitted preliminary plat indicates that the
current 19 properties are proposed to be consolidated into four properties.
The properties are located in the B-3, Highway Business District and total approximately
14.17 acres. It should be noted that the Playhouse Child Care property located within this
vicinity is not included in this preliminary plat.
Previous applications have been processed with these properties throughout the past ten
years including, but not limited to;
Planned unit development (PUD) approval,
Conditional use permits (CUP) for outdoor sales and car wash,
Variances to the sign ordinance, minimum building size requirements for auto
sales, allow directional signage in the right-of-way
PUD amendments to allow off-site auto sales/storage lot, larger electronic
signage, expansion of auto sales/storage lot
Interim use permit (IUP) to accommodate temporary automobile display and
storage
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
IUP amendment for temporary automobile storage
For the purposes of this preliminary plat, each proposed property is listed below with
various development review criteria analyzed for each. In all cases, any existing internal
drainage and utility easements shall be vacated to accommodate the proposed preliminary
plat. This vacation is intended to be processed in a parallel action concurrent with the
Final Plat.
The proposed application indicates re-establishing one 30-foot drainage and utility
corridor running east/west through Lot 2, Block 2 between Lot 1, Block 2 and the
Playhouse Child Care facility and any easements at the property lines.
In the material that follows, a summary of the site conditions on each of the four
proposed parcels is provided. Following that, a consolidation of the issues to address as
part of the Plat request is included as a part of the Alternative Actions section of the
report.
I. Lot 1, Block 1 - PID: 155500113413, 2.3534 acres
Sandberg South, Jacob Holdings, West Metro Buick Pontiac GMC
Previously Comprised Of:
(1) Portion of unplatted PID: 155500113413
General Comments: Property will continue to be accessed via two ingress/egress points
from Sandberg Road. One access point will become shared with the property located
directly south (former Monticello Ford). Shared access agreements must be coordinated
between the two properties.
Development Review B-3 Requirements Compliance
B-3 Highway Business
District
New and used automobile sales
permitted
Compliant
Currently utilized as used automobile sales.
Parcel Size, Lot
Coverage Percent,
Minimum Building
Size
More than 2 acres to 4 acres, 10%,
10,000 s.f.
Compliant
2.3534 acres, 12%, 11,940 s.f. building
Lot Width 100 feet Compliant
410 feet
Building Height 2 stories Compliant
1 story
Setbacks
Front Yard: 30 feet
Side Yard: 10 feet
Rear Yard: 30 feet
Compliant
Front Yard: 60.5 feet
North Side Yard: 91.1 feet
South Side Yard: 17.2 feet
Rear Yard: 130 feet
Off-Street Parking
Required number for auto sales is
dependent on percentage of office,
sales space etc.
Submitted plans do not detail building configuration
for parking calculations.
Landscaping
Minimum of one (1) internal
landscaped area/island delineator
for each 5,000 s.f. of off street
parking; such island must measure
180 s.f. (one parking space). Buffer
yards not required in adjacent
commercial uses.
Submitted plans do not detail parking
configurations.
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
3
Signage
Signage (cont’d)
Total Area of all Signs: Total area
of all signs shall not exceed 15% of
the total building façade fronting not
more than 2 public streets.
Allowable
Sandberg Frontage:
122‟ x 20‟ = 2,440 s.f.
I-94 Frontage:
190‟ x 20‟ = 3,800 s.f.
Highway 25 Frontage: 60‟ x 20‟ s.f.
= 1,200 s.f.
Total x 15% = 1,116 s.f.
(1) Freestanding (pylon) sign per
lot, not exceeding 100 s.f. each
side, max height 22 feet. (in the
Freeway Corridor – freestanding
sign may not exceed 200 s.f. each
side with a max height of 32 feet)
(1) Changeable copy sign allowed,
not to exceed 25% of allowable
sign area or 50 s.f. whichever is
less.
Wall, canopy or marquee signs
shall be consistent with total area of
all signs above.
Non-Compliant
Existing Total Area of all Signs
(with known measurements): 1,345 s.f
(1) Two sided 30‟ (? Documents state 38 or 36‟)
high, 16‟ x 16‟ (256 s.f. each side) pylon located
south of I-94 and west of Highway 25 at the
northeast corner of the property; “Buick Pontiac
GMC West Metro GM” Variance requested
previously
(1) Two sided 2‟ x 4‟(8 s.f. each side) illuminated
directional off-premise sign located on the
northeast corner of Sandberg and Chelsea Roads;
“West Metro Buick Pontiac GMC (arrow) Red White
Blue Building” Variance requested previously
(1) Two sided 2‟ x 4‟ (8 s.f. each side) directional
sign “West Metro Sales and Service (arrow)”
Variance requested previously
(1) Two sided 2‟ x 4‟ (8 s.f. each side) directional
sign “West Metro Buick Pontiac GMC (arrow)”
Variance requested previously
(1) 5‟ x 25‟ (125 s.f.) wall banner located on the
principle building; “West Metro Sales and Service”
(1) Bay window signage, measurements unknown;
“We service all makes and models. Hours open 7-7
M-F 7-3 S”
(1) Car wash wall signage; “Car Wash” 2‟ x 12‟ (24
s.f)
(1) Marquee; “Buick, Pontiac and GMC logos” 25‟ x
18‟ (450 s.f.)
(1) Marquee; “West Metro” 10‟ x 25‟ (250 s.f.)
(1) Wall signage; “West Metro” 2‟ x 10‟ (20 s.f.)
(1) Wall signage; “West Metro” 2‟ x 16‟ (32 s.f.)
(1) Wall signage; “ Service” 1‟ x 8‟ (8 s.f.)
(3) Wall signage; “Buick Pontiac GMC” 2‟ x 10‟ total
(20 s.f.)
(1) Changeable copy sign, currently reading; “3.9
60 mo. OAC on all GM certified G6S 763-271-7800”
8‟x 12‟ (96 s.f.)
(1) Portable sign (signage printed on van),
unknown measurements, currently reading; “We
service all makes & models. We‟ll meet or beat
anyone‟s sale‟s or service price. Free loaners 763-
271-7800. Ser Hrs. 7-7 M-F Sat 7-3.
II. Lot 2, Block 1 - PID: 155027001010, 4.2947 acres
Sandberg South, Jacob Holdings, former Monticello Ford
Previously Comprised Of:
(1) Portion of unplatted - PID: 155500113413
(2) Outlot C – PID: 155051000030 (Plaza Partners)
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
4
(3) Lot 1, Block 1 – PID: 155027001010 (Sandberg South)
(4) Lot 2, Block 1 – PID: 155027001020 (Sandberg South)
(5) Part of Lot 3, Block 1 – PID: 155027001032 (Sandberg South)
General Comments: Although currently vacant, it is assumed that the property will
continue to be accessed via two ingress/egress points from Sandberg Road. One access
point will become shared with the property located directly north (West Metro Buick
Pontiac GMC). Shared access agreements must be coordinated between the two
properties.
Development Review B-3 Requirements Compliance
B-3 Highway Business
District
New and used automobile sales
permitted
Compliant
Formerly utilized as automobile sales.
Parcel Size, Lot
Coverage Percent,
Minimum Building
Size
More than 4 acres, 15%, 40,000 s.f.
Compliant
4.2947 acres, 19%, 35,199 s.f. building , plus
mezzanine
Minimum building size meets the district
requirements when mezzanine square footage is
considered.
Lot Width 100 feet Compliant
630 feet
Building Height 2 stories Compliant
1 story
Setbacks
Front Yard: 30 feet
Side Yard: 10 feet
Rear Yard: 30 feet
Compliant
Front Yard: 29.8 feet (rounded to 30)
North Side Yard: 11.5 feet
South Side Yard: 410 feet
Rear Yard: 60.9 feet
Off-Street Parking
Required number for auto sales is
dependent on percentage of office,
sales space etc.
Submitted plans do not detail building configuration
for parking calculations.
Landscaping
Minimum of one (1) internal
landscaped area/island delineator
for each 5,000 s.f. of off street
parking; such island must measure
180 s.f. (one parking space).
Submitted plans do not detail parking
configurations.
Signage
Total Area of all Signs: Total area of
all signs shall not exceed 15% of
the total building façade fronting not
more than 2 public streets.
Allowable
Sandberg Frontage:
184‟ x 30‟ = 5,520 s.f.
Chelsea Frontage: 180 „ x 30‟ =
5,400 s.f.
Highway 25 Frontage: 168 x 30‟ s.f.
= 5,040
Total x 15% = 2,394 s.f.
Wall, canopy or marquee signs shall
be consistent with total area of all
signs above.
Compliant
Total Area of all Signs
(with known measurements): 260 s.f.
(2) Wall signage; “Monticello” 3‟ x 30‟ each (180
s.f.)
(1) Wall signage; “Monticello” 2‟ x 20‟ (40 s.f.)
(1) Wall signage; Showroom/Delivery” 2‟ x 10‟ (20
s.f.)
(2) Wall signage; “Service” 2‟ x 10‟ total (20 s.f.)
II. Lot 1, Block 2 - PID: 155051002010, 1.2102 acres
Plaza Partners, Jacob Holdings, the former Dunlo Motors (currently West Metro
expansion site)
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
5
Previously Comprised Of:
(6) Lot 1, Block 2 – PID: 155051002010 (Plaza Partners)
General Comments: Property will continue to be accessed via two ingress/egress points
from Sandberg Road. One access point directly south of the building, will be entirely
accessed via Lot 2, Block 2 (former Monticello Ford Sales/Storage Lot). Shared access
agreements must be coordinated between the two properties. Of worth note, Ordinance
does not require any buffering/screening between adjacent commercial land uses.
Development Review Requirements Compliance
B-3 Highway Business
District
New and used automobile sales
permitted
Compliant
Currently utilized as used automobile sales.
Parcel Size, Lot
Coverage Percent,
Minimum Building Size
Up to 2 acres, 5%, 2,500 s.f.
Compliant
1.2102 acres, 5%, 2,444 s.f. building
Lot Width 100 feet Compliant
265 feet
Building Height 2 stories Compliant
1 story
Setbacks
Front Yard: 30 feet
Side Yard: 10 feet
Rear Yard: 30 feet
Compliant
Front Yard: 37.2 feet
West Side Yard: 70 feet
East Side Yard: 65.6 feet
Rear Yard: 110 feet
Off-Street Parking
Required number for auto sales is
dependent on percentage of office,
sales space etc.
Submitted plans do not detail building configuration
for parking calculations.
Landscaping
Minimum of one (1) internal
landscaped area/island delineator
for each 5,000 s.f. of off street
parking; such island must measure
180 s.f. (one parking space).
Buffer yards not required in
adjacent commercial uses.
Submitted plans do not detail parking
configurations.
Principal Issue: Required buffer at south property
boundary adjacent to Daycare business not in
place.
Signage
Signage (cont’d)
Total Area of all Signs: Total area
of all signs shall not exceed 15%
of the total building façade fronting
not more than 2 public streets.
Allowable
Sandberg Frontage:
77‟ x 21‟ = 1,611s.f.
I-94 Frontage: 30„ x 21‟ = 630 s.f.
Total x 15% = 336 s.f.
(1) Freestanding (pylon) sign per
lot, not exceeding 100 s.f. each
side, max height 22 feet. (in the
Freeway Corridor – freestanding
sign may not exceed 200 s.f. each
side with a max height of 32 feet)
(1) Changeable copy sign allowed,
not to exceed 25% of allowable
sign area or 50 s.f. whichever is
less.
Wall, canopy or marquee signs
shall be consistent with total area
of all signs above.
Compliant
Total Area of all Signs
(with known measurements): 328 s.f.
(1) Two sided 30‟ (? Documents state 38 or 36‟)
high, 16‟ x 16‟ (256 s.f. each side) pylon located
south of I-94 and west of Sandberg Road at the
northwest corner of the property; “GM Certified
Used Vehicles West Metro GM”
(1) Wall signage; “West Metro” 6‟ x 12‟ (72 s.f.)
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
6
III. Lot 2, Block 2 - PID: 155051000020, 6.3094 acres
Plaza Partners, Jacob Holdings, former Monticello Ford Sales/Storage Lot
Previously Comprised Of:
(7) Outlot A – PID: 155051000010
(8) Outlot B – PID: 155051000020 (Plaza Partners)
(9) Lot 1, Block 1 – PID: 155051001010 (Plaza Partners)
(10) Lot 1, Block 2 – PID: 155051002010 (Plaza Partners)
(11) Lot 1, Block 3 – PID: 155051003010 (Plaza Partners)
(12) Lot 2, Block 3 – PID: 155051003020 (Plaza Partners)
(13) Lot 3, Block 3 – PID: 155051003030 (Plaza Partners)
(14) Lot 4, Block 3 – PID: 155051003040 (Plaza Partners)
(15) Lot 5, Block 3 – PID: 155051003050 (Plaza Partners)
(16) Lot 6, Block 3 – PID: 155051003060 (Plaza Partners)
(17) Lot 7, Block 3 – PID: 155051003070 (Plaza Partners)
(18) Lot 8, Block 3 – PID: 155051003080 (Plaza Partners)
(19) Lot 9, Block 3 – PID: 155051003090 (Plaza Partners)
(19) Lot 10, Block 3 – PID: 155051003100 (Plaza Partners)
Development Review Requirements Compliance
B-3 Highway Business
District Outdoor storage CUP Compliant
Formerly utilized as outdoor auto storage lot.
Parcel Size, Lot
Coverage Percent,
Minimum Building
Size
More than 4 acres, 15%, 40,000
s.f.
N/A – No principle building
6.3094, no building
Lot Width 100 feet Compliant
300.98 feet
Building Height 2 stories N/A
Setbacks
Front Yard: 30 feet
Side Yard: 10 feet
Rear Yard: 30 feet
N/A
Off-Street Parking N/A N/A
Landscaping
Minimum of one (1) internal
landscaped area/island
delineator for each 5,000 s.f. of
off street parking; such island
must measure 180 s.f. (one
parking space). Buffer yards not
required in adjacent commercial
uses.
N/A
Signage
Total Area of all Signs: Total
area of all signs shall not
exceed 15% of the total building
façade fronting not more than 2
public streets.
No principle building to base
measurements from.
Total Area of all Signs
(with known measurements): 24 s.f.
(1) Directional signage; “Ford Factory Authorized
Sales Event on Now (arrow), 2‟ x 4‟ (8 s.f.)
(1) Directional signage; “Fresh…..Used Cars &
Trucks,” 2‟ x 4 (8 s.f.)
(1) Directional signage; “As-Is Row Wholesale Lot,”
2‟ x 4 (8 s.f.)‟
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
7
Summary of Issues to Resolve:
Lot 1, Block 1 (Main Metro West site):
Signage reduction to meet code by 229 square feet, including removal of
nonconforming temporary signage. (Removal of 125 square foot banner, 96
square foot changeable copy temp sign, temporary signage on display van, and
one 8 square foot directional sign would create compliance on this parcel).
Requires cross access easement under PUD Amendment with Lot 2, Block 1.
Lot 2, Block 1 (Former Ford site):
No zoning compliance issues.
Requires cross access easement under PUD Amendment with Lot 1, Block 1.
Will require future PUD Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit(s) to
reinstate use of the property as previous approvals have lapsed.
Lot 1, Block 2 (Sandberg Road West Metro site):
Requires reinstatement of landscape buffer at southern boundary or PUD
Amendment to resolve previous requirements for buffering with abutting Daycare
property.
Requires cross access easement by Conditional Use Permit or PUD with Lot 2,
Block 2.
Lot 2, Block2 (Former Ford storage lot site):
No zoning compliance issues.
Requires cross access easement by Conditional Use Permit of PUD with Lot 1,
Block 2.
Will require future PUD Amendment and/or Conditional Use Permit(s) to
reinstate use of the property as previous approvals have lapsed.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends Alternative #1a below.
Decision 1. Approval of Preliminary Plat for Carcone Addition and Amendment
to Planned Unit Development.
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
8
1. Motion for approval of Preliminary Plat of the Carcone Addition for Lots 1 and 2
of Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, along with an amendment to the Planned
Unit Development permits for the subject parcels, with one of the following
options. Each of the approval options would include the incorporation of the
conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
a. Approve preliminary plat and PUD amendment, and bring all signage into
compliance, as well as the previously required buffering adjacent to the
Daycare building as noted above.
b. Approve the preliminary plat and PUD amendment, incorporating all of the
existing signage and current site conditions into the revised PUD approval.
c. Approve the preliminary plat and PUD amendment, requiring compliance
with signage and site conditions as enumerated by the Planning Commission
following the public hearing.
2. Motion to deny of the preliminary plat of the Carcone Addition for Lots 1 and 2
of Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, due findings to be identified following
the public hearing.
Decision 2. Adopt Resolution calling for a Public Hearing for the vacation of
drainage and utility easements for the Carcone Addition.
Council is asked to formally call for a hearing for the vacation of drainage and utility
easements internal to the 19 lots being reconfigured into 4 lots on the proposed
Carcone Addition. These are the standard internal lot easements, which will be
unnecessary at the time of replatting. All required easements (as determined by the
City Engineer) will be re-established with the final plat. A full staff analysis of the
request to vacate and reestablish will be provided concurrent with the hearing and
consideration of final plat on April 26th.
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-17 calling for a public hearing on April 26th,
2010 for vacation of drainage and utility easements for the proposed Carcone
Addition.
2. Motion to not adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Decision 1
Planning staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment under
Alternative 1.a. above, specifying that existing signage be brought into conformance with
the current sign regulations, and reinstatement of the required landscaped buffer between
the Sandberg Road expansion site of West Metro and the Daycare building. It appears
from staff’s review of the available file information that a significant amount of signage
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
9
has been added to the site, including temporary signage, which was not part of any
previous PUD approval.
Since the time of the last approval, the City has revised its sign regulations to increase
flexibility for business signage in the area. As such, the removal of temporary signage
and a current banner would be very close to meeting the current requirements. It should
be noted that these estimates are based on staff’s analysis of the available submissions by
the applicant, which do not include detailed site plan conditions nor detailed architectural
dimensions. Planning staff’s recommendation includes the incorporation of the
additional conditions stated in Exhibit Z.
The City Council should choose between Alternatives 1.a., 1.b., or 1.c. if they wish to
grant approval. If Option 1.c. is chosen, a specific list as to which improvements are or
are not required should be made.
If Council denies the approval Alternative 2, they should specify its Findings of Fact
supporting the denial.
Decision 2
City Staff recommends approval of Alternative #1 to call for a Public Hearing on the
vacation of easements.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Existing Site Conditions Survey
Exhibit B: Proposed Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C: Supplemental Plat w/Additional Drainage & Utility Detail
Exhibit D: Summary of Previous Applications and Approvals
Exhibit E: Site Photos
Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval for Carcone Addition
Resolution #2010-17
CITY OF MONTICELLO
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-17
CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATING
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR
PROPOSED CARCONE ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Monticello City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 412.851, desires to consider
the vacation of drainage and utility easements over and across the following property legally described
as follows:
Parcel #1:
All drainage and utility easements over, under, and through Lots 1 and 2 of SANDBERG
SOUTH ADDITION, Wright County, Minnesota.
Parcel #2:
All drainage and utility easements over, under, and through Lot 1, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2;
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Block 3; Outlot A; and Outlot B of PLAZA PARTNERS
ADDITION, Wright County, Minnesota.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The Council will consider the vacation of such easements and a public hearing shall be held
on such proposed vacation on the 26th day of April, 2010, before the City Council in the
Council Chambers located at the Monticello Community Center at 7 p.m.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give published, posted and mailed notice of such
hearing as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota this 12th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_____________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
1
5J. Consideration of authorizing contract renewal negotiations with Veolia Water for
operating the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility (BP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to consider authorizing contract renewal negotiations with
Veolia Water for operating the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility. The current
contract with Veolia Water, previously Professional Services Group (PSG), expires
January 2011. This was a 5-year contract that began January 1, 2006.
Veolia is proposing another 5-year contract which is anticipated to run from January 1,
2011 thru January 1, 2016 to operate and maintain the Monticello Wastewater Treatment
Facility, and facilitate the application of bio product to the city-owned farm. Other
contract operations of the facility will be requested to match the city’s policies; for
example, the mowing policy currently being established.
The numbers will be updated to reflect the current conditions at the wastewater treatment
facility including the flow, BOD and total suspended solids, and required limits allowing
for future improvements to the plant’s operation and expansion if it occurs, with
consideration for future use of the application site within this contract period.
Enclosed for your review is a letter from Peg Becker, Area Manager for Veolia Water.
A1. Budget Impact: None at this time.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Negotiations will involve Public Works and Finance to
research essential needs and changes in current to proposed contract.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to authorize contract renewal negotiations with Veolia Water to operate
the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility.
2. Motion to deny authorization at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1, to authorize contract renewal negotiations with
Veolia Water for operation of the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Peg Becker, the Area Manager for Veolia Water
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
1
5K. Consideration of Approving City Council Representation on the Embracing
Downtown Steering Committee (MB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council and the Economic Development Authority (EDA) recently approved a
Request for Proposal (RFP) to create a downtown redevelopment and revitalization guide
entitled, “Embracing Downtown Monticello.” The RFP was released on Thursday, April
1, 2010. The submission deadline is Friday, April 30, 2010.
The RFP references the need for a Steering Committee to assist in guiding the process
and providing critical input. The City Council and the EDA approved the following
representation from each commission or board to serve on the Steering Committee:
City Council 2 members
EDA 2 members
Planning Commission 2 members
Parks Commission 1 member
Industrial & Economic Development Committee (IEDC) 1 member
Downtown business owners and land owners 2 representatives
(1 business owner and 1 land owner)
City staff As required
EDA representation will be determined at the EDA meeting on Wednesday, April 14,
2010. Charlotte Gabler and Bill Spartz have agreed to represent the Planning
Commission. Larry Nolan will serve as the Parks Commission representative. Chris
Kruse will represent the IEDC. Wes Olson will be an alternate representative for the
IEDC. City staff will host an informational meeting for downtown business owners and
land owners on Wednesday, April 28, 2010. The purpose of this meeting is to review: the
scope of the work, the anticipated process, the public input opportunities, and to answer
any questions. Staff will ask for two downtown representatives for the committee at this
meeting.
Once all members of the Steering Committee have been appointed, City staff will ask the
group to determine a regular meeting day and time. It is anticipated that a few meetings
will be necessary in May to select the consultant or team of consultants. At least one
meeting in June will be required to determine the final scope of the project and to provide
necessary input for the consultant(s). Staff anticipates that there may be fewer meetings
scheduled for July or August in order to allow the consultants time to work through
gathering baseline data. Beginning in September, staff expects that the Steering
Committee will participate in at least one or two meetings per month for the duration of
the project. The project is anticipated to involve a nine to twelve month commitment.
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
2
A1. Budget Impact: Funds will be allocated from surplus Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) District 2 to pay for a majority, if not all, of the requested services. Final
budget allocation will be determined once all RFP s have been submitted and a
final cost and scope of services has been determined.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The Economic Development Director will act as the
overall project coordinator. Additional staff will share workload responsibilities
as required.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to appoint Council Members _________________ and _____________ to
serve on the Embracing Downtown Monticello Steering Committee.
2. Motion to deny appointment of Council Members to serve on the Embracing
Downtown Monticello Steering Committee.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff recommends Alternative Action #1, appointing two Council Members to serve
on the Embracing Downtown Monticello Steering Committee.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5L. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-16 calling for a Public Hearing on
Issuance of a Cable Franchise (JO, DP)
A. REFERENCE/BACKROUND:
In conjunction with operation of video services, it is necessary for FiberNet Monticello to
receive authority to operate via a Cable Franchise. Issuance of a cable franchise requires
that a public hearing be conducted on the matter. The Public Hearing was originally
proposed to be conducted at 7:00 p.m. on April 12, 2010. This has been rescheduled to
7:00 p.m. on April 26, 2010, and requires a new public hearing to be called.
At the time of the hearing, the City Council will be reviewing an application from
FiberNet Monticello. As a reminder, the standards of operation of FiberNet Monticello
as identified in the franchise agreement will be the same as the standards identified in the
franchise governing Charter Communications. The minimum system design and services
to be offered must meet or exceed those required of the incumbent cable operator
pursuant to the City’s existing cable franchise. The desired design includes a system that:
serves the entire City based on a reasonable service area/line extension policy; is capable
of delivering in excess of 100 video programmed channels with the potential for
increasing channels; provides a reasonable number of public, educational and
governmental access channels and reasonable access support; and provides connections
and free services to the City Hall and other City facilities. Desired operations and
services include: reasonable rates; a mix, level and quality of programs and services
comparable to other systems; and customer service and system maintenance plans to
ensure the provision of high quality services to the subscriber.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt resolution #2010-16 calling for a Public Hearing on Issuance of a
Cable Franchise to be held on April 26, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.
2. Motion to deny calling for a public hearing as requested.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-16
City Of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-16
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ISSUANCE OF A
CABLE FRANCHISE IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello intends to consider issuance of a franchise authorizing
operation of a system to provide cable service in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is required to post and publish a public notice for applicants
seeking to provide cable service in the City and call for a public hearing to hear proposals from
franchise applicants, according to Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 238;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. The City Clerk shall prepare and publish in the official paper a public notice for
applications from persons seeking to provide cable service in the City of Monticello; said
notice to be published on April 8, 2010 and April 15, 2010, with applications due by 4:00
p.m. on Wednesday, April 21, 2010.
2. A public hearing shall be held to hear proposals for a cable franchise on the 26th day of
April, 2010 in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7 p.m., and the Clerk shall give
mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 12th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5M. Consideration of approving the MCC/Towne Centre parking plan and placement of
signs for Towne Centre parking (KB/JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to review a plan for managing use of parking spaces between
Towne Centre and the Community Center in an effort to make the best use of space and
thereby supporting area businesses and public facility functions. John Twardy, the
leasing manager for the Towne Centre facility, met with Jeff O’Neill, Kitty Baltos,
Randall Johnsen and Bruce Westby to discuss coordinating use of parking spaces along
the east side of Walnut Street, behind the Hi-Way Liquor store. In an effort to promote
full tenancy and good customer accessibility at Towne Centre, Mr. Twardy asked, and the
staff agrees, that the east side of Walnut Street should be allowed to be signed “Parking
for Towne Centre Patrons Only.” Since the parking is located on the right of way, it is
“public” and thus staff needs authority from Council prior to taking steps to limit general
public parking.
The group did not recommend an ordinance change or police enforcement of these signs,
but only signing as an encouragement for non Towne Centre patrons to park elsewhere.
It will be an education process for the Community Center patrons, as they have had
unrestricted access to that parking area for a number of years. We may want to consider
more prominent signing to direct Community Center patrons to other parking areas.
This discussion on parking prompted conversations about additional parking issues that
should be considered for the entire Community Center campus. To name a few:
Employee parking for employees in the Community Center, the liquor store,
Towne Centre, etc. As part of the discussion with Mr. Twardy, Liquor Store
Manager Randall Johnsen agreed to provide Towne Centre employee parking in
the same area he has requested his employees to park, which is on the east side of
the parking lot along Highway 25. This went into effect immediately.
Parking for large events at the Community Center or the library.
Parking for National Guard drill weekends.
We are currently working as a team to determine the best approach to ensure the good
parking for patrons while still providing safe parking options for all employees. We will
be reviewing all parking options available around the Community Center including; on-
street parking, liquor store parking, library parking, library overflow parking, the Prairie
Center parking lot as well as all the parking areas for the Community Center.
A1. Budget Impact: The signs would cost approximately $30 each for a 12” by 18”
sign. It is recommended by Tom Moores that we install four signs for a total cost
estimated at $120.
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
A2. Staff Impact: The greatest impact on staff will be educating Community Center
users who have developed the habit of parking along east Walnut Street. We
believe that “Minnesota Nice” will win out as people will understand the need to
attract businesses to Towne Centre and for these businesses to have available
parking as a part of their success.
City staff will work with Towne Centre to ensure appropriate wording and
placement of the signs.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the placement of signs along east Walnut Street to provide
parking for Towne Centre business patrons.
2. Motion to deny the placement of signs along east Walnut Street and request that
staff review other alternatives for Towne Centre parking.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1, to allow signs along east Walnut Street providing
for patron parking for the Towne Centre businesses. In the event that the “Minnesota
Nice” approach does not work in discouraging MCC patrons from using the east side of
Walnut Street, then Council will be asked if it wishes to take a stronger stand in
regulating parking which could include restricting parking by ordinance along with
direction to issue parking tickets.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
5N. Consideration of authorizing a Feasibility Study and Engineering Analysis for the
NE Quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and CSAH 75 (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A developer is proposing to redevelop a portion of block 53 in the northeast corner of
State Highway 25 and Wright County Highway 75. As Council has been made aware,
there are numerous existing transportation issues that impact the ability to access and
develop the site. Staff is therefore proposing to complete a feasibility report in order to
fully address the related transportation issues. This will allow the developer to have a
clear understanding of what their expectations and limitations are regarding their ability
to access and develop the site, and it will allow the City to be better prepared for other
potential development projects in the area as they present themselves.
The four primary transportation issues to be addressed within the feasibility report
include:
Right-turn lane improvements from Westbound CSAH 75 to Northbound TH 25
Right-turn lane improvements from Northbound TH 25 to East River Street
Intersection improvements at Cedar Street / East River Street
Improvements to East River Street between TH 25 and Cedar Street
Each of the four transportation issues noted above will be addressed within a design
memorandum including narrative addressing the following specific items:
Existing conditions
Traffic considerations/engineering issues
Proposed improvements
Estimated project costs
Financing/cost participation
Schedule of improvements
The feasibility report will provide a preliminary analysis of the infrastructure and right-
of-way needs for each of these four transportation issues, including draft layouts and cost
estimates. It will also include a traffic analysis to analyze the required turn lanes on East
River Street, which will be reviewed with Mn/DOT and Wright County. Preliminary
design plans, including any required survey work, would not be completed with the
feasibility report and would require additional work.
A draft feasibility report, which would address all of the items outlined above, could be
completed within 14 days of authorization to proceed. The draft report would be enough
to allow us to meet with Mn/DOT and Wright County to discuss design elements and cost
participation. The final feasibility report could be completed within 30 days.
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
A1. Budget Impact: WSB and Associates has estimated their fees for completing the
proposed feasibility report at $27,000. A percentage of this fee could be
recovered from the developer as a project cost if it is determined they directly
benefitted from the report. The proposed improvements could be constructed
with future public improvement projects, including the 2010 Street
Reconstruction project. Again, portions of the work could be assessed to the
developer if it is determined they directly benefitted from the work.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff workload impacts should be minimal.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to authorize WSB and Associates to complete a Feasibility Study and
Engineering Analysis for the NE Quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and CSAH 75 in an
amount not to exceed $27,000.
2. Motion to deny authorization to complete a Feasibility Study & Engineering Analysis
for the NE Quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and CSAH 75 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Feasibility Report memorandum by WSB and Associates (March 30, 2010)
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
1
7. Consideration of adopting amendment to City Ordinance Title 6, Chapter 2 relating to
dangerous dogs and adoption of summary ordinance for publication (JJ, PS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the March 8th meeting, City Council gave their approval granting Wright County the
authority to regulate ownership and possession of dangerous dogs under a newly adopted
County ordinance and directed staff to update City ordinances accordingly. City staff has
been working with Attorney Joel Jamnik to make the necessary changes to the city’s
ordinance, which he has drafted for Council approval.
The draft copy included in the supporting data shows added and deleted language as
proposed in keeping with the County ordinance and MN State Statutes. If Council should
have any questions related to these changes or the Wright County Dangerous Dog
ordinance, Monticello Animal Control Officer Patty Salzwedel is planning to be present
to answer questions.
Council will first be asked to approve the amended Ordinance No. 611. If this is
approved, then they will be asked to approve a Summary Ordinance No. 611A for
publication.
A1. Budget Impact: Minimal one-time costs associated with updating the City’s
ordinance and publishing the summary ordinance.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal staff time to prepare and post amended
ordinance on the city’s website.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1:
1. Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 611, an amendment to City Ordinance Title 6, Chapter 2
relating to dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Ordinance No. 611.
Decision 2:
1. Motion to adopt Summary Ordinance No. 611A for publication of amendment to
City Ordinance Title 6, Chapter 2 relating to dangerous and potentially dangerous
dogs.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Summary Ordinance No. 611A.
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
2
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff and our City Attorney recommend Alternative #1 for Decision 1. This will
coordinate our city ordinance with the approval to opt in to the new Wright County
Ordinance 10-01. This also complies with MN State Statutes relating to dangerous and
potentially dangerous dogs.
City staff and our City Attorney also recommend Alternative #1 for Decision 2.
Summary publication reduces cost of publication and provides a concise explanation of
the amendment to the ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed Monticello Ordinance 6-2-25 – Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dogs
Current Monticello Ordinance 6-2-25
1
ORDINANCE NO. 611
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE
REGULATING DANGEROUS DOGS AND PROVIDING FOR COOPERATIVE
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT WITH WRIGHT COUNTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS:
Section 1. The City of Monticello City Code, Title 6, Chapter 2, Dogs and Animals, Section
25, Dangerous Dogs is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting
the strikethrough language as follows::
6-2-25 DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS
(A) Adoption by Reference of State Law and County Ordinance. The
provisions of Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 347 (§347.50-347.565) and
Wright County Ordinance No. 10-01, as they may be amended from time
to time, are hereby adopted by reference as fully as if set out herein, and
shall be administered and enforced by the City’s Animal Warden and
other Animal Control Authorities identified and designated pursuant to
that law and ordinance. The Animal Warden shall have the authority to
order the destruction of dangerous dogs A dangerous dog is a canine
animal which has:
1. bitten two or more persons or
2. caused serious bodily injury or disfigurement to any person or
3 engaged in any attack on any person under circumstances which
would indicate danger to personal safety.
(B) The Animal Warden or his designee after having been advised of the
existence of a dangerous dog may proceed in the following manner:
1. The Animal Warden shall cause the apparent owner to be notified
in writing or in person that his dog appears to be dangerous The
apparent owner shall be notified as to dates times places and
parties bitten and shall be given ten 10 days to request a hearing
before the Animal Warden for determination as to the dangerous
nature of the dog.
2
(a) If the apparent owner does not request a hearing within ten
10 days of said notice the Animal Warden shall make such
order as he deems proper The Animal Warden may order
the dog into custody for destruction If the dog is ordered
into custody for destruction the owner shall immediately
make the dog available to the Animal Warden and failure to
do so shall be a misdemeanor
(b) If the owner requests ahearing for determination as to the
dangerous nature of the dog the hearing shall be held before
the courts who shall set a date for hearing not more than
three weeks after demand for said hearing The records of
the Animal Warden shall be admissible for consideration
by the courts without further foundation After considering
all the evidence pertaining to the temperament of the dog
the court shall make a determination as to whether or not
the dog is dangerous If the dog is found to be dangerous the
court shall make such order as it deems proper The court
may order the Animal Control Supervisor to take the dog
into custody for destruction If the dog is ordered into
custody for destruction the owner shall immediately make
the dog available to the Animal Control Supervisor and
failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor.
2 Conflict of Laws. When any provisions of this ordinance, county
ordinance or state laws applicable to dangerous or potentially
dangerous dogs are in conflict, the provisions that impose the
greater restrictions or protections shall apply. If a dangerous dog is
running at large the Animal Warden shall apprehend the dog and if
upon apprehension the dog bears no identification which
reasonably reveals its ownership the Animal Warden shall
impound the dog until the quarantine period is completed If the
dog has not been claimed it shall be immediately destroyed.
3 Penalty. Any person who harbors a dog after it has been found by
the Animal Warden to be dangerous and ordered into custody for
destruction violates this ordinance, county ordinance or state law
applicable to dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor
Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
3
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this 12th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
1
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 611A
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE
REGULATING DANGEROUS DOGS AND PROVIDING FOR COOPERATIVE
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT WITH WRIGHT COUNTY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on April 12, 2010, Ordinance No. 611 was adopted
by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. Due to the lengthy nature of
Ordinance No. 611, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication as
authorized by state law.
The ordinance adopted by the Council amends the City’s dog control ordinances to adopt
by reference Wright County Ordinance 10-01 and Minnesota Statutes §347.50-565 regarding
dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. The county ordinance and state laws adopted by
reference provide for the administration and enforcement of provisions regarding the
designation, registration, identification, ownership, control, monitoring, insuring, confiscation
and destruction of dogs that are designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous.
A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during
the City’s regular office hours.
APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota,
this 12th day of April, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O’Neill City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
1
8. Consideration of authorizing a supplemental grant match allocation for the 2010
acquisition at Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park in conjunction with Wright
County (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council is asked to consider authorizing an additional amount of funding for a
2010 property acquisition at the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park.
During the March 22nd meeting, the City Council approved $166,668 in funding for a
City match to a 2009 grant award from the Department of Natural Resources Metro
Greenways Program.
At the time of that approval, Metro Greenways had awarded the Bertram Lake project
$299,628. Unexpectedly, the City and County learned on March 31, 2010, that an
additional $250,000 in grant funds are available to Wright County and the City of
Monticello for expansion of the purchase area proposed for June, 2010. These funds
became available due to forfeiture from another agency whose willing seller backed out
on their agreement. Due to the limited timeframe for the grant funds to be expended,
Metro Greenways is offering the funds to the County and the City of Monticello, as the
two entities have shown that they are able to respond quickly and meet deadlines.
The original proposal for the entire project included a 54% local match, while the
remaining 46% would come from grants and other funding sources. At this time, the
DNR has indicated that they will accept a revision to the original proposal for a 50/50
cost share.
The County and the City of Monticello had previously agreed to match the original
$299,628 grant with a total contribution of $333,336 ($166,668 each). If the City
Council agrees to accept the additional funds, the match would need to be increased by
$216,292 total, or $108,146 from each partner. The County Board of Commissioners
approved the additional match on April 6, 2010.
If approved, the June 2010 purchase structure is as follows:
$549,628 in grant funds
$274,814 County Match
$274,814 City of Monticello Match ($166,668 approved on 3/22/10)
$1,099,256 Total Purchase for Phase 2
As previously described, by funding the match and authorizing the acquisition, the City
and County will purchase additional acreage at Bertram Lake in an amount to be
determined based on a final required appraisal. The purchase will include property
running along on the north boundary of parcel 5A. As such, that parcel boundary will
shift northward.
City Council Agenda: 04/12/10
2
A1. Budget Impact: It is proposed that the funding for this purchase would come
from the Park Dedication Fund which, through the collection of special
assessments, has around $400,000 which can be used for this land purchase.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: If the City Council authorizes the match and
acquisition, City staff and the City Attorney will work with Wright County to
begin drafting the necessary purchase agreement documentation in preparation for
a June 30, 2010 closing.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve an additional 2009 Metro Greenways grant match funding in
the amount of $108,146.00 for a 2010 acquisition at Bertram Chain of Lakes
Regional Park in conjunction with Wright County and to direct staff to prepare
appropriate closing and purchase documentation.
2. Motion to deny 2009 Metro Greenways grant match funding in the amount of
$108,146.00 for a 2011 acquisition at Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park in
conjunction with Wright County.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports Alternative #1 providing the additional funding. The grantor is willing to
reduce the percentage amount of match required for this purchase, allowing the City and
County to maximize the grant dollars for the 2010 purchase. Additionally, continuing to
fund match amounts as dollars become available, illustrates to the State of Minnesota that
the City and County are committed to the project, thereby increasing the likelihood of
continued State participation. That participation is required to realize the full park
acquisition.
Continuing to acquire property at Bertram Lakes is consistent with the stated goals in the
2008 Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted Capital Improvement Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: Bertram Chain of Lakes Parcel Acquisition Map
Exhibit B: Bertram Chain of Lakes Funding Table
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
9. Consideration of on-street parking options for West River Street, 2010 Street
Reconstruction, City Project No. 10C001 (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On February 22nd the City Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications for
the 2010 Street Reconstruction Project, including reconditioning West River Street to its
current width of 36 feet. Council also directed that on-street parking be provided along
both sides of West River Street to maintain current on-street parking conditions.
The proposed project funding included the use of $791,100 in state-aid funds to pay for
much of the work on West River Street between Elm Street and State Highway 25, as
well as on Elm Street between West Broadway and West River Streets, since these streets
are part of the City’s Municipal State Aid System (MSAS). However, in order to use
state-aid funds the City must follow state-aid standards when improving any of our
MSAS streets.
According to state-aid standards, the improvements proposed for West River Street and
Elm Street fall under the category of “reconditioning” as defined in Minnesota Rule
8820.0100. According to minimum design standards for reconditioning projects, which
are defined under Rule 8820.9946, on-street parking is only allowed on one side of any
street reconditioned to a width narrower than 38 feet. Pages 6 and 41 of the State-Aid
Operations manual (Chapter 8820) are attached as supporting data for reference.
On March 8th, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-10A requesting a variance from
state-aid standards allowing on-street parking on both sides of West River Street after
being reconditioned to its current width at 36 feet. On the morning of March 18th, the
City Engineer presented our variance request to the State-Aid Variance Committee. It
was discussed that West River Street has been operating as a 36-foot wide street with on-
street parking on both sides since the early 1950’s with no related operational or safety
issues. It was also discussed that the City is attempting to be good environmental
stewards by not increasing street widths to prevent increasing discharge rates of untreated
stormwater runoff to the Mississippi River.
The Variance Committee understood the City’s desire to leave the street width at 36 feet;
however, they were not convinced that a true parking hardship existed requiring us to
provide on-street parking on both sides of the street. The current lack of on-street
parking demand, coupled with the existence of long residential driveways and numerous
off-street parking lots, led the Variance Committee to believe that residents along this
street could easily get by with parking on only one side of the street. As such, the
Variance Committee denied our request. The Variance Committee’s letter of denial is
attached as supporting data.
The City Council is therefore being asked tonight to consider our options for on-street
parking on West River Street. Staff has identified three primary options to consider:
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
1. Recondition West River Street to its current width of 36 feet as proposed and
restrict on-street parking to one-side to meet minimum state-aid standards, which
would allow us to use available state-aid funding for the project.
2. Widen West River Street to 38 feet and provide on-street parking on both sides,
which would allow us to use state-aid funding for the project.
3. Recondition West River Street to its current width of 36 feet as proposed and
provide on-street parking on both sides of West River Street, which would not
allow us to use state-aid funding for the project.
If Council approves option #1 above, staff recommends prohibiting parking on the north
side of West River Street since the driveways on the north side are typically longer,
providing more off-street parking options for those residents. In addition, mailboxes are
located on the north side of West River Street so by prohibiting parking on the north side
it would allow our mail carriers to deliver mail without being impeded by parked cars.
Prohibiting on-street parking to one side of West River Street would also increase the
level of safety for pedestrians since parked cars tend to hide pedestrians from the view of
drivers. By prohibiting parking on one side of the street, pedestrians would be able to use
that side of the street for their activities, thereby increasing their visibility to drivers. And
since West River Street is an on-road bicycle facility, prohibiting on-street parking to one
side would allow bicyclists to use that side of the street without weaving around parked
cars, increasing their safety as well as the safety of the drivers of vehicles.
A1. Budget Impact: If Council chooses to forgo state-aid funding for the project,
staff will need to find another funding source for the estimated applicable state-
aid portion of $791,100.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: If the street width is revised, the plans will need to be
revised, resulting in additional plan preparation costs. Other than this, no other
staff workload impacts are anticipated.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recondition West River Street to its current width of 36 feet and
prohibit on-street parking on the ______ side to meet minimum state-aid
standards.
2. Motion to widen West River Street to 38 feet and provide on-street parking on
both sides to meet minimum state-aid standards.
3. Motion to recondition West River Street to its current width of 36 feet and
provide on-street parking on both sides of West River Street, and to direct staff to
find alternative funding sources to bridge the state-aid funding gap.
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
3
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative #1, which will allow us to use state-aid
funding for the project while keeping project costs to a minimum.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Pages 6 and 41, State-Aid Operations Chapter 8820
Variance Committee Letter of Denial
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
1
10. Consideration of approving a Comprehensive Mowing Management Program for
city properties and rights of way (BP, JO, TP, TM)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider adoption of the attached program for mowing and
maintaining street rights of way, parks and other public areas. In some ways, the
mowing and grounds maintenance plan is the summer version of the snow plowing plan.
This plan was developed for the following reasons:
Provide awareness of the maintenance work that is done by City crews. This
report provides a record of the work that is done and serves as a practical base-
line inventory of acceptable levels of service.
Provide Council with information necessary for establishing acceptable levels of
maintenance and thus provide staff with confidence that areas are being
maintained at a level and cost supported by the City Council.
Show changes in the level of maintenance on a location by location basis, which
is being introduced and incorporated into the plan in response to the desire for
cost cutting. As cut-backs in mowing occur, it is important that the cut-backs are
sufficient and are occurring at locations as desired by the City Council.
Parks Maintenance Plan
The attachments include data on all areas currently mowed by City crews and propose a
reduction in park mowing of about 25% and right of way/storm pond drainage reductions
of about 33%. All public spaces listed have been reviewed for maintenance reductions in
terms of reductions in total area mowed and reductions in frequency of mowing.
Supporting documentation for parks and properties, Attachment A, shows areas that our
Parks Department maintains. Please note that many of the park areas that are mowed
frequently serve league play that produces revenue that is used to fund a game field level
of maintenance.
Our general categories for establishing maintenance in the parks can be thought of in
terms of what one might find on a golf course. The frequency of mowing is average for
non-irrigated areas and presumes regular rainfall. Mowing frequency will be adjusted
based on grass growing conditions.
Greens – highest maintenance – twice a week: These are mostly irrigated athletic
fields where high quality playing surface is needed. The athletic programming produces
revenue.
Fairways – regular maintenance – once a week: These are highly used spaces that
require a regular level of maintenance in order to present a quality appearance. High
activity areas in parks are generally kept at this level of maintenance.
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
2
Rough – low maintenance – once a month: These are “out of the way” areas that are
located at the perimeter of areas commonly used by the public, which are far removed
from homes and buildings.
Out of Bounds – no maintenance:
Right of Way Maintenance Plan
There are very significant opportunities for savings associated with maintenance of rights
of way, ditches and pond areas. These are areas that are typically maintained by the
Streets Department. See the supporting data, Attachment B, for a summary of these
areas. Factors used in determining mowing frequency and area follow:
Sight clearance: No reductions in areas where sight lines are important for maintaining
safety at intersections.
Rights of way areas: There are significant opportunities for reduction in the number of
passes and frequency of ditch mowing.
Storm ponds: Storm pond maintenance patterns have been adjusted to meet the
minimum for compliance with MPCA standards. These changes have resulted in an
increase in mowing in some instances and a decrease in others. In sum, a number of
drainage ponds previously unmowed will be mowed on occasion to prevent overgrowth
from occurring. However, offsetting reductions in mowing frequency will occur in some
drainage areas that need not be mowed on a regular basis.
Mowing in boulevards – rights of way: In most instances, property owners are
responsible for mowing the boulevard areas. However, there are circumstances where the
City will mow boulevards. Such circumstances include:
Proximity of boulevard to adjacent drainage pond
Rural or ditch section on a double-sided lot or along a ditch line where the terrain
is difficult
Rural or ditch section along Township/City boundary roads
The mowing plan under review calls for a reduction in area and frequency of such
mowing. Council may wish to review the factors or criteria used in determining mowing
of boulevard areas at some point in the future.
It should be noted that, in certain areas such as active development properties (i.e.,
Carlisle Village, Sunset Ponds, Hunter’s Crossing), City staff will be attempting to get
out ahead of the long grass/weed problem. When there is a problem, a contracted lawn
care company will be dispatched to the violation sites as needed and as legally possible.
The cost will be charged back to the developer.
City Council Agenda: 4/12/10
3
A1. Budget Impact: Fuel, labor, equipment and equipment maintenance will be
reduced in these areas from past service levels. Quantifiable numbers will depend
on seasonal precipitation and requests to alter proposed changes. In preparation of
the 2010 Parks budget, seasonal labor was reduced by $9,000 from 2009, in
respect to this anticipated reduction in service.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimizing parks and rights of way maintenance will
allow staff to complete other tasks, responsibilities, and requests for both Parks
and Streets Departments.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve proposed Comprehensive Mowing Management Program for
city properties and rights of way.
2. Motion to deny proposed Comprehensive Mowing Management Program for city
properties and rights of way.
3. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1, to adopt the proposed Park and Rights of Way
maintenance programs. Adoption of this plan would set the bar for the minimum
standard of maintenance acceptable to City Council. Adoption by the City Council gives
staff confidence that they are maintaining areas at a level and cost that is consistent with
the desires of the City Council. Like any program, adjustments can always be made
based on feedback from the public or City Council and subject to availability of
resources.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Attachment A – Parks: City Property Mowing spreadsheet and maps
Attachment B – Streets: Rights of Way Flail Mowing spreadsheet and maps
City Park and Property Mowing CURRENT PROPOSED
TYPE OF AREA LOCATION
CITY
PROPERTY
ACRES
MOWED
TIMES
MOWED TIME FRAME % REDUCTION
TIMES
MOWED
TIME
FRAME COMMENTS
CEMETERY Hillside Cemetery YES 5 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH Lower maintenance area
CEMETERY Riverside Cemetery YES 19.78 AS NEEDED Contracted Service
CITY PROPERTY 119 - 3rd St E - DMV YES 0.25 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
CITY PROPERTY 200 Dundas Rd - Well #4 YES 2 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH
CITY PROPERTY 201 Broadway E - Cedar St Garden Ctr Lot YES 0.5 1 WEEK 75%AS NEEDED Front mowed 1 per week - W/S Dept
CITY PROPERTY 207 Chelsea Rd E - Water Reservior & Animal Shelter YES 7 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK Front only by Parks - back has reduction in flail mowing
CITY PROPERTY 3176 Chelsea Rd W - Chelsea Rd Lift Station YES 0.25 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH Karlsberger Foods
CITY PROPERTY 405 Ramsey St YES 2 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
CITY PROPERTY 5980 Jason Ave - 800,000 Gallon Water Tower YES 1 1 WEEK 75%1 MONTH
CITY PROPERTY 8770 Jason Ave - Boosted Station YES 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH Wildwood Ridge - W/S Dept
CITY PROPERTY 205 Pine St - Chamber of Commerce YES MONTH AS NEEDED Weed Control & Hedge Trimming
CITY PROPERTY 326 Riverview Dr - County Rd 39 Lift Station YES 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH W/S Dept
CITY PROPERTY Hart Blvd - Frontage Rd - Hoglund Addition - Lot 14 Blk 3 YES 0.28 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
CITY PROPERTY HRA - Broadway - Blk 52 YES MONTH AS NEEDED Weed Control
CITY PROPERTY 110 Marvin Road - Lift Station YES 0.75 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH
CITY PROPERTY 800 Meadow Oak Dr - Lift Station YES 0.25 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
CITY PROPERTY Public Works Department - 901 & 909 Golf Course Rd YES 4.63 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH
CITY PROPERTY Public Works Department - Water Dept Shop - Golf Course Rd (across from 909)YES 2.52 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH
CITY PROPERTY River St - Locust St : Lots 1 & 2, Blk 1 (south half)YES 0.25 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK Or every other
CITY PROPERTY Round-a-bout YES 0.15 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
CITY PROPERTY 200 Dundas Rd - Well #4 YES 1 2 MONTH 0%2 MONTH
CITY PROPERTY WWTP Broadway exposure YES 1.4 1 WEEK 25%3 MONTH Part of Veolia's Contract
CITY PROPERTY WWTP inside compound area YES 4 1 WEEK 75%1 MONTH Part of Veolia's Contract
CULDESAC Eastwood Circle YES 0.25 2 MONTH 0%2 MONTH
DITCH Hwy 75 - Median Area - Middle School to Fenning Ave (Cty 18)YES 5 2 WEEK 0%2 WEEK Median Area
DITCH Hwy 75 - Fenning Ave to Hospital YES 2 2 MONTH 50%1 MONTH
DITCH Hwy 75 - Fenning Ave to Meadow Oaks YES 1 WEEK 100%0 AS NEEDED Pathway Edge
DITCH Hwy 75 - Fenning Ave to Middle School YES 2 2 MONTH 50%1 MONTH WILL BE DONE WITH FLAIL MOWING
DITCH River Street YES 0.5 1 MONTH 50%AS NEEDED
PARK 4th Street Park YES 1 1 WEEK 30%1 WEEK 2 STAGES - 1 per week & 3 per month
PARK Anders Wilhelm Park YES 2.87 1 MONTH 0%1 MONTH
PARK Anders Wilhelm Park South YES 0.46 1 MONTH 0%1 MONTH
PARK Balboul Park YES 1.37 1 WEEK 75%2 MONTH Blvd near sign
PARK Battle Rapids Park YES 0.5 1 WEEK 100%0 AS NEEDED Restore to native grass
PARK Cardinal Hills YES 3 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK As Needed
PARK Cardinal Hills Tot Lot YES 0.8 3 MONTH 0%3 MONTH
PARK Country Club Park YES 1.78 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
PARK East Bridge Park YES 1.99 2 WEEK 0%2 WEEK
PARK Ellison Park YES 4.2 2 WEEK 0%2 WEEK
PARK Fallon Park YES 0.25 2 MONTH 0%2 MONTH
PARK Freeway Fields Park YES 5.5 2 WEEK 0%2 WEEK
PARK Groveland Park YES 5.2 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
PARK Hillcrest Park YES 2 2 WEEK 25%2 WEEK BALLFIELD ONLY - OUTER AREA 2 per month
PARK Hunters Crossing Park YES 5 1 YEAR 0%1 YEAR WILL BE DONE WITH FLAIL MOWING
PARK Meadow Oaks Park YES 6.4 1 WEEK 30%1 WEEK DONE IN 2 STAGES
PARK Meadows Park YES 3.8 2 MONTH 0%2 MONTH PATHWAY AREAS ONLY
PARK Otter Creek Park YES 2 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
PARK Parkside Park YES 0.5 2 MONTH 0%2 MONTH
PARK ParWest Park YES 4.17 1 WEEK 50%1 WEEK 2 STAGES - MAIN per week/OTHER 2 per month
PARK Pioneer Park YES 16 1 WEEK 75%1 MONTH DONE IN 3 STAGES
PARK River Mill Park YES 7 1 WEEK 25%1 WEEK DONE IN 2 STAGES
PARK Riverwalk Park (Front St)YES 0.3 2 WEEK 0%2 WEEK
PARK Rolling Woods YES 3 2 MONTH 0%2 MONTH
PARK Sunset Ponds Park YES 5.6 3 MONTH 30%3 MONTH
2 STAGES - 3 per month & 2 per month (AS NEEDED
AROUND PLAYGROUND)
PARK Swan Park YES 0.5 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
PARK Tower Park YES 2 1 WEEK 30%1 WEEK 2 STAGES - 1 per month & 1 per week
PARK West Bridge Park YES 2.35 2 WEEK 0%2 WEEK
PARK Xcel Ball Fields YES 14 2 WEEK 20%2 WEEK 2 STAGES - 2 per week & 2 per month
PARKING LOT 9250 Deegan Ave - Commuter Parking Lot YES 0.25 1 WEEK 50%2 MONTH
PARKING LOT Block 34 (Zoo & DMV)YES 0.5 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
PARKING LOT Block 35 (3rd St W & Locust St)YES 0.5 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
PARKING LOT Block 52 (Dead end of Walnut St)YES 0.25 1 WEEK 0%1 WEEK
PATHWAY Misc Pathways YES 72 1 MONTH 50%1 MONTH Reduced to 3 FT EACH SIDE
PATHWAY Parkside to Meadow Oaks YES 4.36 1 MONTH 50%1 MONTH Reduced to 3 FT EACH SIDE
238.76 24%TOTAL ACRES MOWED
State Highway 25
US Interstate 94
County Road 75
U
S Interstate 94
Xcel Ball Fields
Freeway Fields Park
Ellison Park
Pioneer Park
4th St Park
Groveland Park
Hunter's Crossing Park
Cardinal Hills
Tower Park
Meadow Oak Park
Hillside Cemetery
Otter Creek Park
Hillcrest
Pioneer Park
Dog Pound
Dundas Rd Well #4
Balboul Drainage Ditch
West Bridge Park
Country Club
Hillcrest Park
Rolling Woods
Meadow Oaks Park
Old Bowling Alley
Parkside Park
East Bridge Park
River Mill Park
Sunset Ponds Park
Public Works
800,000 Water Tower
ParWest Park
Cardinal Hills Tot Lot
Old Cedar St Garden Ctr
DMV
swan park
Booster Station
Balboul Drainage Ditch
Willow St Lot
Battle Rapids Park
city lot s wells fargo
Chelsea Rd Lift Station
Fallon Park
1 M gallon water tower
Public Works
Riverwalk Park- Front St
EDA property on 4th St
Block 12 (fire hall)
Commuter Lot
HRA property
Block 11 (comm. garden)
Meadow Oak Lift Station
City Well
Eastwood CircleRound-a-bout
Community Center
Marvin Rd Lift Station
chamber
City Parking Lot
Cemetery
WWTP
Library Liquor Store
Fire Station
Prairie W Bldg
City of MonticelloParks Dept Mowing MapCurrent Mowing
/
0 1,600800Feet
G:\GIS\mowing map
Legend
contracted out mowing
parks_currentamt_time
1/month
1/week
1/year
2/month
2/week
3/month
as needed
State Highway 25
US Interstate 94
County Road 75
U
S Interstate 94
Xcel Ball Fields
Freeway Fields Park
Ellison Park
Pioneer Park
Groveland Park
Hunter's Crossing Park
4th St Park
Cardinal Hills
Tower Park
Meadow Oak Park
Hillside Cemetery
Otter Creek Park
Hillcrest
Dog Pound
Country Club
Balboul Drainage Ditch
Dundas Rd Well #4
West Bridge Park
Rolling Woods
Hillcrest Park
Meadow Oaks Park
Old Bowling Alley
Parkside Park
East Bridge Park
Sunset Ponds Park
River Mill Park
Public Works
ParWest Park
800,000 Water Tower
Cardinal Hills Tot Lot
DMV
Old Cedar St Garden Ctr
swan park
Booster Station
Balboul Drainage Ditch
Water Tower
Battle Rapids Park
Willow St Lot
city lot s wells fargo
Chelsea Rd Lift Station
Fallon Park
Public Works
Riverwalk Park- Front St
EDA property on 4th St
Block 12 (fire hall)
Commuter Lot
Block 11 (comm. garden)
Meadow Oak Lift Station
Eastwood CircleRound-a-bout
Community Center
City Well
Marvin Rd Lift Station
chamber
Cemetery
WWTP
Library Liquor Store
Prairie W Bldg
City of MonticelloParks Dept Mowing MapProposed 2010
/
0 1,900950
Feet G:\GIS\mowing map
Legend
contracted out mowing
parks_proposedamt_time
0/week
1/month
1/week
1/year
2/month
2/week
3/month
as needed
Streets Rights of Way - Flail Mowing CURRENT PROPOSED
TYPE OF AREA LOCATION
CITY
PROPERTY STREET INFO
MILES
(from GIS)
TOTAL LANE
FEET
SQUARE
FEET
ACRES
MOWED
TIMES
MOWED TIMEFRAME
%
REDUCTION
TIMES
MOWED
PROPOSED
TIMEFRAME COMMENTS
STREET 7th St E - Fallon Ave - Cty Rd 18 YES SOUTH SIDE .89 4699.2 84586 1.94 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR 1/2 is private property
STREET 7th St W - Elm St - Cty Rd 39 W YES SOUTH SIDE .46 2428.8 43718 1 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET 85th St NE - Edmonson Ave - Hwy 25 NO BOTH SIDES 1.76 9292.8 167270 3.84 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET 85th St NE - Fallon Ave - Eisele Ave YES BOTH SIDES .40 2112 38016 0.87 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET 90th St NE - Chelsea Rd W - City Limits NO BOTH SIDES 2.58 13622.4 245203 5.63 2 YEAR 0%2 YEAR
STREET 95th St NE - south side of Gillard Ave - Haug Ave YES BOTH SIDES .32 1689.6 30413 0.7 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Bakken St - Troy Marquette Dr - Garvey Ct YES SOUTH SIDE .20 1056 19008 0.44 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Broadway E - Cty Rd 18 - Meadow Oak Dr YES BOTH SIDES 1.68 8870.4 159667 3.67 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Broadway E - Hospital - Highland Way YES BOTH SIDES 1.72 9081.6 163469 3.75 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Cedar St - Dundas Rd - School Blvd NO EAST SIDE .26 1372.8 24710 0.57 3 YEAR 100%0 YEAR
STREET Chelsea Rd E - Fallon Ave - Cty 18 NO BOTH SIDES .79 8342.4 150163 3.45 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Chelsea Rd E - Hwy 25 - Edmonson Ave NO SOUTH SIDE .26 1372.8 24710 0.57 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Chelsea Rd W - Cty Rd 39 W - 90th St NE - Dalton Ave YES BOTH SIDES 2.29 12091.2 217642 5 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR North side is private property
STREET Cty Rd 75 W - 1000' W of Jerry Liefert Dr YES SOUTH SIDE .25 1320 23760 0.55 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Dundas Rd - Edmonson Ave - Cedar St YES BOTH SIDES .29 3062.4 55123 1.27 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR 3/4 is private property
STREET Edmonson Ave - Chelsea Rd E - 85th St NE NO BOTH SIDES 2.74 14467.2 260410 5.98 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Elm St - 6th St W - Interstate 94 YES BOTH SIDES .68 3590.4 64627 1.48 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Fallon Ave - School Blvd - 85th St NE NO BOTH SIDES 1.48 7814.4 140659 3.23 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Fenning Ave - School Bvld - 85th St NE NO BOTH SIDES 1.52 8025.6 144461 3.32 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Hart Blvd - Liberty Bank - Cty Rd 39 E NO EAST SIDE .15 792 14256 0.33 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Haug Ave - 95th St NE - City Limits NO BOTH SIDES 1.48 7814.4 140659 3.23 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Marvin Rd - Chelsea Rd W - Sandberg Rd NO BOTH SIDES .54 2851.2 51322 1.18 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET Marvin Rd - Hwy 25 - Chelsea Rd W YES BOTH SIDES .4 2112 38016 0.87 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Minnesota St - 7th St W - Interstate 94 YES BOTH SIDES .26 1372.8 24710 0.57 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET School Blvd - Deegan Ave - Redford Ln YES BOTH SIDES 1.08 5702.4 102643 2.36 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET School Blvd - Edmonson Ave - Cedar St NO NORTH SIDE .38 4012.8 72230 1.16 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
STREET School Blvd - Edmonson Ave - Country Ln NO BOTH SIDES .24 1267.2 22810 0.52 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Service Rd - 3698 School Blvd YES BOTH SIDES .3 1584 28512 0.65 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
STREET Thomas Park Drive NO BOTH SIDES .86 4540.8 81734 1.88 3 YEAR 100%0 YEAR
POND 3698 School Blvd (FiberNet head end bldg)YES 2 0 100%0
POND 90th St & Park Place Dr NO EASEMENT 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND Carlisle Village YES 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND Country Avenue NO EASEMENT 1 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND Deegan Court YES 3 1 YEAR 0%1 YEAR
POND Elk Avenue NO EASEMENT 0.5 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND Hayward Court NO EASEMENT 3 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND McKenna Court NO EASEMENT 2 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND North of Hayward Court NO EASEMENT 3 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND Redford Lane NO EASEMENT 2 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND Savannah Avenue YES 5 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND School Blvd - Fenning Ave NO EASEMENT 0.5 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND School Blvd (Ponds across from High School)NO EASEMENT 0.5 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
POND Sunset Ponds (3)YES 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
PATHWAY Gatewater Dr - Spirit Hills Rd NO 1.5 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
PATHWAY Oak Ridge Cir - Oakview Ct NO 1 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR 1/2 is City property
PATHWAY Oakview Ln - Meadow Oak Park NO 0.5 3 YEAR 0%3 YEAR
OUTLOT 7th St W & Cty Rd 39 W YES 5 1 WEEK AS NEEDED
OUTLOT Cedar St - Dundas Rd YES 1 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT Chelsea Rd E (City Animal Shelter - Water Reservior)YES 5 3 YEAR 66%1 YEAR
OUTLOT Chelsea Rd W & 90th St NE YES 2 2 MONTH 50%1 MONTH
OUTLOT City Farm - Cty 39 W YES 2 1 WEEK AS NEEDED
OUTLOT City Farm - Edmonson Ave YES 3 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT Deegan Ave - School Blvd (City Lot)YES 3 2 MONTH 50%1 MONTH
OUTLOT Farmstead Ave (under power lines YES 2 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT Featherstone Development YES 1 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT Hunters Crossing Development YES 1 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT Minnesota St & 7th St W YES 2 1 WEEK 80%1 MONTH
OUTLOT Mississippi Dr - WWTP YES 0.5 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT Prairie Road YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT Prescott Ave & Weston Dr YES 1 AS NEEDED AS NEEDED
OUTLOT River St W (City Compost Facility)YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
OUTLOT River St W - Cty 75 W (Xcel Ball Fields)YES 1 3 YEAR 100%0 YEAR
OUTLOT School Blvd, 3692 (1 mil gallon water tower)YES 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND Bison Avenue YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND Carlisle Village (3)YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND Cedar Street (Walmart)YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND Country Avenue YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND East Oak Drive YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND Fallon Drive YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND Park Dr YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
DEADEND Pelican Lane YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
CULDESAC 95th Circle YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
CULDESAC Bison Court YES 0.25 3 YEAR 100%0 YEAR
CULDESAC Oakwood Drive YES 0.25 3 YEAR 33%2 YEAR
TOTAL ACRES MOWED 118.26 AVERAGE REDUCTION 33%
State Highway 25
US Interstate 94
County Road 75
U
S Interstate 94
city farm - edmonson
xcel ball fields
city farm - cty road 39
compost site
Cemetery
WWTP
Library Liquor Store
Fire Station
Prairie W Bldg
City of MonticelloStreet Dept Mowing MapCurrent Mowing
/
0 2,0001,000
Feet
G:\GIS\2 mowing map streets current
Legend
contracted out mowing
All Street Dept Mowing
no_of_time
1 time/year
2 times/year
3 times/year
as needed
once/week
twice/month
State Highway 25
US Interstate 94
County Road 75
U
S Interstate 94
city farm - edmonson
xcel ball fields
city farm - cty road 39
compost site
Cemetery
WWTP
LibraryLiquor Store
Fire Station
Prairie W Bldg
City of MonticelloStreet Dept Mowing MapProposed Mowing
/
0 2,1001,050 Feet
Legend
contracted out mowing
All_Street_Dept_Mowing_Proposed
no_of_time
0 times/year
1 time/year
2 times/year
3 times/year
as needed
once/month
State Highway 25
US Interstate 94
County Road 75
U
S Interstate 94
Cemetery
WWTP
LibraryLiquor Store
Fire Station
Prairie W Bldg
City of MonticelloStreet Dept Mowing MapPrivate Boulevard Mowing
/
0 2,1001,050 Feet
Legend
private_blvds
<all other values>
boulevard areas
street
contracted out mowing
Council Agenda: 4/12/10
12. Closed Meeting – (a) Personnel issue and (b) legal costs associated with FCC
complaint