City Council Agenda Packet 06-28-2010AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 28, 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 – May 24, 2010 Regular Meeting
2B. Approval of Minutes – June 14, 2010 Special Meeting
2C. Approval of Minutes – June 14, 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) Riverfest Block Party at MCC (7/8)
2) Riverfest (7/8-11)
3) Council meetings live on FiberNet
4) Utility billing now using Eco-envelopes
c. Staff Updates:
1) Walk & Roll
2) CGI Video
3) Wright County Sheriff report
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-42 to accept contributions from the Land
of Lakes Choirboys for 2010 Riverfest bands and Tom Perrault for the general fund
C. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-44 to accept anonymous contributions for
Family Fun Day at Bertram Chain of Lakes
D. Consideration of approving an application for 1-day temporary liquor license to the
Monticello Downtown Business Association for a block party on July 7, 2010
E. Consideration of approving an application for temporary gambling license for the St
Michael-Albertville Rotary Club for August 30, 2010 at Monticello Country Club
F. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-45 approving redemption of the balance
of the General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2004A
G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-46 calling for sale of General Obligation
bonds in the amount of $3,255,000 for 2010 Street Reconstruction, NE Quadrant
Highway 25 & CSAH 75 Improvements, and Refunding of Series 2002 Improvement
Bonds
H. Consideration of appointing 2010 election judges and deputizing two city staff
members to assist with absentee ballot processing
I. Consideration of appointing a representative to the MCC Advisory Board to fill a
vacancy for a term to expire on 12/31/2010
J. Consideration of approving an agreement for use of Locust Street Right of Way for
Beef O’Bradys outdoor patio
K. Consideration of adopting a Statement of Support for the National Guard and Reserve
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
7. (A) Continuation of Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-39 ordering
improvements and authorizing plans and specifications for the Third Street Parking Lot
Reconstruction amendment to 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No. 10C001
(B) Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-40 approving plans and specifications and
authorizing advertisement for bids for the Third Street Parking Lot Reconstruction
amendment to 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No. 10C001
(C) Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-41 awarding contract for the Third Street
Parking Lot Reconstruction amendment to 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No.
10C001
8. Public Hearing – Consideration of recommending that the Monticello Economic Development
Authority adopt a preliminary Spending Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1/22
9. Public Hearing – Consideration of approving vacation of right-of-way associated with Nicolle
Addition final plat requested by petition of property owners
10. Consideration of approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit for
cross parking, Cross Access and Drive-through Facility, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the
proposed Nicolle Addition, a commercial development in the CCD (Central Community
District); Applicant: Semper Development
11. Consideration of approving a rezoning request from CCD (Central Community District) to
CCD-R (Central Community District Residential); Applicant: Masters 5th Avenue/Barry Fluth
12. Consideration of adopting City Ordinance # 516 adding Title 7, Chapter 10 relating to Illicit
Discharge, Detection and Elimination (IDDE) regulations
13. Consideration of approving color choice for recycling carts and lids
14. Added Items
15. Approve payment of bills for June 28th
16. Adjournment
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
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
Patrick Purdy PT Liquor Store Clerk Liquor Store 6/14 PT
Name Reason Department Last Day Class
Amanda Nowezki Voluntary Finance 6/15 Temporary
Blaise Johnson Voluntary MCC 6/1 PT
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
5A Council_employee list: 6/24/2010
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
5B. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-42 to accept contributions from the
Land of Lakes Choirboys and Tom Perrault (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Land of Lakes Choirboys made a contribution of $2500 to go toward the 2010 Riverfest
celebration for bands. Tom Perrault contributed $250 to go into the General Fund. As
required by state statute, if the City accepts the donation of funds, the City Council needs
to adopt a resolution specifying the amount of the donation and its use.
A1. Budget Impact: None
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff accounts for and reconciles donations contributed
through the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the contributions and authorize use of funds as specified.
2. Do not approve the contributions and return the funds to the donors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-42
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-42
APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept
contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections
465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain
such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the
donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895.
WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute
contributions or gifts to the City as listed:
DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE
Land of Lakes Choirboys Cash $2500
Tom Perrault Cash $250
WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing
facilities, operations or programs within the city’s jurisdiction either alone or in
cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the
contributions offered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as
follows:
1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of
Monticello.
2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the
donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another
entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose:
DONOR/ENTITY RECIPIENT PURPOSE
Land of Lakes Choirboys Riverfest Committee Riverfest celebration
Tom Perrault City of Monticello General fund (June)
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 28th day of June, 2010.
______________________________
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
5C. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-44 to accept anonymous contributions
for Family Fun Day at Bertram Chain of Lakes (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City received a check from Wright County in the amount of $200 from an
anonymous donor. At the Family Fun Day on June 12, miscellaneous donations were
collected totaling $26.21. As required by state statute, if the City accepts the donation of
funds, the City Council needs to adopt a resolution specifying the amount of the donation
and its use.
A1. Budget Impact: None
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff accounts for and reconciles donations contributed
through the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the contributions and authorize use of funds as specified.
2. Do not approve the contributions and return the funds to the donors.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-44
City of Monticello
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-44
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept
contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections
465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain
such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the
donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895.
WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute
contributions or gifts to the City as listed:
DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE
Misc donations Received at Family Fun Day $226.21
WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing
facilities, operations or programs within the city’s jurisdiction either alone or in
cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the
contributions offered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as
follows:
1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of
Monticello.
2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the
donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another
entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose:
DONOR/ENTITY RECIPIENT PURPOSE
Misc donations City of Monticello Family Fun Day at Bertram
Chain of Lakes
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 28th day of June, 2009.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Council Agenda: 6/28/10
1
5D. Consideration of approving an application for temporary on-sale liquor license for
the Monticello Downtown Business Association for a Block Party (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Downtown Business Association is requesting approval of an application
for a 1-day temporary on-sale liquor license for their Block Party on July 7, 2010. This
event is planned to take place along Walnut Street in the downtown area, which already
received approval by City Council. Liquor service will be provided by Cornerstone Café
and Catering, who carries a beverage caterer’s license through the State.
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. Motion to approve the application for a temporary liquor license for the
Monticello Downtown Business Association for a Block Party on July 7, 2010.
2. Do not approve the application for a 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: 6/28/10
5E. Consideration of approving an application for a temporary charitable gambling
license in conjunction with a Rotary golf event on August 30, 2010 (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The St Michael Albertville Rotary Club and Monticello Rotary Club are teaming up for a
fundraising golf event to be held at the Monticello Country Club on August 30, 2010.
The St Michael Albertville Rotary has applied to the City for a permit for a charitable
gambling license to sponsor a raffle with the drawing to be held on August 30 at the end
of the golf tournament. The two clubs will split the proceeds which each club
designating the beneficiaries of its proceeds. This is similar to events held in 2008 and
2009.
In the past the City has not opposed these exempt gambling license applications for
charitable events.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the application for a charitable gambling license for a raffle in
conjunction with a Rotary golf tournament to be held on August 30, 2010.
2. Do not approve the request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff supports Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of application
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
5F. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-45 approving redemption of the
General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2004A (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The G. O. Taxable Tax Increment Bond, Series 2004A was issued to refinance the City’s
$2,150,000 G. O. Taxable Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001, which were
issued to finance certain public redevelopment costs to be incurred in Tax Increment
District 1-22. The 2004A TIF Bond was a ten-year bond, callable on August 1, 2010.
The interest rates range from 5.0% in 2010 to 5.6% in 2013.
TIF District 1-22 has the funds to redeem this bond and since interest rates are well below
5% it makes sense to redeem this bond now. The City cannot refinance this debt at a
lower interest rate because, by law, any cash balances in the bond fund or in TIF District
1-22 would need to be applied towards reducing the principal, and only any remaining
balance could be refinanced. Therefore the only options available to the City would be to
redeem the debt or continue to make the semi-annual debt payments through February
2013.
A1. Budget Impact: By redeeming the 2004A Taxable TIF Bond the City would
save around $30,600.00 in future interest costs.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There would be little to no impact on the staff.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution #2010-45 approving redemption of the G. O. Taxable
Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2004A.
2. Motion to not adopt the resolution.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff supports Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-45
370553v1 SJB MN190-137
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-45
PROVIDING FOR THE PREPAYMENT AND
REDEMPTION OF CERTAIN OUTSTANDING
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY,
G.O. TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004A
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Wright County,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City has issued and sold its Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds,
Series 2004A, dated June 30, 2004 (the “Bonds”) in the total principal amount of $945,000. Bonds
maturing on or after February 1, 2011, are subject to redemption and prepayment on August 1, 2010
and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest.
2. It is determined that it is in the best interests of the sound financial management of
the City that Bonds maturing on February 1 in the years 2011 to and including 2013, comprising all
of the Bonds subject to redemption, be prepaid and redeemed on August 1, 2010 and those Bonds
are hereby called for redemption on that date.
3. The Registrar is authorized and directed to mail a notice of call for redemption of the
Bonds in the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A to the registered owner of each Bond to be
redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar, and by publishing
the notice if required by law.
ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Monticello this 28th day of June, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
370553v1 SJB MN190-137 2
Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Monticello,
Wright County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in the City of Monticello, on Monday,
June 28, 2010, commencing at 7:00 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was made by Member _______________,
duly seconded by Member _______________, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
370553v1 SJB MN190-137
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) SS.
)
CITY OF MONTICELLO )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Administrator of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing
extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on June 28, 2010, with the original
thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as
the same relates to the prepayment and redemption of $945,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 2004A, of the City.
WITNESS my hand as City Administrator and the corporate seal of the City this 28th day of
June, 2010.
City Administrator
Monticello, Minnesota
(SEAL)
370553v1 SJB MN190-137 A-1
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION
$945,000
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004A
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of
Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment
on
AUGUST 1, 2010
all outstanding bonds of the City designated as Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 2004A, dated June 30, 2004, having stated maturity dates of February 1 in the
years 2011 through 2013, both inclusive, totaling $360,000 in principal amount, and with the
following CUSIP numbers:
Year of Maturity Amount CUSIP
2011 $115,000 614468 YA8
2013* 245,000 614468 YC4
* Term Bonds
The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued i nterest to August 1, 2010, on which
date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for
redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the office of Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, on or before August 1, 2010.
Important Notice: In compliance with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
of 2003, federal backup withholding tax will be withheld at the applicable backup withholding rate
in effect at the time the payment by the redeeming institutions if they are not provided with your
social security number or federal employer identification number, properly certified. This
requirement is fulfilled by submitting a W-9 Form, which may be obtained at a bank or other
financial institution.
The Registrar will not be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number, nor is
any representation made as to the correctness indicated in the Redemption Notice or on any
Bond. It is included solely for convenience of the Holders.
Dated: June 28, 2010.
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
1
5G. Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010-46 calling for the sale of General
Obligation bonds in the amount of $3,255,000 for 2010 Street Reconstruction, NE
Quadrant Highway 25 & CSAH 75 Improvement, and Refunding of Series 2002
Improvement Bonds (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has authorized the 2010 reconstruction project and awarded the contract. The
best option for funding this project would be for the City to issue improvement bonds. If
the City issues bonds for the 2010 reconstruction project it would also be a good idea to
include the portion of the TH 25 and CSAH 75 improvements (NE Quadrant) that would
be assessed to the property owners and to refinance the City’s G. O. Improvement Bonds,
Series 2002. To finance these two projects and refinance the 2002 improvement bond the
City would need to issue $3,255,000 in new G. O. Improvement and Refinancing Bonds.
The issuance of bonds to finance the 2010 street reconstruction project makes sense
because interest rates are low, and it allows the City to pay its share of project cost over
time just as it does the assessed property owners. If bonds are not issued, the City would
need to pay its share of project costs upfront and internally finance the assessed portion
of the project upfront as well. If the City were to pay upfront for this project it would
leave the various City funding sources very low on reserves (cash) for future projects.
Interest rates are estimated between 0.85% and 3.70% over the ten year life of the bonds
for an average coupon rate of 3.06%. This is based on the City’s current bond rating of
Aa3.
The Pre-sale report from Ehlers identifies a tax levy for a portion of the debt repayment
schedule, but this will actually be a combination of City funds including Street
Reconstruction Funds, Sewer and Water Access Funds, and State Aid Street
Maintenance/Reconstruction Funds. A tax levy is not proposed for repaying this debt but
is identified to satisfy G. O. Bond Requirements.
The City is also moving forward with intersection improvements on the NE corner of TH
25 and CSAH 75, which will be paid from a combination of City funds and assessments
to property owners. The City share is proposed to be funded from surplus funds from
TIF District 1-22 using new TIF regulations. This would require the City to pay its share
of costs upfront. The property owners’ share is proposed to be assessed over 10 years.
Therefore staff is recommending including the assessed portion of this project in this
bond issue.
Finally, the City issued improvement bonds in 2002 for various projects including 7th
Street East, Cedar Street and Walnut Street. The 2002 Improvement Bonds were ten-year
bonds maturing in 2014. The remaining interest rates range from 3.6% in 2010 to 4.0%
in 2014. Based on the projected interest rates of 0.85% to 3.7% the City would save
$35,000 by refunding this debt.
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
2
A1. Budget Impact: By issuing bonds to finance these two projects and refund the
2002 improvement bond, the City will have the benefit of paying their share of
project costs over time and not having to upfront the cost of the assessed portion
of these projects. The refunding of the 2002 bonds will save the City around
$35,000 in interest costs over the next 4-1/2 years.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: There would be little to no impact on staff.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt Resolution #2010-46 providing for the sale of $3,255,000 G. O.
Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2010.
2. Do not adopt the resolution providing for the sale of $3,255,000 G. O.
Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2010.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff supports Alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution #2010-46
Pre-Sale Report for #3,255,000 G. O. Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2010
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-46
PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $3,255,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
IMPROVEMENT AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2010
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has heretofore determined that it is
necessary and expedient to issue the City’s $3,255,000 General Obligation Improvement and
Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 (the “Bonds”), to finance the construction of various
improvements in the City; and to current refund the City’s outstanding General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota
(“Ehlers”), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to
solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2 (9);
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals
for the sale of the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on August 23,
2010, for the purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are
hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an
official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon
its completion.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 28th day of June, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
___________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Council Members voting in favor:
Council Members voting in opposition:
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
5H. Consideration of appointing 2010 election judges and deputizing two city staff members to
assist with absentee ballot processing (CS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 204B.21 requires cities to appoint election judges to serve at
primary and general elections and with absentee voting. A head election judge should
also be designated as part of the appointment. The appointment of these judges is
contingent upon them completing the necessary training, which is required every 2 years
with the next opportunity coming up in July.
We are pleased to report that we have about 50 people that indicated an interest in being
an election judge and have completed an application. This list includes people that
signed up at caucuses and were provided to us from the County. Although we may not
have a need to utilize everyone, we would like Council to approve all of the names on the
list. We also ask that Richard Quick be appointed as Head Election Judge for the 2010
elections. Mr. Quick has served in this capacity in the past and is very knowledgeable of
the entire election process and familiar with most of the election judges that have served
previously.
We are also asking Council to deputize several city staff members so that they can assist
the Deputy Clerk in processing absentee ballot applications. Under the new laws that
went into effect this year, the process has now been converted to an electronic system.
Once a voter fills out an absentee ballot application, city staff would be responsible for
entering the information into the State Voter Registration System (SVRS), printing off
labels, and assembling a ballot packet. We do not expect too much of a demand during
the primary election; however, the general election will most likely see a much greater
turnout of absentee voters. According to State Election Law, it is required that anyone
processing absentee ballots must be trained as an election judge or deputized by Council.
To help handle the processing of applications, I recommend deputizing Vicki Leerhoff
and Debra Ward, as they have not trained as election judges. Kerry Burri will also assist
with this process, and she has already had election judge training.
Please note that review of absentee ballots (accepting/rejecting) will be performed by an
Absentee Ballot Board according to the new election laws. City election staff would not
perform this duty; however they may assist with follow-up related to rejected ballots.
A1. Budget Impact: Election judge compensation is included in the 2010 budget.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: The Deputy Clerk and Administrative Assistant will be
involved with elections to a greater degree than other staff. As it gets closer to the
Primary and General Election days, it is anticipated that more time will be spent
on elections, including some overtime. It should be noted that State Election
Laws mandate certain hours for absentee and regular voting, some of which fall
outside of regular city work hours.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
2
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to appoint 2010 election judges as listed and deputize Vicki Leerhoff and
Debra Ward to assist with absentee ballot processing.
2. Motion to deny appointment of election judges and to not deputize city staff
members.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1. In order to conduct elections in the manner
prescribed by law, it is recommended to have an ample supply of election judges and the
availability of staff to assist as needed. Council support of this decision will help ensure
an efficient and effective election process.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Election Judge listing for 2010
ELECTION JUDGES
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ELECTION JUDGE SIGN-UP
name address1 July 13 Trng Other training Experience Hours Primary General ABBoard
Anderson, Fred 122 Marvin Elwood Road X EJ/HJ interest AM X X X
Anderson, Cindy 122 Marvin Elwood Road X AM/PM X X X
Ashfeld, Gregory 1515 Oak Ridge Circle X EJ AM X
Belchak, John 6594 Bald Eagle Ct X PM X X X
Bitzer, Gladys 406 Cedar Street X EJ AM X X
Bondhus, Joan 3 Riverside Circle
Bourque, Richard 9800 Hart Blvd X EJ AM X X X
Brambrink, Sandra 312 W River St X EJ/HJ interest AM/PM X X X
Brandon, Joan 164 Jerry Liefert Drive X
Brauch, Donna 701 W River St.X EJ AM/PM X X X
Broekemeier, Ron 1440 Oak Ridge Cir X EJ/HJ interest AM X X X
Bromberg, Janet 172 Jerry Liefert Drive X EJ/ABB exp X X X
Burri, Kerry X 7/28/2010 WCGC EJ/ABB exp
Byholm, Rodney 6122 Bakken Street X EJ/HJ interest PM X X X
Carlson, David 6214 Mill Run Road EJ AM/PM X
Christianson, Charles 524 W River St X PM X X X
Dahl, Rosemary 1229 Sandy Ln X EJ/HJ exp PM X X X
Daniels, Mary 701 E 4th St X EJ AM X X
DeMarais, Agnes 1021 West Broadway X EJ AM X X X
DeMarais, Kristi 724 West River Street
Dickie, Margaret 4689 Eagle Ridge Ln X AM X X X
Doucette, Richard 1314 Prairie Creek Lane X EJ exp PM X X X
Duran, Roseanne 6040 Bakken St
Dziuk, Marguerite 11672 Spruce Drive X AM X X X
Forsberg, Rachel 100 Jerry Liefert Drive X HJ interest PM X X
Gauthier, Kay 138 Jerry Liefert Drive X X X
Gillham, Lynnea 915 W. Broadway X EJ AM X X
Gordon, Jacquelin 660 Riverview Drive X PM X X
Grabinski, Robert 1610 Oak Ridge Circle 7/20/10 Buffalo CC 1 p.m.X HJ interest PM X X X
Grant, Alice 1213 Hart Blvd X EJ AM X X X
Hamond, Cynthia 1021 West River Str X HJ interest PM X X X
Hoskins, Darla 11705 Spruce Drive X AM/PM X X X
Kendall, Harvey 108 Hllcrest Road X EJ PM X X X
Markling, Pat 123 Jerry Liefert Drive X EJ PM X X
Maxson, Janice R 448 W Broadway X PM X X X
Mayer, Florence 110 Craig Lane X EJ AM X X
McIntire, Arlene 1120 West River St X EJ AM X X
Moody, Judy 118 Kampa Circle X EJ PM X X X
Nesland, MerriJo (Jo)330 Third Street East X EJ X X
Ordonez, Denise 230 E Kjellberg Pk X EJTrainee PM X X X
Quick, Richard 113 4th Street SE X HEAD ELECTION JUDGE (7/28/10)EJ/HJ AM/PM X X
ELECTION JUDGES
CITY OF MONTICELLO
name address1 July 13 Trng Other training Experience Hours Primary General ABBoard
Rademacher, Eleanor 607 Vine Lane X EJ AM X X X
Ray, Pat 11672 Spruce Drive X HJ interest AM/PM X X X
Sanborn, James 6696 East Oak Drive EJ AM/PM X X X
Smith, Jeanette 604 Vine Lane 7/14/2010 WCGC 7 p.m EJ PM X X X
Smith, Karen 2328 Eastwood Cir X *X X X
Smith, Randy 109 Craig Lane X EJ AM not sure of schedule
Solberg, Darlene 11693 Spruce Drive possibly, if trained on time
Soltau, Rita 624 E River St X EJ AM X X ?
Sonju-Thielman, Patricia 1344 Prairie Creek Lane 7/20/10 Buffalo CC 1:00 pm EJ PM X X X
Stevenson, Jim 512 Vine Street 7/19/10 Clearwater 7 p.m. EJ AM X X
Suchy, Sandy 890 Briar Court X 7/28/2010 WCGC EJ/HJ Interest PM X X X
Wimmer, Donna 628 6 1/2 Street X EJ AM X X
Wolff, Lorraine 1201 Golf Course Road X EJ AM X X
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
5I. Consideration of appointing a representative to the MCC Advisory Board to fill a
vacancy for a term to expire on 12/31/2010 (KB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wanda Kraemer had been on the Community Center’s Advisory Board for the past year
and a half and just recently relocated to the Township and thus needed to relinquish her
seat on the Board. Wanda’s presence on the Board will be missed as she had a good “no
nonsense” point of view on the Board. Wanda’s term was scheduled to end at the end of
this year.
We were fortunate to get a couple of volunteers who submitted letters of interest for the
open Board seat. Unfortunately one of the candidates had to withdrawn his name due to
medical issues. At the Advisory Board’s June meeting they interviewed the one
candidate, Darren Paumen.
Darren lives in Monticello and works for Larson Allen in St. Cloud. He is active in youth
baseball and had a desire to do something more in his community. Larson Allen supports
this community commitment and so Darren approached me early in 2010 about available
Board positions. The Advisory Board felt that he would be a great fit on the Board
bringing with him the perspective of a family man with younger children. His family
does have an active membership at the community center as well.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the appointment of Darren Paumen to the MCC Advisory
Board with the term ending December 31, 2010.
2. Motion to not approve the appointment of Darren Paumen to the MCC Advisory
Board.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff and the MCC Advisory Board recommends Alternative #1 to appoint Darren
Paumen to the MCC Advisory Board. They believe he will be an asset to the Board,
providing a good perspective to their discussions and decisions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Darren Paumen’s letter of interest
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
5J. Consideration of approving an agreement for use of Locust Street Right of Way for
Beef O’Brady’s outdoor patio. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In 2006, the City Council approved a request by Crostini Grille for an enclosed dining
patio which encroached onto the City street right of way along Locust Street. The
approval required execution of a license agreement for the encroachment.
The license agreement was subsequently renewed after it had been determined that the
encroachment had not resulted in any maintenance issues for the Public Works
Department. The enclosed patio allows for adequate pedestrian movement along the
Locust Street right of way.
At this time, the new restaurant tenant for the space, Beef O’Brady’s, has requested a
transfer of the license agreement. The same agreement terms relating to liability and other
maintenance items are proposed to remain the same.
Again, staff is unaware of any issues related to the enclosed patio facility. Beef
O’Brady’s has already consulted with the Deputy City Clerk regarding the appropriate
alcohol service licensures for the patio area. Beef O’Brady’s has also been made aware
that any change to the awning structure itself may require a new building and/or sign
permit as applicable.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to a license agreement for use of Locust Street right of way for Beef
O’Brady’s outdoor patio.
2. Motion to deny a license agreement for use of Locust Street right of way for Beef
O’Brady’s.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1 above. As stated above, no issues with the
structure have been identified to this point and the terms of license agreement are
proposed as unchanged.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A – License Agreement
Exhibit B – Aerial Image
Exhibit C - Agenda/Minutes of Previous Action
LICENSE AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this ____ day of __________ , 2010, by and between the City of
Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and Beef O’Brady’s, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, dba Beef O’Brady’s.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the boulevard on Locust Street dedicated for public
use and adjacent to Beef O’Brady’s located at 254 West Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota
(“Subject Property”).
WHEREAS, Beef O’Brady’s desires to obtain a license over and across a portion of the
Subject Property to install and use as a seasonal patio eating enclosure.
WHEREAS, the City Council on June 28th, 2010 authorized the granting of the license
agreement subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter described.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The City does hereby grant to Beef O’Brady’s a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to
construct a seasonal patio seating enclosure over a portion of the Subject Property as
depicted in the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A, leaving between six to seven feet of
public sidewalk width.
2. Beef O’Brady’s use of the seasonal patio seating enclosure shall be allowed from April
15th through the holiday season (January 1st). After which time the patio skirting will be
removed but the patio structure will remain intact year round.
3. Beef O’Brady’s agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City from and against damages
to said seasonal patio seating enclosure as a result of City snow/ice removal operations.
4. Beef O’Brady’s agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City from and against all
liability, damages, penalties, judgments, or claims of whatever nature arising from injury
to person or property sustained by anyone arising out of Beef O’Brady’s use and
occupancy of the seasonal patio seating enclosure and will, at Beef O’Brady’s own cost
and expense, defend any and all suits or actions (just or unjust) which may be brought
against the City or in which the City may be impleaded with others upon any such above-
mentioned matter, claim, or claims. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement will
include indemnity against all costs, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or in connection
with any such claims or proceedings brought thereon and the defense thereof.
5. This license shall renew automatically unless either party gives the other party 30 days
notice in writing of their intent to terminate the license agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By: ______________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
By: _______________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of
______________, 2010, by Clint Herbst and by Jeff O’Neill, the Mayor and City Administrator of
the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
______________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
BEEF O’BRADY’S, LLC
By: ________________________________
Its _________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of
______________, 2010, by ________________________________, limited liability company
under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the limited liability company.
______________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Landmark Square
Patio Encroachment
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
5K. Consideration of adopting a Statement of Support for the National Guard and Reserve
(JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The National Guard has requested the City to join other employers in pledging support
for the men and women who serve in the National Guard and Reserve. A copy of a
Statement of Support certificate is included with the agenda item. If Council chooses to
adopt this Statement of Support, the City pledges that:
We recognize, honor and enforce the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
Managers and supervisors will have the tools needed to manage employees who
serve in the Guard and Reserve.
We continually recognize and support our country’s service members and families
in peace, in crisis, and in war.
A1. Budget Impact: none
A2. Staff Workload Impact: minimal
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the Statement of Support for the National Guard and Reserve.
2. Motion to not adopt the Statement of Support.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1. By adopting and signing the Statement of
Support, this will reinforce our longstanding commitment to the Guard and Reserve.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Statement of Support
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
1
7A. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Resolution No. 2010-39 ordering
improvements and authorizing Plans and Specifications for the Third Street
Parking Lot Reconstruction amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project,
City Project No. 10C001 (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On May 24th the City Council awarded the contract for the 2010 Street Reconstruction
project, and called for a Public Hearing on June 14th for the purpose of receiving public
input on the proposed improvements to the City-owned Third Street parking lot on block
35. Council directed staff to schedule a meeting with as many of the block 35 property
owners as possible to discuss their potential financial contribution for the improvements.
However, the meeting could not be scheduled in time so on June 14th the City Council
opened the Public Hearing and continued it until June 28th.
On June 18th a meeting was held with the property owners. In attendance were Mayor
Herbst, Councilmember Wojchouski, the City Administrator, the City Engineer, and
numerous private property owners representing 11 of the 14 private properties located on
block 35. First the proposed improvements were reviewed. Then discussions turned to
funding the improvements. It was discussed while each property has at least two parking
stalls of their own, some businesses don’t need more parking stalls for their customers,
while customers of other businesses rely heavily on the parking lot. It was also noted that
the parking lot on block 35 is used quite regularly by commuters.
It was ultimately decided that the private property owners receive about 50% of the
benefit of the parking lot, and that the City receives the other 50%. And since the
property owners benefit to varying degrees, they said they would develop their own
funding participation formula to split their share (50%) of the improvement costs between
the 14 properties, which they would then present to the City Council during the Public
Hearing. The property owners said they liked the formula that was developed and used
with the 1974-1 parking improvement project, which distributed costs for improvements
made to multiple parking lots and alleys over a 6 block area by applying distance factors
and parking stall requirements based on the businesses floor areas.
After conducting the Public Hearing tonight, Council will be asked to adopt Resolution
No. 2010-39, thereby ordering the improvements to the Third Street Parking Lot and
authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for these improvements.
A1. Budget Impact: No budget impacts are anticipated with this item.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: No staff workload impacts are anticipated with this
item.
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
2
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-39 ordering the improvements and authorizing
Plans and Specifications for the Third Street Parking Lot Reconstruction amendment
to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project, City Project No. 10C001.
2. Motion denying adoption of Resolution 2010-39 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative Action No. 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-39
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
3
7B. Consideration of adopting Resolution No. 2010-40 approving Plans and
Specifications and authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Third Street Parking
Lot Reconstruction amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project, City
Project No. 10C001 (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Following the adoption of Resolution 2010-39, Council is now being asked to adopt
Resolution 2010-40, approving Plans and Specifications and authorizing Advertisement
for Bids for the Third Street Parking Lot reconstruction amendment to the 2010 Street
Reconstruction project.
A1. Budget Impact: No budget impacts are anticipated with this item.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: No staff workload impacts are anticipated with this
item.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-40 approving Plans and Specifications and
authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Third Street Parking Lot Reconstruction
amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project, City Project No. 10C001.
2. Motion denying adoption of Resolution 2010-40 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative Action No. 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-40
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
4
7C. Consideration of adopting Resolution No. 2010-41 awarding contract for the Third
Street Parking Lot Reconstruction amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction
project, City Project No. 10C001 (BW)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Following the adoption of Resolution 2010-40, Council is now being asked to adopt
Resolution 2010-41, awarding the contract for the Third Street Parking Lot reconstruction
amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project.
The improvements include the removal and replacement of the existing bituminous
pavement and most of the existing concrete curb and gutter, as well as restriping the
parking stalls within the lot. Two of the end islands will be paved with 6 inches of
concrete pavement, which will act as a base for the common-use dumpsters that will be
bid through a separate contract, along with the fence needed to screen the dumpsters.
The common-use dumpsters and screening fence will be paid for entirely by the private
property owners.
A1. Budget Impact: Redstone Construction Company, who was awarded the contract
for the 2010 Street Reconstruction project, submitted a bid of $62,340.40 for
constructing these improvements (see alternate #2). Since bid prices are good for
45 days from the day bids were opened, which was May 20th, Redstone will be
required to honor their bid should Council order these improvements tonight.
Based on the results of the meeting held with the private property owners on
block 35, it is our understanding that the private property owners will pay for half
of the improvements, while the City will pay for the other half. The majority of
the private property owners will likely ask to have their share of the costs assessed
against their property taxes, which means the City will be required to fund the
improvements initially. This funding will come from the sale of the General
Obligation Bond considered earlier this evening.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff workload impacts will include the time required to
inspect the work and process all pay requests associated with it.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2010-41 awarding contract for the Third Street
Parking Lot Reconstruction amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project,
City Project No. 10C001.
2. Motion denying adoption of Resolution 2010-41 at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approving Alternative Action No. 1.
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
5
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution No. 2010-41
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-39
ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THIRD STREET PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT TO
2010 STREET RECONSTRUCTION, CITY PROJECT NO. 10C001
WHEREAS, a resolution was adopted by the City Council on May 24, 2010, calling for a Public
Hearing on June 14, 2010 on said proposed amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction
project; and
WHEREAS, on June 14th the City Council continued the Public Hearing on said proposed
amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project to June 28th; and
WHEREAS, after due Notice of Public Hearing was provided on the construction of said
proposed amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing there was available a reasonable estimate of the amount to be
assessed and a description of the methodology was presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota as follows:
1. Said improvements are necessary, cost-effective, and feasible.
2. It is advisable, expedient and necessary that said improvements as described in the Notice
of Hearing thereon be constructed, and the same are hereby ordered made.
3. The improvements described in said Notice of Hearing are hereby designated and shall be
known as the 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No. 10C001.
4. The City Engineer along with consulting engineers, WSB & Associates, Inc. is hereby
directed to prepare final plans and specifications for said improvements.
5. The City Council shall let the contract for all or part of the work for said improvements
or order all or part of the work done by day labor or otherwise as authorized by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.041, Subdivision 2 within one year of the date of this
resolution ordering said improvements.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 28th day of June, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
___________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-40
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THIRD STREET PARKING LOT
RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT TO 2010 STREET RECONSTRUCTION,
CITY PROJECT NO. 10C001
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions approved by the City Council on February 22, 2010 and
June 28, 2010, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the 2010 Street
Reconstruction project described as follows:
Third Street Parking Lot amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project including
Area 4A (West River Street between Chestnut Street and Pine Street/State Highway 25
and adjoining streets between West Broadway and West River Street or Front Street) and
Prairie Road between Nicholas Circle and Wright County Highway 75.
Improvements include the removal and replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter
and bituminous pavement, construction of concrete pavement within two median islands,
parking stall striping, and other appurtenant work.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for
approval;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Star
Tribune and/or Finance & Commerce publication an advertisement for bid upon the
making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published no less than three weeks before the last day for
submission of bids, once in the City’s legal publication and at least once in either a
newspaper published in a city of the first class or a trade paper. To be eligible as a trade
paper, a publication shall have all the qualifications of a legal newspaper except that,
instead of the requirement that it shall contain general and local news, such trade paper
shall contain building and construction news of interest to contractors in this state, among
whom it shall have a general circulation.
The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that bids will be
opened at 10 a.m. on May 20, 2010 and that the award of the bid and the responsibility of
the bidders will be considered by the City Council at 7 p.m. on May 24, 2010 in the
Council Chambers of City Hall. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during
consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue
of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond or certified check payable to
the City for 5% of the amount of such bid.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 28th day of June, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-41
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THIRD STREET
PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT TO
2010 STREET RECONSTRUCTION
CITY PROJECT NO. 10C001
WHEREAS, pursuant to accepting bids and awarding a contract on May 24th, 2010 to Redstone
Construction Company of Mora, MN for the making of improvements to streets in Area 4A and
Prairie Road as part of the 2010 Street Reconstruction project; and
WHEREAS, Redstone Construction Company of Mora, MN provided an alternate bid to the City
on May 20th, 2010 in the amount of $64,340.40 for the making of improvements to the Third
Street Parking Lot on block 35; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a resolution on June 28th, 2010 ordering improvements to
the Third Street Parking Lot as an amendment to the 2010 Street Reconstruction project;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO:
1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a
contract with said bidder for the construction of said improvements for and on behalf of
the City of Monticello.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 28th day of June, 2010.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of recommending that the Monticello Economic
Development Authority adopt a Spending Plan for TIF District No. 1–22 (MB/TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As the City Council may recall, Semper Development has made formal application to the
City for redevelopment of a portion of Block 53 in the northeast corner of State Trunk
Highway 25 and Wright County State Aid Highway 75. On April 12, 2010, the City
Council authorized a feasibility study to address the transportation issues related to the
site in order to identify the improvements needed to access and develop their site. Along
with the transportation items related to the proposed development, preliminary
engineering analysis of the ultimate configuration of the entire TH 25 and CSAH 75
intersection was also evaluated. The City Council adopted the feasibility study on May
24, 2010.
The feasibility study outlined a cost sharing breakdown between the Developer and the
City of Monticello for proposed infrastructure and utility improvements within the NE
Quadrant of TH 25 and CSAH 75. Based on the Engineers’ estimated numbers (subject
to change based on actual bid numbers received), it appears the City’s cost share portion
equates to $378,680.00. In an attempt to determine a funding source for these
improvements, the Finance Director has researched different methods for paying for this
expense.
One viable option is through surplus TIF funds within District No. 1-22. This TIF District
has approximately a $1 million surplus fund balance. District No. 1-22 was established
in 1997 under stricter State law regulations. This means the ability to utilize the existing
surplus TIF balance would be quite complicated and extremely limited. However, during
the last legislative session, a bill was passed that amended limitations regarding TIF
eligible expenses. The new law was passed in an attempt to spur private development in
Minnesota. This new law will enable the City to spend funds within TIF 1-22 for
infrastructure improvements if the improvements are tied to a specific private
development project. The only requirement on the developer’s part is to commence
construction by July 1, 2011 and create a new job in the State of MN.
In order to utilize surplus TIF funds in District No. 1-22, State law requires the City
Council to hold a public hearing and recommend that the EDA adopt a TIF Spending
Plan. The EDA will then be required to adopt a final Spending Plan and Development
Agreement.
The EDA reviewed a preliminary TIF Spending Plan at their June 9, 2010 meeting. The
EDA unanimously approved the preliminary Spending Plan. Generally speaking, the
EDA supported the use of these funds for infrastructure improvements due to the fact the
subject project area is located in TIF District No. 1-22, which was created for
redevelopment purposes. The proposed project is a redevelopment project that will
enhance the aesthetics and traffic movements within downtown and regionally. Along
with these important factors, it is important to note that funds within TIF District No. 1-
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
2
22 are difficult to spend and will most likely result in the City decertifying the district and
refunding surplus TIF (per State Law requirements) to Wright County. In this situation,
the City will only receive approximately 40% of the fund balance back from the County.
A1. Budget Impact: The feasibility study identified $378,680 of estimated project
costs that benefit the region and not just the project and therefore identified them
as City project costs. These costs could be reduced if the project is bid at a lower
cost than anticipated in the feasibility study or if the County or State contributes
to the project. The City has limited funding options available for this project and
the one that makes the most sense is to use surplus funds from TIF District 1-22
under the new TIF laws. This will reduce the amount of surplus funds in District
1-22, which are limited and would be required to be refunded back to the County
and redistributed to all taxing districts upon decertification of the district. The
City would receive approximately 40% of any surplus funds returned to the
County for redistribution.
The only other funding source would be the City’s Street Reconstruction Fund,
which funds the City’s street reconstruction projects through a property tax levy.
By using these funds it would require the City to increase the levy to continue
with future reconstruction projects.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff impact would be minimal. It would take staff time
to prepare the development agreement and the needed EDA agenda items so that
the EDA can consider the final spending plan and development agreement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend that the EDA adopt a TIF Spending Plan for District No. 1-22.
2. Motion to recommend the EDA not adopt the proposed TIF Spending Plan for
District No. 1-22.
3. Motion to approve an alternative funding source for the improvements at the
intersection of the NE quadrant of TH 25 and CSAH 75.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff recommends Alternative #1. Staff’s recommendation is based on the fact that
the City Council approved the feasibility study, which in concept outlines a $378,000
infrastructure improvement cost to be borne by the City. The Monticello EDA did
approve the preliminary TIF Spending Plan for District No. 1-22 on June 9, 2010.
Staff would also like to note that the development of the NE quadrant poses a unique
opportunity for the City to make improvements addressing the long-time congestion and
mobility issues with the intersection of TH 25 and CSAH 75. This congestion presents
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
3
not only a transportation issue, but is a major factor in the ability to encourage and
facilitate active development and redevelopment in the downtown area.
The proposed improvements would set the groundwork for future development of the
remaining quadrants of the intersection as it relates to transportation infrastructure and
would aid in the current study for redevelopment of the downtown area. From a funding
perspective, with a developer on board and a plan in place, the costs of the improvements
can be shared through a mutually agreed upon developer’s agreement.
Lastly, TIF District 1-22 has available funds for this project and additional
redevelopment projects that may otherwise be required to be refunded to the County. This
is a unique opportunity initiated by the State to encourage TIF funds to be utilized for
private development.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Spending Plan for TIF District No. 1-22
Draft minutes from the June 9, 2010 EDA meeting
369441v1 MNI MN190-135
SPENDING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-22
ADOPTED BY EDA ____________, 2010
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION __________, 2010
369441v1 MNI MN190-135
SPENDING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-22
I. PURPOSE
The City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) proposes to
adopt a Spending Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 (the “TIF District”) in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m.
The purpose of the Spending Plan is to develop or redevelop sites, lands or areas within
the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the “City”) in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan by using available tax increments from the TIF District to provide improvements, loans,
interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the
construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, and related
infrastructure improvements, which will create or retain jobs in this state.
II. PLAN
The Authority is authorized as follows:
(a) To use available tax increments from the TIF District to provide
improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development
consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities,
and related infrastructure improvements provided that such construction or substantial
rehabilitation will create or retain jobs in the state. The construction or substantial rehabilitation
of such facilities and infrastructure must commence before July 1, 2011 (unless otherwise
authorized by law) and would not have commenced by such date without the assistance provided
pursuant to this Spending Plan.
(b) To amend the budget set forth in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
TIF District as necessary to provide for the assistance authorized by this Spending Plan.
(c) To take any other action necessary and authorized under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m in connection with the construction or substantial
rehabilitation of facilities of the type described in Clause (a) above.
The assistance provided pursuant to this Plan shall be subject to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, if applicable, and shall be subject to the requirement that the
recipient create or retain at least 3 full time equivalent jobs (including construction jobs) for
$400,000 of assistance provided.
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
1
9. Public Hearing – Consideration of approving vacation of right-of-way associated
with Nicolle Addition final plat requested by petition of property owners.
(BW/WSB)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On May 24th, the City Council accepted the Feasibility Report for the transportation and
access improvements to the northeast quadrant of State Trunk Highway 25 and Wright
County State-Aid Highway 75. This project was initiated by Semper Development, who
has made formal application to the City for redevelopment of a portion of block 53 in the
NE quadrant of TH 25 and CSAH 75. Council also authorized preparation of plans and
specifications for the improvements, which are nearing completion.
In working with the developer to identify right-of-way constraints for their development
site, it was noted that their site plan needed to shift 4-feet to the north to accommodate
the proposed dual-right turn lanes from westbound CSAH 75 to northbound TH 25 as
outlined in the Feasibility Report. To make this shift work, the developer will need to
acquire 800 square feet (4-feet by 200-feet) of East River Street right-of-way along the
north property line of the subject property. See supporting data.
City staff reviewed the potential impacts associated with vacating this right-of-way and
noted no issues. The existing public utilities under East River Street are located far
enough away that vacating the 4-feet of right-of-way will not impact the City’s ability to
operate or maintain them. The only condition that should be tied to vacating this right-of-
way is that a sidewalk easement will be required over any public sidewalk constructed
outside City right-of-way with their development.
A1. Budget Impact: If Council chooses to vacate the right-of-way, the land obviously
has monetary value. As part of their development, Semper is donating 13,954
square feet of right-of-way to Mn/DOT and Wright County along TH 25 and
CSAH 75, respectively. City staff estimated the value of this property at $15 per
square foot, which totals $209,310. If the same $15 per square foot value were
applied to the East River Street right-of-way, the value of the vacated property
would be $12,000. Should Council desire compensation for the vacated right-of-
way, a reasonable value would therefore be between $0 and $12,000.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: No staff impacts are anticipated.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Vacation of right-of-way
1. Motion to vacate 800 square feet of public right-of-way along the south side of East
River Street as shown in the attached exhibit, contingent on the developer providing
the City with a sidewalk easement over any public sidewalk constructed outside City
right-of-way with their development.
City Council Agenda: 6/28/10
2
2. Motion to deny vacating the right-of-way at this time.
Decision 2: Compensation for right-of-way vacation
1. Motion requesting compensation for the vacated right-of-way in the amount of
$_____________.
2. Motion requesting no compensation for the vacated right-of-way.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends vacating the 4-foot strip of right-of-way along the subject site on the
south side of East River Street as shown in the attached exhibit to allow for development
of the site and construction of the dual-right turn lanes along CSAH 75. Staff also
recommends that the motion be contingent on the developer providing the City with a
sidewalk easement over any portions of sidewalk constructed outside City right-of-way
along the south side of East River Street.
This development poses a unique opportunity for the City to make improvements
addressing the congestion and mobility issues that exist at the intersection of TH 25 and
CSAH 75. This congestion presents not only a transportation issue, but is a major factor
in the ability to encourage and facilitate active development, redevelopment and
revitalization in the downtown area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
East River Street R/W Vacation layout
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
10. Consideration of approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit for Cross Parking, Cross Access and Drive-Through Facility, and
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the proposed Nicolle Addition, a commercial
development in the CCD (Central Community District); Applicant: Semper
Development. (NAC/AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION
The Planning Commission reviewed these requests during a public hearing held on
June 8th, 2010.
During the public hearing, the majority of comment was related to the proposed
transportation improvements supporting the development. These comments
included those from residents along River Street, who indicated some concern
regarding the proposed cul-de-sac at River and Cedar. The City Council has since
heard and addressed these comments in a subsequent hearing on the NE Quadrant
project improvements.
A concern was also noted by Myrna Anderson, a property owner on the block,
regarding on-street parking on Cedar Street. She sought assurance that this
proposal would not remove that parking. Staff confirmed that this proposed project
does not include any loss of parking on Cedar.
Public comment was also taken on the amount of parking provided on site. Planner
Grittman confirmed that the amount of parking shown, while less than that
required by the straight zoning requirements for retail, does meet code. This is
because the CCD has a special provision allowing for a reduction if parking is
allowed for public use (this provision will be specified by development agreement)
and due to proximity of other public and on-street parking facilities. Conceptual
plans also illustrate the opportunity for additional on-street parking on River Street.
In their review of the project, the Planning Commission expressed general support
for the land-use applications. The Commission confirmed that the building height
was permitted in the CCD and that the landscaping improvements as shown were
sufficient to meet the code and fitting given this project’s prominence at the corner
of CSAH 75/TH 25. Planner Grittman noted that the overall site landscaping
treatments were consistent with the streetscape plan and met code requirements.
However, he did explain that the conditions of approval did recommend for
enhancement of sign base landscaping.
The Commission did request that greater color variation be provided in the final
building elevation plans. Although the building elevations do exhibit a number of
height articulations, the Commission felt that additional color variation would
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
2
provide better visual definition to the building. The developer was present and
agreed that such an improvement would be acceptable.
The developer indicated that the balance of conditions listed were acceptable.
Council will note that most of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z are minor and will
be addressed in the final record plan sets. The most notable plan adjustments relate
to the right of way. Right of way adjustments include the shifting of the entire site
toward the north, which will accommodate the right of way needs for the dual right
turn lanes on CSAH and adequate visibility for the development’s free-standing
sign. The plan/plat documents will also be adjusted for final right of way
configurations on CSAH 75 and TH 25.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of all requests in a 4-1 vote.
Commissioner Spartz voted in dissent, citing his opinion that the current downtown
planning effort be complete prior to approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment and corresponding land use approvals.
BACKGROUND
Semper Development has submitted plans calling for the construction of a 14,820 square
foot Walgreens drug store upon a 1.5 acre site located north of Broadway Street and east
of Pine Street (Highway 25). In addition to the drug store building, a two story, 5166
square foot commercial building has also been proposed at River Street. The subject site
is zoned CCD, Central Community District, the intent of which is to implement the
various plans and provisions of the City‟s Downtown Plan.
To accommodate the proposal, the following specific approvals are necessary:
1. Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment
2. Preliminary/Final Plat (Nicolle Addition)
3. Conditional Use Permit (to allow an accessory drive-through lane and cross
parking/access)
ISSUES
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
In 1997, the City adopted a Plan for the Monticello Downtown entitled “A New
Bridge: Revitalizing Monticello‟s Downtown and Riverfront.” Generally
speaking, the Downtown Plan directs development which builds upon the
traditional character of the Downtown and reinforces Monticello‟s small town
qualities. In this regard, the Plan includes several policy statements applicable to
the proposed placement of the drug store upon the subject property.
According to the Downtown Plan, buildings should be placed along Broadway
Street to create a strong “edge” to the street. The Plan further states that street
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
3
corners should be occupied by a significant use and parking lots at street
intersections should be prohibited.
The Plan specifically directs a “build to” line of zero feet (or a zero lot line
setback) along Broadway Street and a 100 percent “build out” along the street
except if pedestrian passages and plaza spaces are developed.
While structures are proposed to abut Pine and River Streets, the drug store‟s
parking lot is proposed to border Broadway Street. Thus, the proposal is not
consistent with the current policies of the City‟s Downtown Plan.
To address this inconsistency, an amendment to the Downtown Plan is necessary.
In this regard, the following draft language should be considered:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, parking lots may be
constructed only when all of the following conditions exist:
Applicable traffic safety and access requirements limit the ability
to comply with building location standards of this Plan.
At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway or Pine Street
frontage is occupied by a building (non-parking area).
An alternative vertical element is located at the street corner
which, as determined by City Officials, establishes an
architecturally compatible corner presence. Such elements may
include, but not be limited to public art, interpretive signage,
architectural business signs and architecturally appropriate
lighting.
While making an allowance for the proposed Broadway Street parking lot, it is
believed the preceding language maintains a present intent of the Downtown Plan
by continuing to promote visually dominant street corners.
Preliminary/Final Plat
Process. As part of the development of the subject property, the formal platting
of the land has been proposed. In this case, the applicant has requested
simultaneous preliminary/final plat approval. The platting is essentially a replat
of existing lots to accommodate the new building configurations.
Streets. As part of the subdivision, right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along both
Pine and Broadway Streets. The acceptability of right-of-way dedications as should be
subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Two recommendations
of the City Engineer are particularly relevant to this application.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
4
First, to accommodate the right turn lanes from west-bound Broadway to north-bound TH
25 (Pine), an additional triangular area of right of way dedication is necessary at the
southwest corner of Block 53. Engineering staff has produced a drawing that illustrates
this additional right of way.
The second recommendation flows from the first. By taking the triangular area of right
of way at the corner of Broadway and Hwy 25, the applicant‟s sign and parking area will
no longer fit on the property as originally anticipated. As a result, the Engineers are
recommending that the site development shift four feet to the north. This will require a
vacation of a four foot sliver of the River Street right of way along the width of the
property. This vacation is described in a separate item on this agenda and requires a
separate public hearing. Engineering staff indicates that grades and adequate right of way
will still remain to accommodate sidewalk and street reconstruction of River Street as a
part of this project.
MN/DoT has also reviewed the plats as submitted and has provided comments. A
secondary review by MN/DoT will be required once the final plat is resubmitted based on
the approved right of way configuration.
Lots. The proposed subdivision (Nicolle Addition) consists of three lots, the use
and area of which are summarized below:
Lot # Use Lot Area
1 Walgreen‟s Drug
Store (proposed)
46,445 square feet
2 Commercial
Building
(proposed)
8,871 square feet
3 Existing
Commercial
Building
15,297 square feet
The applicable CCD, Central Community District, does not impose a minimum lot area
or lot width requirement. Thus, all proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional
requirements of the Ordinance.
While a minor issue, it should be noted that the areas of lots 1 and 2 are incorrectly listed
on the area summary included on the preliminary plat drawing. This should be corrected
as a condition of preliminary/final plat approval.
Easements. Appropriately, the preliminary and final plat drawings illustrate drainage
and utility easements. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment
and recommendation by the City Engineer.
As shown on the submitted site plan, Lots 1 and 2 share both access and parking. In this
regard, cross parking and access easements should be established. This issue and the
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
5
easement documents to be prepared by the applicant should be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Attorney.
As a separate document, the applicants will be asked to dedicate easements for
pedestrian/sidewalk purposes along TH 25 and East River Street, as the public sidewalk
will be partially located on the applicant‟s private property. The location of the sidewalk
on TH 25 will accommodate green space between Pine Street and the sidewalk along
most of the Pine Street frontage.
Park Dedication. The City does not impose any park dedication requirements upon
commercial subdivisions.
Conditional Use Permits
Drive-Through Lane. As shown on the submitted site plan, a drive-through lane has
been proposed on the east side of the drug store building. In CCD zoning districts,
accessory drive-through facilities are allowed via conditional use permit and are subject
to the following requirements:
1. Service through drive-through facilities is accessory to interior on-site or
sit-down service within the same building.
2. Drive-through lanes are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic flow both on and off-site.
3. Landscaping and other site improvements are included which screen
automobile stacking space from the public street.
4. The principal building occupies no less than forty 40 percent of the
property exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other
outdoor public spaces.
5. The building site and signage meet the standards for the CCD district
and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission.
6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
City‟s Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Revitalization Plan.
As proposed, the drive-through lane measures 12 feet in width with approximately 60 feet
of stacking space behind the “pick up” window, (providing stacking space for three cars).
The proposed drive through lane is considered “low volume” (in comparison to “high
volume” coffee shop and fast food drive-through lanes). The amount of stacking space
provided has also proven itself to be sufficient in other Walgreens drug stores. In this
regard, the proposed drive-through lane satisfies applicable evaluation criteria of the
Ordinance and is considered acceptable.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
6
Access. Access to the site is provided from the north via River Street and the south via
Broadway Street.
It is understood that the Broadway Street access to the site is to be right-in only. With
this in mind, it is recommended that the configuration of the access drive be modified
such that its design is not conducive to right-out turning maneuvers.
Internally, future access to the adjoining property to the east has been provided for on the
site plan. A part of the cross-access and cross-parking Conditional Use Permit will be to
accommodate joint access with future redevelopment on the adjoining property. Staff is
suggesting that this element be included in the conditions of the approval on this site.
Joint access and parking is an essential element of the reduced overall parking supply
allowed in the CCD zoning district.
Curb cut locations and widths should be subject to comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer.
Off-Street Parking. As shown on the submitted site plan, off-street parking is proposed
on the south and west sides of the site. While, the configuration of the off-street parking
area is considered straight-forward and well conceived from a functional standpoint, as
noted above, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary to accommodate parking at
the corner of Broadway and Pine Streets (currently discouraged by the Plan).
For retail commercial uses, the Zoning Ordinance requires one off-street parking space
per 200 square foot of floor area, with an allowance of 10% reduction for common or
non-productive areas. Under this scenario, a total of 67 spaces would be required for the
drug store and 23 stalls would be required for the two-story commercial building (totaling
90 spaces), which results in a final requirement of 81 spaces after the 10% allowance.
However, the Zoning Ordinance also allows a 40 percent reduction in off-street parking
supply requirements provided that cross parking/access easements are provided. In such
a scenario, the applicant could provide as few as 49 off-street spaces to comply with the
minimum.
The submitted site plan illustrates 66 off-street parking stalls, 56 stalls for the Walgreens
store and 10 stalls for the two story commercial building. Assuming cross parking/access
easements will be provided, applicable off-street parking supply requirements have been
satisfied. As a condition of CUP approval however, cross parking/access easements
should be provided.
According to the Ordinance, off-street parking stalls must not be less than nine feet in
width and 20 feet in depth, with drive aisles 24 feet in width. The applicants have
designed the project with 25 foot wide aisles and 18 foot deep stalls throughout. Staff is
recommending reconfiguration of the parking lot design to accommodate the full-sized
parking stalls wherever practical.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
7
Stalls depths of 18 feet have been allowed (as a City policy) for interior parking stalls
which allow for bumper overhangs, such as those adjacent to sidewalk areas where there
will be no interference with landscaping or snow storage. The applicant has stated that
they will seek to increase parking lot stall dimensions, including through slight narrowing
of landscaped islands.
Building Design. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the drug store and
two-story commercial building to the north are to be finished in face brick (“beige” and
„light iron” in color). Standing seam metal awnings (“dark bronze” in color) have been
proposed above window and door openings. While the proposed building colors are
considered generally acceptable, it is recommended that color samples and/or a color
rendering of the building (s) be provided for City review.
The drug store is a single story measuring just over 28 feet in height. The commercial
building to the north is to be two stories and measures 29 feet in height.
Architecture of the two buildings draws cues from historic, architecturally significant
commercial buildings in the Downtown area applying similar building materials, colors
and details. In this regard, the new buildings appear to “belong” in Downtown
Monticello.
The subject site has significant visibility along Pine Street. Thus, particular care was
taken in the design of building elevations which face the street. As shown on the
submitted elevations, the west building facades include building entrances, windows,
faux windows and awnings, all of which contribute to a positive pedestrian experience.
The proposed building architecture is consistent with the directives of the City‟s
Downtown Plan.
As an informational note, City staff has been notified of potential concern for the
structural integrity of the building on the adjoining parcel to the east. The applicant
should take measures to ensure safe removal of the structures on the subject parcel as part
of any demolition permit.
Building Height. Unlike many zoning districts, the applicable CCD, Central Community
District establishes a minimum building height requirement. Specifically, a minimum
height requirement of 15 feet is imposed. At 28 and 29 feet in height respectively, both
the drug store and two-story commercial building exceed the minimum height
requirement of the district.
Landscaping. For commercial sites, a minimum of one overstory tree per 1,000 square
feet of gross building floor area, or one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever
is greater, is required. The perimeter of the development site (excluding Lot 3) measures
approximately 1,020 lineal feet. As a result, 20 overstory trees are required as opposed to
the 17 trees which would be required under the floor area calculation.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
8
As shown on the submitted landscape plan, a total of 18 overstory trees have been
proposed on the site. Proposed plantings include five White Pines, seven Honey Locust
and six Autumn Blaze Maples. The number of trees provided is two short of the
minimum requirement. The Honey Locust plantings include a number along the
Broadway frontage, or as part of the parking lot landscaping, complementing the City‟s
Broadway streetscape.
A variety of shrubs and perennials are also planned for the site, including Alpine Current
shrubs, various perennials and flowers.
As noted, the number of proposed overstory trees is two short of the minimum supply
requirement. The Ordinance does however, allow for an equivalent of up to 50% of the
required number of overstory trees to be created through the use of overstory trees in
combination with other landscape design elements such as ornamental trees, shrubs,
flowers, and berming. In no case however, may the number of overstory trees be less
than 50% of the above formula. The burden shall be upon the developer to demonstrate
by narrative and by graphics how the equivalent effect is provided. The equivalent effect
is subject to the approval of the City Council.
After reviewing the number of proposed perennials (89) and shrubs (18), Staff
recommends accepting them as a substitute for the required number of trees. It must be
recognized that the subject site holds significant limitations in regard to landscaping.
Zero lot line setbacks as well as land devoted to access drives and sight visibility
triangles leaves very little area on the site which may be devoted to plantings. The ratio
of plantings per available land area for landscaping is considered consistent with the
intent of the Ordinance.
One area where additional landscaping may be beneficial is the future development site
of the two-story building on the north half of the property. As discussed below, the
landscaping on this parcel will be an important component of the view of the north wall
of the Walgreens building, as well as the screening of the trash and loading area from the
north.
The City will be examining opportunities to supplement the private landscaping with
elements that enhance the City‟s streetscape in the area. One such element will be the
placement of the City‟s bridge-rail segments that are in various locations throughout the
core downtown area. The use of these elements may be most appropriate at the corner of
River Street and TH 25, as well as to supplement the corner emphasis at Broadway and
TH 25.
Signage
Pylon Sign. As shown on the submitted site plan, a drug store pylon sign has been
proposed at the corner of Pine and Broadway Streets. The sign measures 22 feet in
height and 87 square feet in area (per face). According to the Ordinance, pylon signs
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
9
may not exceed 22 feet in height and 100 square feet per face. Additionally, a 15 foot
setback from public rights-of-way is also required.
While the sign meets all dimensional requirements of the Ordinance, it is believed an
opportunity exists to build upon the intentions of the City‟s Downtown Plan which
encourages strong edge treatments, particularly at block corners. While the proposal
succeeds at the corner of Pine Street and River Street, a strong visual “anchor” at the
Broadway Street/Pine Street corner is somewhat lacking. To address this issue,
consideration should be given to enhancing the freestanding sign. In this regard, the sign
could incorporate some of the materials used in the principal building(s). More
specifically, a visually dominant sign base could be constructed using the same masonry
course used on the principal building(s).
No pylon sign has been identified upon the northerly parcel (Lot 2) at this time. A
specific sign proposal is not expected until such time as a future building occupant has
been determined.
Wall Signs. As shown on the submitted building elevations, wall signage has been
proposed on the south and west sides of the drug store building. Specifically, the
following signs have been proposed:
South Elevation (Broadway) West Elevation (Pine Street)
Walgreen‟s Script (149.8 s.f.) Walgreen‟s Script (149.0 s.f.)
Photo (11.6 s.f.) Photo (11.6 s.f.)
Pharmacy (19.2 s.f.) Pharmacy (19.2 s.f.)
Note: 6 s.f. “exit box” signs are also proposed on north and south
elevations
Including the proposed freestanding sign, a total of 480 square feet of signage has been
proposed upon the drug store parcel, significantly less than the 904 square feet allowed
by the Ordinance.
No wall signs have been proposed upon the two-story commercial building at this time.
As in the case of the pylon sign, a specific sign proposal is not expected until such time
as a future building occupant has been determined.
Trash. A trash enclosure is proposed between the two commercial buildings, along Pine
Street. According to the site plan, the enclosure is to be accessed from the east. While
the site plan notes that the western side of the enclosure is to be finished in masonry, no
details are provided. In this regard, it is suggested that similar colors and details be
utilized on the enclosure as on the two abutting commercial buildings. As a condition of
CUP approval, trash enclosure details should be submitted and approved by the City.
Considering that there is no timetable for the construction of the north commercial
building, question exists in regard to how the trash handling area will be screened on the
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
10
north prior to construction of the two-story building (which will ultimately be used to
screen the area). This issue should be addressed by the applicant by the submittal of a
landscaping plan for the area.
One option would be a fence, combined with a landscaped screening plan. The screening
should be tall enough to create an effective screen until the future building is constructed.
Lighting. As required, a photometric lighting plan has been submitted for review.
According to the Ordinance, any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area,
sign, or other structure must be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining
residential zone or public streets. The Ordinance further states that the source of lights
must be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to cast light on adjacent property.
In regard to the degree of illumination, the Ordinance states that any light or combination
of lights which cast light on a public street may not exceed one (1) foot candle (meter
reading) as measured from the center line of said street. As shown on the lighting plan,
this requirement has been satisfied.
Commercial Building. According to the applicant, the two-story commercial building is
to be constructed as part the second phase of the development (when a tenant has been
determined). Because no timetable has been established in regard to building
construction, interim improvements to the future building site and site maintenance
should be addressed by the applicant (to the satisfaction of the City). As noted above,
landscaping of this site should be required, including some measures taken to enhance the
view of the north wall of the Walgreens building in the interim.
Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. City Engineering staff, the City‟s Consulting
Engineer, and Public Works staff have made comments relating to specific aspects of the
project. Those comments are attached to this report as an Exhibit, and are incorporated
into the recommendations made herein.
Development Agreement. It should be highlighted that the development approvals
requested here are conditioned on the execution of final development and redevelopment
agreements.
Typically, the City approves a final plat concurrent with the development agreement.
However, the developer and the ultimate property owner, Walgreen‟s, have indicated that
a decision on the land use requests is a critical first step prior to drafting and execution of
the development agreement. As such, the final plat is submitted now for Council review.
If approved with the other land use requests, staff will begin drafting of the development
agreements.
Approval by the City Council and complete execution of the agreement will be required
prior to award of contract for the NE Quadrant improvements and final execution of the
final plat.
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
11
The development agreement will require compliance with the plans as approved by the
City Council, will specify applicable development fees and charges, and will identify the
special assessment program for the developer‟s share of the NE Quadrant infrastructure
improvements.
It should also be noted that a redevelopment contract will also be required to be executed
with the developer/property owners prior to the award of contract. The redevelopment
contract supports the use of excess TIF (from 1-22) for the City‟s share of the
infrastructure improvements on the basis of job creation on the site. More information on
that item is included with a separate item in this packet.
A1. Budget Impact: As reviewed in previous Council items, the proposed
development is supported by a number of infrastructure improvements. The City
Council has ordered the improvements, but will not formally begin the project
until award of contract. Based on the approved feasibility report, award of
contract is on schedule for August of 2010.
At that time, the developer will be required to execute a development agreement
assigning payment for their portion of the costs.
Additionally, it is required that at the time of final plat approval, all review costs
associated with the land-use applications be paid. As such, that condition has been
assigned in Exhibit Z.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff time on the review of this project is being coded
to the project and is payable with review costs as noted above.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends alternative 1 under both decisions below.
Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
1. Motion to approve the Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment as
proposed in the staff report of June 28th, 2010, based on a finding that the
proposal is consistent with the City‟s Comprehensive Plan policies.
2. Motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment based on
a finding that the proposal is not consistent with the City‟s Comprehensive Plan
policies.
Decision 2: Preliminary and Final Plat, Conditional Use Permits
1. Motion to approve a Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permits based on
a finding that, with conditions, the proposal is consistent with the City‟s
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
12
Comprehensive Plan policies and applicable Ordinance requirements, subject to
the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan (Downtown Plan) Amendment,
Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the
proposal is not consistent with the City‟s Comprehensive Plan policies and
applicable Ordinance requirements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Generally speaking, the submitted development plan is considered well conceived and
responds well to a variety of site design parameters.
A decision regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan for Downtown Plan Amendment
(to allow parking at the corner of Broadway and Pine Streets) is considered a policy
matter to be determined by City officials. It is however, believed that via the
incorporation of the proposed Plan amendment language, a primary intent of the Plan (to
achieve a visual presence at the corners) can still be achieved.
Based on the preceding review, Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan
(Downtown Plan) Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit
subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Preliminary Plat
B. Final Plat
C. Site Plan dated 4/22/10
D. Grading & Drainage Plan dated 4/21/10
E. Utility Plan dated 4/22/10
F. Landscape Plan dated 4/22/10
G. Floor Plan dated 8/29/06
H. Building Elevations dated 4/30/10
I. Sign Plan dated 4/30/10
J. Lighting Plan dated 4/30/10
K. Consulting Engineer Comment Letter dated 5/26/10
L. City Engineer/Public Works Comment Letter dated 5/27/10
M. MN Department of Transportation Comment Letter dated 6/17/10
N. Proposed Improvement Diagram
Z. Conditions of Approval
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
May 26, 2010
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Walgreens Store – Plan Review
City of Monticello Planning No. 2010-005
WSB Project No. 1494-36
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat and project plans dated April 12, 2010, for the above-
referenced project and offer the following comments:
Sheet C1.1 – Site Plan
1. A right-in (not a right-in/right-out as shown) access from CSAH 75 should be
provided to prevent conflicts with the right turn into the development and to TH 25.
2. The drawings should be updated showing the right-of-way needed for the sight
distance triangle at the corner of CSAH 75 and TH 25. In addition, it is our
understanding that the site will shift 4 feet to the north to accommodate the proposed
sign. Please update the drawings.
3. Consider extending the sidewalk to the east along the south side of River Street
through Lot 1. It is recommended to extend the sidewalk along a portion or the entire
length of Lot 3 adjacent to River Street and Cedar Street also.
4. Construction of the development will need to be coordinated with the proposed
improvements along CSAH 75, TH 25, River Street and Cedar Street that is to be
administered by the City. This includes removals, sidewalk and driveway placement,
utility service extensions, paving, etc.
Sheet C1.3 – Preliminary Plat
1. Revise the drawings to show the revised proposed right of way along CSAH 75 and
TH 25.
2. Identify the existing right of way on River Street.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 2
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
3. Are any easements proposed to be vacated with the development of the site?
4. It is unclear where the limits are of the south easterly 6-foot drainage and utility
easement on the site.
5. A sidewalk easement will be needed along TH 25 where the sidewalk encroaches
outside of the right of way. This should be recorded at the same time as the final plat.
6. It is recommended to provide a sidewalk easement for the future extension of a
sidewalk within Lot 3 along River Street and Cedar Street.
7. The drainage and utility easement on the east side of the site does not encompass the
off site flow path to catch basin 2. The easement should be increased in with to allow
for the storm water to be conveyed to the catch basin.
8. The easement over the storm sewer pipe on Lot 6 from catch basin 2 to the north
should be increased in width. The offsite runoff to the structure indicates that this
system should be entirely encompassed with a drainage and utility easement.
9. The emergency overflow route across the site from off-site parcels should be
encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. The area of inundation to the
overflow elevation of 927.1 is not encompassed by a drainage and utility easement.
Sheet C2.1 – Grading and Drainage Plan
Summary
1. The water quantity rate control requirement policy in the City’s Comprehensive
Water Resource Management Plan for the site is being met with the proposed design.
The proposed discharge rates are less than the existing rates.
2. The water quality requirements for the site are not being met with the proposed
design. The City’s storm water plan does not include a regional basin downstream
therefore on-site water quality treatment is required. The current plan did not request
a waiver from the NURP requirement, and if a waiver is granted by the City the site
would be required to meet the NPDES requirements.
3. The storm sewer system design meets the City’s policy for the 10-year event
frequency capacity. The design does not use the rational formula to calculate the
runoff rate as outlined in the City design manual. It is requested that the developer’s
engineer use the rational method for any future storm sewer system design
calculations as outlined in the City design manual.
4. The preliminary plat for the site will require revision of the drainage and utility
easements.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 3
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
5. The grading plan provides 0.9’ of freeboard from the building low floor elevation of
928.0 to the emergency overflow to the north at elevation 927.1. It is recommended
that the freeboard to the low floor elevation be increased.
Specific comments related to the construction plans are noted below:
1. The drainage and utility easements over the pipe from catch basin 2 and the
emergency overflow route north from catch basin 2 should be increased in width to
encompass the pipe and area of inundation.
2. The ultimate overflow elevation from the site is at elevation 927.1 at the north
driveway. The proposed overflow elevation is 0.9’ below the low floor elevation of
the Walgreen’s. It is requested that the freeboard to the low floor elevation be a
minimum of 1’ with adequate capacity in the overflow section.
3. The future right turn lane, sidewalk, and modified entrance on Broadway Street East
(CSAH 75) should be shown on the plans.
4. Please provide soil borings and earthwork calculations for the site.
5. We have reviewed the boulevard grades along River Street with moving the site 4 feet
further to the north. The resulting boulevard grades vary with an approximate
maximum 4:1 slope. The City standard boulevard slope is 4%, however, to
accommodate the development, it is recommended to waive this standard as a 4:1
slope is still maintainable. We also evaluated raising the elevation of River Street to
lessen the boulevard slope, however there would not be a significant change with
these slopes.
Drainage Report
1. The drainage report should be signed and dated by a registered professional engineer.
2. The inlet report requires minor modification of the grate with from 2’ to 1.5’ for the
3246 castings on CB 1 and CB 2. It is not anticipated that this revision will result in a
depth at the inlet that will exceed 0.3’ as required in the design manual.
3. It is requested that in the future the developer’s engineer use the rational method to
design the storm sewer future as outlined in the City design manual. The design
manual contains the rational method design variable and guidance. The current design
using the SCS methodology is acceptable.
Sheet C3.1 – Utility Plan
1. The storm sewer across the site from catch basin 2 north to storm manhole 1 is not a
private system. The storm sewer receives runoff from the parcel to the east. The word
“private” should be removed from the storm sewer label.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 4
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
2. The existing 12” and 15” storm sewer system off-site on the north side of River Street
will need to be replaced to meet the capacity requirements for the site. It is anticipated
that this system will be upgraded as part of the proposed road improvements on River
Street East.
3. The watermain crossing of the storm sewer on the north end of the site could not be
verified for separation without the utility profiles. The estimated clearance is less that
1.5’ based on the grading plan elevations minus 7.5’ and the storm sewer profile. It is
recommended that the water main elevations be indicated at the crossing to meet City
requirements.
4. The applicant should evaluate the need to extend utility services to Lot 3 at this time
from River Street, since the street is proposed to be reconstructed in conjunction with
the development.
5. The City will extend water and sewer services to the proposed right of way with their
project.
6. Coordinate all watermain shut downs with the Public Works Department.
7. Verify fire hydrant locations with the City Fire Chief. No additional hydrants are
required on the site as long as existing hydrants are within 150-feet of building
FDC’s. In addition, it is assumed that the building will be sprinkled.
8. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior
to commencement of utility connections.
9. Provide an as-built plan once construction is complete.
Sheet C5.1 – Demolition Plan
1. It is assumed that the developer will complete all removals within their site up to the
existing right of way of Broadway Street East, Pine Street (TH 25), and River Street.
Removals within the existing road right of ways will be completed with the City
project. These items should be identified on the plans and will need to be coordinated
during final plan preparation.
2. The removal of the 12” pipe on the north end of site in River Street east will be
plugged and or abandoned with the City project.
Sheet A0.1 – Site Plan
1. Revise the signing and striping plan to accommodate a right-in access from CSAH
75.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 5
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
Please provide a written response addressing the comments above. Final construction plans will
need to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to building permit approval. In addition, the
final plat must be recorded prior to building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-287-
7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
Senior Project Manager
cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
Bob Paschke, City of Monticello
Steve Grittman, NAC
skb
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
May 26, 2010
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Walgreens Store – Plan Review
City of Monticello Planning No. 2010-005
WSB Project No. 1494-36
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat and project plans dated April 12, 2010, for the above-
referenced project and offer the following comments:
Sheet C1.1 – Site Plan
1. A right-in (not a right-in/right-out as shown) access from CSAH 75 should be
provided to prevent conflicts with the right turn into the development and to TH 25.
2. The drawings should be updated showing the right-of-way needed for the sight
distance triangle at the corner of CSAH 75 and TH 25. In addition, it is our
understanding that the site will shift 4 feet to the north to accommodate the proposed
sign. Please update the drawings.
3. Consider extending the sidewalk to the east along the south side of River Street
through Lot 1. It is recommended to extend the sidewalk along a portion or the entire
length of Lot 3 adjacent to River Street and Cedar Street also.
4. Construction of the development will need to be coordinated with the proposed
improvements along CSAH 75, TH 25, River Street and Cedar Street that is to be
administered by the City. This includes removals, sidewalk and driveway placement,
utility service extensions, paving, etc.
Sheet C1.3 – Preliminary Plat
1. Revise the drawings to show the revised proposed right of way along CSAH 75 and
TH 25.
2. Identify the existing right of way on River Street.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 2
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
3. Are any easements proposed to be vacated with the development of the site?
4. It is unclear where the limits are of the south easterly 6-foot drainage and utility
easement on the site.
5. A sidewalk easement will be needed along TH 25 where the sidewalk encroaches
outside of the right of way. This should be recorded at the same time as the final plat.
6. It is recommended to provide a sidewalk easement for the future extension of a
sidewalk within Lot 3 along River Street and Cedar Street.
7. The drainage and utility easement on the east side of the site does not encompass the
off site flow path to catch basin 2. The easement should be increased in with to allow
for the storm water to be conveyed to the catch basin.
8. The easement over the storm sewer pipe on Lot 6 from catch basin 2 to the north
should be increased in width. The offsite runoff to the structure indicates that this
system should be entirely encompassed with a drainage and utility easement.
9. The emergency overflow route across the site from off-site parcels should be
encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. The area of inundation to the
overflow elevation of 927.1 is not encompassed by a drainage and utility easement.
Sheet C2.1 – Grading and Drainage Plan
Summary
1. The water quantity rate control requirement policy in the City’s Comprehensive
Water Resource Management Plan for the site is being met with the proposed design.
The proposed discharge rates are less than the existing rates.
2. The water quality requirements for the site are not being met with the proposed
design. The City’s storm water plan does not include a regional basin downstream
therefore on-site water quality treatment is required. The current plan did not request
a waiver from the NURP requirement, and if a waiver is granted by the City the site
would be required to meet the NPDES requirements.
3. The storm sewer system design meets the City’s policy for the 10-year event
frequency capacity. The design does not use the rational formula to calculate the
runoff rate as outlined in the City design manual. It is requested that the developer’s
engineer use the rational method for any future storm sewer system design
calculations as outlined in the City design manual.
4. The preliminary plat for the site will require revision of the drainage and utility
easements.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 3
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
5. The grading plan provides 0.9’ of freeboard from the building low floor elevation of
928.0 to the emergency overflow to the north at elevation 927.1. It is recommended
that the freeboard to the low floor elevation be increased.
Specific comments related to the construction plans are noted below:
1. The drainage and utility easements over the pipe from catch basin 2 and the
emergency overflow route north from catch basin 2 should be increased in width to
encompass the pipe and area of inundation.
2. The ultimate overflow elevation from the site is at elevation 927.1 at the north
driveway. The proposed overflow elevation is 0.9’ below the low floor elevation of
the Walgreen’s. It is requested that the freeboard to the low floor elevation be a
minimum of 1’ with adequate capacity in the overflow section.
3. The future right turn lane, sidewalk, and modified entrance on Broadway Street East
(CSAH 75) should be shown on the plans.
4. Please provide soil borings and earthwork calculations for the site.
5. We have reviewed the boulevard grades along River Street with moving the site 4 feet
further to the north. The resulting boulevard grades vary with an approximate
maximum 4:1 slope. The City standard boulevard slope is 4%, however, to
accommodate the development, it is recommended to waive this standard as a 4:1
slope is still maintainable. We also evaluated raising the elevation of River Street to
lessen the boulevard slope, however there would not be a significant change with
these slopes.
Drainage Report
1. The drainage report should be signed and dated by a registered professional engineer.
2. The inlet report requires minor modification of the grate with from 2’ to 1.5’ for the
3246 castings on CB 1 and CB 2. It is not anticipated that this revision will result in a
depth at the inlet that will exceed 0.3’ as required in the design manual.
3. It is requested that in the future the developer’s engineer use the rational method to
design the storm sewer future as outlined in the City design manual. The design
manual contains the rational method design variable and guidance. The current design
using the SCS methodology is acceptable.
Sheet C3.1 – Utility Plan
1. The storm sewer across the site from catch basin 2 north to storm manhole 1 is not a
private system. The storm sewer receives runoff from the parcel to the east. The word
“private” should be removed from the storm sewer label.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 4
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
2. The existing 12” and 15” storm sewer system off-site on the north side of River Street
will need to be replaced to meet the capacity requirements for the site. It is anticipated
that this system will be upgraded as part of the proposed road improvements on River
Street East.
3. The watermain crossing of the storm sewer on the north end of the site could not be
verified for separation without the utility profiles. The estimated clearance is less that
1.5’ based on the grading plan elevations minus 7.5’ and the storm sewer profile. It is
recommended that the water main elevations be indicated at the crossing to meet City
requirements.
4. The applicant should evaluate the need to extend utility services to Lot 3 at this time
from River Street, since the street is proposed to be reconstructed in conjunction with
the development.
5. The City will extend water and sewer services to the proposed right of way with their
project.
6. Coordinate all watermain shut downs with the Public Works Department.
7. Verify fire hydrant locations with the City Fire Chief. No additional hydrants are
required on the site as long as existing hydrants are within 150-feet of building
FDC’s. In addition, it is assumed that the building will be sprinkled.
8. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior
to commencement of utility connections.
9. Provide an as-built plan once construction is complete.
Sheet C5.1 – Demolition Plan
1. It is assumed that the developer will complete all removals within their site up to the
existing right of way of Broadway Street East, Pine Street (TH 25), and River Street.
Removals within the existing road right of ways will be completed with the City
project. These items should be identified on the plans and will need to be coordinated
during final plan preparation.
2. The removal of the 12” pipe on the north end of site in River Street east will be
plugged and or abandoned with the City project.
Sheet A0.1 – Site Plan
1. Revise the signing and striping plan to accommodate a right-in access from CSAH
75.
Ms. Angela Schumann
May 26, 2010
Page 5
F:\AngelaS\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2010\2010.005.Walgreen's\PCCC\LTR-a schumann-052610.doc
Please provide a written response addressing the comments above. Final construction plans will
need to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to building permit approval. In addition, the
final plat must be recorded prior to building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-287-
7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
Senior Project Manager
cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello
Bob Paschke, City of Monticello
Steve Grittman, NAC
skb
WALGREENS SITE PLANS
Public Works/Engineering Comments
ENGINEERING
1. The City’s standard parking lot aisle width is 24’. The plans show 25’ aisle widths.
2. The City’s standard parking stall dimension is 9’ wide x 20’ long, which limits bumper overhang of
public sidewalks. It appears our standard stall dimensions can be met by reducing the dimensions
of islands and/or drive aisles. Parking stall lengths adjacent to private sidewalks can be reduced
to 18’ if the developer desires to do so.
3. A right-of-way excavation/obstruction permit must be obtained from the Public Works
Department at 909 Golf Course Road prior to commencing any work within City right-of-way.
4. The 35’ wide curb cut at East River Street does not meet City standards, but given its use as a
service vehicle access this width is acceptable.
WATER & SEWER DEPT
Pg. Concern
C1.1 Saw cut bituminous for capping 6 inch water tee for old water service for old Help Center.
C1.1 Saw cut sidewalk to disconnect water & sewer for old movie theater.
C1.1 Saw cut sidewalk to remove old sewer service for old Help Center – need to get into old
building to verify.
C2.1 Storm sewer; i.e. hooking up to which one?
C3.1 Wet taps on 6 inch water main for 6 inch services.
C3.1 Remove clean-out CO-1 less than 100 feet.
C3.1 Could lose one manhole for sanitary service.
C3.1 Storm; i.e. storm to east of property goes to catch basin (beehive) behind theater
removed and note replaced in plans.
STREET DEPT
1. Turn lanes
a. County Rd 75 (Broadway)
b. State Hwy 25 (E River St)
2. Sidewalks
a. location
b. widths
3. Snow removal & storage
4. Street light locations
5. Stoplight pole locations
6. Landscaping
PARKS DEPT
1. Placement of Antique Mississippi River Bridge railing
2. Green space / Planter
WALGREENS SITE PLANS
Public Works/Engineering Comments
ENGINEERING
1. The City’s standard parking lot aisle width is 24’. The plans show 25’ aisle widths.
2. The City’s standard parking stall dimension is 9’ wide x 20’ long, which limits bumper overhang of
public sidewalks. It appears our standard stall dimensions can be met by reducing the dimensions
of islands and/or drive aisles. Parking stall lengths adjacent to private sidewalks can be reduced
to 18’ if the developer desires to do so.
3. A right-of-way excavation/obstruction permit must be obtained from the Public Works
Department at 909 Golf Course Road prior to commencing any work within City right-of-way.
4. The 35’ wide curb cut at East River Street does not meet City standards, but given its use as a
service vehicle access this width is acceptable.
WATER & SEWER DEPT
Pg. Concern
C1.1 Saw cut bituminous for capping 6 inch water tee for old water service for old Help Center.
C1.1 Saw cut sidewalk to disconnect water & sewer for old movie theater.
C1.1 Saw cut sidewalk to remove old sewer service for old Help Center – need to get into old
building to verify.
C2.1 Storm sewer; i.e. hooking up to which one?
C3.1 Wet taps on 6 inch water main for 6 inch services.
C3.1 Remove clean-out CO-1 less than 100 feet.
C3.1 Could lose one manhole for sanitary service.
C3.1 Storm; i.e. storm to east of property goes to catch basin (beehive) behind theater
removed and note replaced in plans.
STREET DEPT
1. Turn lanes
a. County Rd 75 (Broadway)
b. State Hwy 25 (E River St)
2. Sidewalks
a. location
b. widths
3. Snow removal & storage
4. Street light locations
5. Stoplight pole locations
6. Landscaping
PARKS DEPT
1. Placement of Antique Mississippi River Bridge railing
2. Green space / Planter
1
EXHIBIT Z
1. The City’s Downtown Plan (“A New Bridge: Revitalizing Monticello’s Downtown and
Riverfront”) be amended to incorporate the following text:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, parking lots may be constructed
only when all of the following conditions exist:
Applicable traffic safety and access requirements limit the ability to
comply with building location standards of this Plan.
At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway or Pine Street frontage
is occupied by a building (non-parking area).
An alternative vertical element is located at the street corner which, as
determined by City Officials, establishes an architecturally compatible
corner presence. Such elements may include, but not be limited to
public art, interpretive signage, architectural business signs and
architecturally appropriate lighting.
2. Right-of-way dedications on the Preliminary/Final Plat are found to be acceptable by the City
Engineer.
3. Verify with qualified expertise that demolition will not negatively impact structures on
adjoining properties.
4. The area summary on the Preliminary Plat drawing be revised to correctly identify the area of
Lots 1 and 2 (consistent with the Final Plat drawing).
5. Drainage and utility easements on the Preliminary/Final Plat are found to be acceptable by
the City Engineer.
6. Cross parking and access easements for Lots 1 and 2 be established. Cross parking and
access should include an agreement for future agreements with the adjoining property to the
east. This issue shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Attorney.
7. Pedestrian easements are established for sidewalks along TH 25 for public sidewalks on
private property, consistent with the recommendations of the City Engineer.
8. The configuration of the Broadway Street access drive be modified such that its design is not
conducive to right-out turning maneuvers
9. Curb cut locations and widths are found to be acceptable by the City Engineer.
10. The parking lot design be reconfigured to accommodate the full-sized parking stalls wherever
practical.
11. Color samples and/or a color rendering of the building (s) be provided for City review.
2
12. City Officials find the proposed overstory tree quantities to be acceptable.
13. The freestanding sign be modified to incorporate some of the materials used in the principal
building and create a visually dominant sign base.
14. The applicant modify the building elevation plan to incorporate additional building color
variation. (Additional Planning Commission condition.)
15. The trash enclosure utilize colors and details similar to those utilized on the on the two
abutting commercial buildings. Trash enclosure details shall be submitted and approved by
the City.
16. The applicant address the screening of the trash area from the north prior to the construction
of the north commercial building (which will ultimately be used to screen the area).
17. Lighting be hooded and directed such that the source is not visible from adjacent rights-of-
way.
18. The applicant provide a plan for interim improvements upon Lot 2, Block 1, including but
not limited to, site improvements and maintenance.
19. Final grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer, Consulting Engineer, and Public Works Staff. Specific review comments of
those staff members are summarized in this report, and attached as an Exhibit.
20. The revised final plat shall be resubmitted to Wright County and MN/DoT for secondary
review and shall comply with County and State comments.
21. Provide final record drawings prior to execution of the development agreement.
22. The applicant provide payment for all review charges to-date associated with the review of
the land use applications.
23. The applicant and City execute and record a development agreement incorporating the
development plans, standards and conditions as approved.