City Council Agenda Packet 02-08-1988AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 8, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo
Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Feting Held January 25, P988.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
4. Consideration of Request by U.S. Cycling Federation to Hold a Time Trial
Event in Monticello.
5. Consideration of Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans
and Specifications on Streetscape Project.
6. Consideration of Change Order Al on 88-1A Deep well Project.
7. Oonsideration of Policy Approval on Survey Requirements.
8. Adjournment.
C
MZ NOTES
REGULAR MEETING - MORrICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 25, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Warren Smith,
Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11,
1988.
3. Citizens Con., nto/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Mrs. Bette Grossnickle appeared before the Council and presented a
petition requesting the City initiate a feasibility study on the extension
of sewer and water utilities to her property on Golf Course Road.
Mrs. Grossnickle indicated that she is currently in the process of
developing a subdivision for her property to create three lots but needs
to know the estimated cost and whether it's feasibility of extending sewer
and water to service the new par cels.
By Council consensus, the petition was accepted and the City Engineer,
John Badalich, was directed to prepare the feasibility study and
incorporate it into the current improvement project plan for County
Road 39 West.
4. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Sales in a B-3
(Highway Business) Zone. Apnllca nt, Monticello Housing and RV Center,
Inc.
Mr. Ralph Hermes, owner of the Monticello Housing and RV Center, requested
a conditional use permit to be allowed to create a sales lot on Lots 1 and
2, Block 1, Commercial Court Addition. Mr. Hermes currently operates the
RV sales out of the former Glass Hut building and needed a conditional use
permit to allow the display of approximately 20 recreational vehicles that
he would like to sell through his business.
Current ordinances in a Bra zoning district only allow outside sales area
to be 30 percent of the principal building size which would limit
Mr. Hermes to approximately only one space; and as a result, a variance
would also be needed to increase the sales area. The sales lot would
continue to be grass in surface to control duati and after further
discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Pair, and
unanimously carried to grant the conditional use permit for a period of
one year at which time it will be reviewed and to increase the percentage
allowable for the sales area by a total of 1,750 percent.
Council Minutes - 1/25/88
� 5. Consideration of Preliminary Plat Review, Ritze Manor 2nd Addition.
Applicant, Charles Ritze.
Mr. Charles Ritze had prepared a preliminary plat that would subdivide one
lot into three parcels meeting the minimum square footage requirements for
residential subdivisions. The proposed subdivision would result in one of
the newly created lots having frontage on River Road with the other new
lot having frontage on Hilltop Drive. A problem existed in the
preliminary plat in that the lot fronting on Hilltop Drive does not have
the required amount of footage on a public right-of-way in that only 15
feet of this lot exist on a platted street. Mr. Ritze would be required
to obtain additional property from his neighbor, Reinhold Yager, who at
the present time has been reluctant to give up any of his property for a
street right-of-way. Additionally during the platting process, Mr.
Ritze's surveyor has determined that the section line on the north side of
the property adjacent to Mr. Yager's home is actually located in such a
way that some out buildings owned by Mr. Yager are actually on Mr. Ritze's
property. Although this is a matter that would have to be worked out
between the two property owners and does not actually affect the platting
of the property as proposed, the Council had considerable discussion on
how this problem can be alleviated in the future.
Because the plat as proposed does not currently meet the City's standards
_ with one of the lots not having enough frontage on a public road, a motion
t was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously carried
to table the preliminary plat request at this time and instruct Mr. Ritze
to return to the Planning Commission for further review. If Mr. Ritze so
desires, he may file a variance request for one lot only having 15 feet of
frontage rather than 53 feet as required by current ordinances.
6. Consideration of a Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Execution
of a Contract for Construction of a New Well.
Bids were received and opened at 11:00 a.m. the 25th of January for the
construction of a new deep well to be located in the Oakwood Industrial
Park. Bids were received as follows:
E.H. Renner 6 Sons $40,510.00
Bergerson-Caswell $48,452.00
Mark J. Traut Wells, Inc. $48,974.50
Keys well Drilling $49,674.00
Layne Minnesota Company $50,238.50
Layne -Western Co., Inc. $67,414.00
Public works Director, John Simola, and Consulting Engineer, Chuck Lepak,
met for approximately an hour with the low bidder, E.H. Renner b Sons, to
review the specifications for the new well. One of the main concerns of
the City was that the minimum capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute be
obtained by the new well; and it was suggested by the low bidder that the
City perform a gamma scan in a test well at the site which would help
0
Council Minutes - 1/25/88
determine whether the size of the well should be increased from the
specified 14 -inch diameter to possibly a larger size to accommodate the
minimum gallons per minute required. The representative of E.H. Renner
indicated that even if it was determined that more capacity could be
obtained by increasing the size of the well, he felt confident that a
change order could be issued and the contractor could supply a larger well
without exceeding the next lowest bidder's price for the smaller well.
Motion was made by warren Smith, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously
carried to adopt the resolution accepting the low bid from E.H. Renner in
the amount of $40,510 and authorizing a contract to be entered into. if
testing indicated that a larger well would be beneficial for the City, a
change order would be processed and returned to the Council for approval.
See Resolution 88-3.
7. Consideration of Authorizing Purchase of Portable Pump for Civil Defense.
As part of the 1487 Budget, the Civil Defense Director had budgeted $1,200
as the cost of half of a new portable pump that would be used for
emergencies such as punning out flooded storm sewers or various other
purposes. The Department of Emergency Services did not approve the
funding request, but the Public works Department still feels the addition
of a portable pump is necessary for the City. Recently, the contractor at
the wastewater treatment plant, PSG, Inc., indicated that the need for the
pump does exist at the wastewater treatment plant occasionally and agreed
to cover up to $1,000 towards the purchase of a pump.
The Public Works Department received quotes on a 16 horsepower, 4 -inch
pump that would cost $2,215 and with the $1,000 being paid by the
contractor at the wastewater treatment plant, the City's cost would be
$1,215.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to authorize the purchase of the pump from Olson Electric for
$2,215 with PSG, Inc., paying $1,000 of this price.
8. Consideration of Appointment to Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission members recently received word that member Jim
Ridgeway will be resigning from the Planning Commission. It was noted by
the staff that an advertisement was placed in the Monticello Shopper
requesting individuals who had an interest in being appointed to the
Planning Commission to contact City Hall for consideration. it was
recommended by the Council that individuals desiring to be considered for
the Planning Commission appointment should be interviewed by the Planning
Commission with a recommendation made to the Council at a future meeting.
In regards to Planning Commission members, the Council discussed whether a
policy should be established requiring all or a certain portion of the
members to be residents or taxpayers of Monticello in order to be on the
U
council Minutes - 1/25/88
cozmnittee. The staff was instructed to establish a policy that they feel
would be appropriate in regards to residency requirements for Planning
Commission appointments and the item will be discussed at a future Council
meeting.
9. Consideration of Bills for the Month of January.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously
carried to approve the bills for the month of January as presented.
�Woat
City Administrator
0
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
Consideration of Request by U.S. Cycling Federation to Hold a Time Trial
Event in Monticello. (R.W.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Skip Fitting of Buffalo, Minnesota, has recently contacted the City
requesting permission to hold a State Time Trial Bicycle Championship in
the City of Monticello June 11, 1988. Mr. Fitting explained that the
District Time Trial event would consist of up to 300 bikers who would
start at the Pinewood School approximately 6:00 a.m., Saturday morning,
June 11, and proceed along a course from Pinewood to Clearwater along
County Road 75 a distance of 12.6 miles and return to the Pinewood
School. The event would have one biker starting out every 30 seconds
along County Road 75 and would result in the event lasting until
approximately 2:00 p.m. Saturday afternoon. Before such an event could
be held, the Wright County Highway Department and Sheriff's Department
has to issue a permit since a county road is involved and permission
would have to be granted by the School District to allow the use of the
Pinewood facilities.
In my discussions with Candy Benoit at the High School, the School has
agreed to rent Pinewood Elementary facilities to the Bicycling
Association provided the Association supplies proof of insurance coverage
that would protect the School District in the amount of $1,000,000. From
the County Highway Department and Sheriff's Department perspective,
County Road 75 should not be considered a low traffic area on a Saturday
morning, especially the part within the City of Monticello. Traffic
control is the important issue if such a race is to be held; and the
County is requesting the City's input prior to granting a permit. As you
will note from the permit application and Highway Department
correspondence, the Sheriff's Department's concerns are that at least one
deputy should be assigned to the Pinewood School area to control traffic
for the entire length of the function. It should be noted that Don
Hozempa of the Sheriff's Department has had experience with these types
of events before in Wright County, and traffic congestion and problems
are big problems with this type of an event. I would certainly agree
that if this type of event is approved by the City of Monticello, the
Cycling Association should be required to at a minimum pay for the coat
of one off-duty Wright County Sheriff Deputy that would be assigned to
monitor this function, and the deputy should not be taken from the
contracted services paid for by the City. In addition, the City should
require that it is also named as an additional insured on a liability
policy protecting the City's interest should an accident occur.
Typically, these types of time trials are held in a rural area along
roads with low traffic volumes and I can certainly see where traffic
problems may exist with up to 300 bikers using County Road 75 in
populated areas. Although some of the bikers may patronize city eating
establishments and other businesses, the benefit to the City may still bR
small in comparison to the problems this could cause.
'.M
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Grant approval to the Association contingent upon a minimum of
$1,000,000 liability insurance naming the City of Monticello as an
additional insured and providing the Association pays for all costs
associated with a deputy assigned to the event.
2. Recommend to the County Sheriff that the permit be denied because of
traffic problems or other concerns.
3. Recommend approval with additional conditions attached.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While at first it appears that County Road 75 may be a low traffic area
compared to I-94, the portion of 75 between Pinewood and the NSP Plant is
highly populated and traffic congestion will be a problem. The school
officials are in no way endorsing this event other than they have agreed
to rent the facility provided proper insurance coverage is obtained. The
county officials are definitely aware of the problems these types of
events have had in other areas of Wright County and expect that the
Association will have to pay for at least one deputy to monitor
activities. At a minimum, if the City approves this event, adequate
liability insurance must be provided and the Association must pay for
Call costs associated with the deputies required by the County.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter from Cycling Federation Representative; Letter from Wright
County Highway Department; Copy of permit application.
c
_2.
uscldarhalm
UNITED STATES =
CYCLING FEDERATION
Peter Zarembo OleMct Representative AWnnesota
0288 Brigedoon Drive SL Paul, NN 55126 (612) 480-8658 _
Gary Anderson January 27, 1988
City Administration
Monticello, MN55362
Dear Mr. Anderson,
A few weeks ago Mr. Skip Pitting of Buffalo Minnesota approached me with the idea of having
the State Time Trial Championsbips in Wright County. I said for him to go ahead with this
idea and we would see where it led. One of the places this idea led was to you and the city
of Monticello. Skip said we should outline this proposal for a review by the city council
prior to your meeting the evening of February 8th.
Let me say first that this Time Trial Champianship has been traditionally held north of your
city in Santiago. Although this site has worked out well in the past, we of the USCF, in an
effort to promote the sport of bicycle racing to the public, like to involve the public and
city centers as often as possible. This is to give the public an opportunity to see high
level bicycle racing while at the same time giving the racer a place to stage his event and
give his the use of the facilities a city can offer such as eating establishments. Time
trials are often held in out of the way places and this is always a problem.
Bolding this event in Monticello would be a very desireable thing to do from our perspective
xnd we would do our best to see to it that this would be mutually beneficial to you too.
a have talked to Candy Benoit of your school administration and she has indicated to me that
we can use a school on the west end of town right on the proposed course. We will supply her
with proof of insurance before the event. This insurance is for $1,000,000.00 and would name
the school district and the city of Monticello as the additional insured. Candy also
indicated that she felt the course, tLe county road on the wey to Clear Lake, was a good
course. She takes this road every day and feels that it is fairly lightly traveled.
In general, a time trial is a race against the clock. Riders are individually started at 30
second intervals, go out for 20 kilometers turn around and return. The riders are ranked by
time and the top riders qualify to compete in the National Championships which is one of the
Olympic qualifying races. The slowest riders are started first and higher ranked riders
start lest. Last year we had 181 riders compete in this event. The last and fastest riders
cover the 40 kilometers in approximately 53 minutes. This means it takes about 97 minutes to
start all the riders and therefor the last rider should finish about 2 and 30 minutes after
the first rider starts. This in the approximate time we would like police protection. In
addition approximately one hour is required for seeding, registration, and scoring both
before and after the event. This means we would need the school for roughly five hours.
zz
or our time a d consideration. I look forward to our meeting February 8th.
GUIs( 1—
Pete Zerembo
cc: Candy Benoit
Skip Fittiog
1750 E. Boulder, Colorado Springs, CO 80808 (909) 578+531 Telex 045.2424
Group A Member
United States Olympic Committee
February 3, 1988
WRIGHT COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. 1- Box 97-B
Buffalo. Minnesota 55313
Gary Anderson
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Mn. 55362
Jct. T. H. 25 and C. R. 138
Telephone (612) 682.3900
Re: Application for Bicycle Race
Date - June 11, 1988, 6:00 am to 2:00 pm (Saturday)
Dear Gary,
■DYNE A. FINGALSON. P.E.
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
Enclosed is a copy of an application for a bicycle race starting and
ending at the City of Monticello (Pinewood School). Before acting on this
permit we would like to hear the Cities concerns and recommendation for
approval or disapproval of the permit from the Cities perspective.
The mayor concerns the County has are traffic control, insurance or
liability of County, City, or School District, and request that local
motorists use I-94.
Please respond with any concerns you may have regarding this event.
If you have questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
,(,.. ' �/.-• r.4
Dava Montebello
Project Engineer
DKM/vlm
O
t
OfDL♦AY pr6at /aalfi� �
WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
APPLICANT: F/%%/moi CYGGE #/ C4"C Home Phone ems-
ADDRESS. Z< fir" s,' S Work Phone : -/4Jt yjS^2/�'8
EVENT DESCRIPTION
T,eA-,-/G /S Z9.T S.
STARTING LOCATION:
ENDING LOCATION:
EVENT DATE: _Za
S5t32 /� cl,s c, Fvis��7,E�6�`,
srA.e�f�'Y
QL•r / 4MIe ES s .3Ac�/�.4�ir
NO. OF PARTICIPANTS
Lean R
EVENT TIME: 6.00AI" to Z.:Ct.OP;M
HS ROUTES USED: ���sZA2�A'F/t/ IYIOt/T/CELLA
(Supp
Supply Map 3 .47tO
SAFETY Pi{OCEDURE'S/TRAFFIC CONTROL (EVENT PERSONNEL)
roL.vnt� OAJ Giry.�56
NO. SHERIFF'S UNITS REQUIRED: ]. L . 523/hr e $ /hr
Authorized Sheritt-s Dept. Signature - Approval
SHERIFF DEPT. COMMENTS/REQUIREMENTS
1. One deputy for the length of the entire function.
[• Obtain a permit Yrum Lite city o: hlonticeifo.
�. Ub Lain a permit or letter from the Monticello School Officials for the use
HIGHWAY DEPT. COMMENTS /REOUIREMENTS: of Pinewood property for this function.
The undersigned applicant hereby agree to the above requirements
and holds harmless Wright County for any acts resulting from the
negligence of his organizers,
participants or any spectator.
t / 1
Applicant's Signature Det
JPESfip
p PERMIT APPROVAL 8Y:
V Authorized Signature - Hwy. Dept. Date
0
0
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
Consideration of. Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans
and Specifications on Streetscape Project. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The official public hearing on the proposed Downtown Streetscape
Improvement Project was held by the Council on January 11. A brief
presentation was made by Geoff Martin of Dahlgren, Shardlow 6 Uban, Inc.,
at which time the project cost had been estimated at $640,000 and
assuming a 20 percent assessment to benefiting property owners, $130,688
was the assessable portion with $509,312 being picked up on ad valorem
taxes. Because the testimony received at the public hearing was mainly
concerned with the amount of the total project cost and also the amount
that was proposed to be assessed versus ad valorem tares, it was the
consensus of the 03uncil that a decision on the streetscape project would
be tabled until the February 8 meeting; and the staff was instructed to
return to the drawing board in an effort to reduce the project cost and
possibly scale back the proposed improvements.
Since the public hearing, the City staff has been working with the
planner and the streetscape committee, which has met twice in an effort
to reduce the cost by at least one-third. The committee has reviewed the
entire project under phase one and made cuts throughout the project that
have resulted in the proposed cost being reduced from $640,000 to
approximately $405,000, a 37 percent reduction. The reduced project will
be presented by Mr. Martin at the Oouncil meeting for both the Council's
review and the audience that may be in attendance.
The project reduction resulted from a number of areas being reduced or
eliminated within the project, including the elimination of Blocks 50 and
37 from the project (Post Office block and Pump -n -Munch block) and on the
east end, replacing of the sidewalks only that were in need of repair in
Blocks B and D. The committee recommended major reductions in the public
parking lots within Block 35, 34, and Block 52 by eliminating medians,
some curbing, landscaping, etc. it was also determined that the use of
exposed aggregate on the sidewalks along Broadway and other areas that
were to receive the interlocking pavers would reduce the cost
substantially. The exposed aggregate would be used along a 30 -inch strip
of the sidewalk and not over the entire sidewalk. In addition, based on
MN/DOT's review of the plans, all Improvements along Pine Street were
eliminated from the project. Other reductions included limiting the
number of benches and trash receptacles that would be placed along
Broadway along with retaining the present street lights but painting them
a different color. It should be noted that numerous specific changes
were recommended within the entire project that Mr. Martin will elude to
In hie supplement and during the public presentation. Overall, it was
the committee's intent to try and reduce the project by at least
one-third: and at this point, the project appears to match this goal.
-3-
0
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
The committee a number of times discussed the pro's and con's of leaving
or eliminating the six nodes along Broadway and at this point have left
this item in the project for Council consideration. It should be noted
naturally that the nodes can be eliminated without materially affecting
the design of the project; but the estimated cost savings would be only
approximately $14,000 for all six nodes. The nodes received considerable
discussion and were redesigned and reduced in size; and it is felt by the
connittee that instead of each node taking up two parking spaces within
each side of the block, it in some cases will only result in the loss of
one parking space because of the redesign and the amount of space
available for cars to park. Instead of losing 12 spaces, it appears that
only six to eight spaces will be lost if the nodes are kept in the
project scope.
The other area that will eventually have to be addressed by the Council
if the project does proceed is the amount of assessment versus ad valorem
taxes that benefiting property owners should receive. Although public
comment was made that since the improvements will benefit the downtown
area, the property owners should pay for all of the improvements, the
Council should remember that none of the proposed project will be done on
private property, and the improvements are all on public right-of-way.
In a way, a project of this nature is not that much different than the
new curb and gutter and street improvement project of 1977 whereby the
abutting property owners were only assessed 20 percent of that project
cost also. Using the project cost estimate of $405,000, a comparison was
completed using three examples of assessment ratios of 20 percent,
25 percent, and 30 percent. Under the 20/80 formula, the total
assessment to benefiting property owners would be approximately $82,700.
The comparisons also chow the amount of tax increase for a typical home
and/or business using the three alternatives. In the examples you should
note that a residential taxpayer with a $62,OOn valued home would see an
increase in his taxes of approximately $1.80 under the 80 percent ad
valorem basis; and this would drop only to $1.58 at 70 percent ad
valorem. Although the tax savings to a typical residential home are
srnall when the assessments are raised, a business owner along Broadway
would see the assessment portion raised from $2,708 at 20 percent to
almost $4,000 at 30 percent. From this, it appears that if a concern of
the Council is not to make the project cost prohibitive for the downtown
business owner, an aseessment in the 20 percent range would naturally be
the cheapest for the property owner. Approximately 78 percent of any ed
valorem tax by the City is picked up by public utilities.
Althnugh this agenda item la not being considered as a public hearing,
all of the property owners within the project have been notified that the
Council may be making a decision on the project at this meeting. As part
of the notice that was recently mailed to each property owner, they were
all notified of what their assessment would be based on 20 percent
assessment ratio on the reduced project scope. If the project is
ordered, a separate aeseesmment hearing will be held after the project is
completer but it would appear that the property owners in attendance at
-4-
e
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
the meeting should be given an idea of the projected assessments. If it
is the intent of the Council to proceed with the project but alter the
assessment ratio to 25 percent, 30 percent, or AO percent, etc., the
benefiting property owners should be made aware of what their cost might
be.
B. ALTERNATIVE AMONS:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the streetscape project, a
resolution ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and
specifications by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., should be
adopted.
2. If it's determined that the project should not proceed at all, the
resolution need not be adopted.
3. The Council could again table any action and request that the
project's scope be further reduced.
As one method of trying to reduce the overall cost of the project, the
committee had discussed and reviewed the idea of trying to salvage any
areas of good sidewalk along Broadway. John Simola reviewed the
condition of the existing sidewalk and indicated that approximately
one-third of the sidewalk was in excellent repair, one-third was
questionable, and approximately one-third definitely had to be replaced.
The problem exists in that trying to salvage certain sections of sidewalk
can become quite costly in that to get the design to match throughout the
project, the color of the sidewalk will more than likely be different
because of age and it becomes just as costly to try and saw -cut sections
of the sidewalk for the placement of the exposed aggregate, tree grates,
etc., as it does to entirely remove the sidewalk and replace with new.
Although there may be some sections that are suitable for saving, overall
it appears more feasible if the project is to proceed to replace almost
all within the general downtown area.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff, in working with the downtown rehabilitation committee,
certainly feels that a lot of effort has gone into trying to reduce the
project cost and still end up with an improvement that will ho beneficial
to not only the downtown property owners but the City in general. The
project as proposed does reduce the Croat by 37 percent, and the committee
feels that the project at this reduced level will still present an Image
that all residents can be proud of. One area of concern that has always
been shared by John Simola and myself is that if the nodes are eliminated
along Broadway, regardless of the cost of the project, it's our opinion
that a noticeable change in the downtown area would not be evident. It
is our recommendation that if the project does proceed but without the
nodes, possibly the Council should consider renaming the project to a
sidewalk improvement project rather than reference it as a etreetecape.
-5-
11
0
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
Although there will be an addition of a few trees and benches, etc.,
without the nodes, it just seems to me that not much of a change will
actually take place. The staff feels, along with the committee, that the
nodes being redesigned will in most cases only result in the loss of two
spaces per block, although in couple areas it has not actually been
determined whether existing driveways may result in additional parking
spaces being lost. As far as the assessment formula that should be used
if a project does proceed, the only recommendation the staff can provide
is the comparison sheet which indicates the amount of ad valorem tax that
a typical property owner would pay under various percentages. Whatever
the Council should decide, I believe it's only fair that the affected
property owners be made aware of the estimated assessment prior to the
project being ordered, as it may affect whether a property owner is in
favor of the improvement or not. Pinally, it should be noted that since
the improvement was not petitioned for by the property owners, a
four-fifths vote of the Council is required to initiate the improvement
under Chapter 629.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution ordering the improvement; Cost comparison of
assessment and ad valorem portions; Streetscape budget including
anticipated improvements by block.
-6-
RESOLUTION 88-4
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
ON STREETSCAPE PROJECT
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 14th day of December,
1987, fixed a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvements of
Broadway, River, and Third Streets between Linn Street on the west to Palm
Street on the east with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and other
appurtenant work associated with a downtown streetscape improvement.
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly
publications of the required notice was g!,ren and the hearing was held thereon
on the 11th day of January, 1988, at which all persons desiring to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed.
2. Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban 6 Associates, the City's Consulting
Planner, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement
and shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
t improvements.
` Adopted this 8th day of February, 1988.
Mayor
City Administrator
(D.
0
q COMPARISON
TOTAL PROJECT COST $405,000.00
20.42%/79.582 252/752
TOTAL ASSESSED $ 82,701.00 $101.250.00
TOTAL AD VALOREM $322,299.00 $303,750.00
BROADWAY BUSINESS
Block 52 with 67.9 LFP
$4.9487 x 67.9 LFP
AV $55,371 x .000349
$39.8895 x 67.9 LFP
Block 35 with•22 LFF
$4.9487 x 22 LFP
AV $22,962 x .000349
$39.8895 x 22 LFP
AD VALOREM
Creekside Terrace
AV $11.160.00 x .000349
EMV $62,000.00
Original Plat
AV $8,874.00 x .000349
EMV $49,300.00
Hillcrest Addition
AV $19,232.00 x .000349
EMV $91,900.u0
Oakwood Industrial Park
AV $73,775.00 x .000349
EMV $192,500.00
• AHTI Annual Homestead Tax Increase
•• ANHTI Annual Non -Homestead Tax Increase
••• Annual Tax Increase
J
30Z/70%
$121,500.00
$283,500.00
f 336.016 Assessed $ 411.378 ($6.0586) $ 493.653 ($7.2703)
19.324 Ad Valorem 18.217 (.000329) 16.998 (.000307)
$ 355.340 Annual Cost $ 429.595 $ 510.651
f 2,708.497 Orig. Cost, $ 3.315.971 ($48.8361) f 3,979.170 ($58.603
$ 108.871 Assessed { 133.289 ($6.0586) $ 159.946 ($7.2703)
8.013 Ad Valorem 7.554 (.000329) 7.049 (.000307)
{ 1,16.884 Annual Cost 1 140.843 $ 166.995
{ 877.569 Orig. Cost $ 1.074.394 ($48.8361) $.1.289.274 ($58.6031,
f 1.80 MITI • 6 1.69 ANTI $ 1.58 AHTI
6.06 ANHTI •• 5.71 ANHTI 5.32 ANHTI
{ 1.43 AHTI $ 1.34 AHTI $ 1.26 AHTI
6.82 ANHTI 4.56 ANHTI 4.23 ANHTI
{ 4.35 ANTI $ 4.10 ANTI $ 3.83 AHTI
8.98 ANHTI 8.46 ANHTI 7.89 ANHTI
S 25.75 ATI ••• $ 24.27 ATI $ 22.64 ATI
STREETSCAPE ESTIMATED BUDGET
TOTAL PROJECT COST $405,000.00 (36.72% reduction)
TOTAL ASSESSED 20.42% 82,701.00
TOTAL AD VALOREM 79.58% 322,299.00
'BROADWAY STREETS
Blocks 51. 52. 53 $278,464.00
34, 35. 36 200,799.00 Ad Valorem
S 77,665.00 Assessed
$4.9487 per linear front footage (1.947 ft) +
$39.8895 per linear front footage **
Blocks B 6 D (portion of) $ 11,990.00
8,646.00 Ad Valorem
$ 3,344.00 Assessed
$1.0057 per 1" (412.5 ft)
$8.1066 per LFF ••
OTHER
Smith. Pringle, b Hayes $ 2,465.00
Portion of East Side Block 36 1,777.00 Ad Valorem
S 688.00 Assessed
$2.1388 per LFF (40 ft) •
$17.20 per LFF *+
Kjellberg $ 3,601.00
$.1117 per LFP (100 ft)* 2,597.00 Ad Valorem
$5.7371 per LFF ++ S 1,004.00 Assessed
Dr. Brenny
$.7117 per LFF (75 ft)
$5.7371 per LFP •+
Both a portion of Parking Lot 52
TOTAL ASSESSED 20.42% 7 oz.1w .uu
rrrwrwrwwwwww:wrwrwwwwrrr♦wwrwwrrrwrwrrrrrwrrwww+rrr:w+rrrwrwwrww+rrrww
PARKING LOTS
Black 35 0 27,040.00
Block 34 6.819.00
Block 52 13,744.00
175 ft (Other) 2,597.00
BROADWAY STREETS
Blocks 51,52. 53. 34, 35, 36 $200,799.00
33 ft 4,720.00
1 Blocks'B b D (portion of) 8,646.00
* Based at 92 interest rets over IS yews
•+ Based on Original Project Cast
OTHER
East Side Block 36 t 7,705,00
40 ft 1,777.00
West Side Block 35 10,170.00
FEES
Dahlgren. Shardlov, 4 Uban 38,282.00
TOTAL AD VALOREM 79.58% $322,299.00
AARARltA #ft!#tAtARRAttRA RAAk!!A #Akt#*ARAAAtltR#AttRAt4 *ttRt##AttRA!
TOTAL PROJECT COST INCLUDES:
10% contingency by Dahlgren, Shardlov, and Uban for cost cushion
101 contingency by City for engineer fees, bonding fees, etc. ($33,338.00)
Dahlgren, Shardlov, and Uban fees ($21,280.00 design development, Feb. 1988)
Dahlgren, Shardlov, and Uban fees ($17.002.00 bid documents, construction
supervision, etc.)
•ARAAIAR*•tR#!t•AAAAtt•ARltA!!#*ARR!#ltAtRAA RttARltAAA*titA*ltttttRt
$405,000.00 Bond divided by $1,000 x $124.06 • $50,244,30 Equal Annual Payments
(Principal and Interest)
Assessed 20.422 • $10,259.89
$4.9487 x 1,947 ft • $9,635.12
$1.0057 x 412.5 ft - 414.85
$2.1338 x 40 ft 85.35
8 .7117 x 175 ft 124,55
$10,259.87
Ad Valorem 79.58% $39,9$4,41 divided by $114,339,670.00 Assessed Valuation
for Taxes Payable 1988 + .000349
Creekside Terrace EMV $62,000.00
AV 11,160.00
$1.80 Homestead Tax $6.06 Non -Homestead Tax
Annual Increase Annual Increase
Original Plat EMV $49,300.00
AV 8,874,00
$1.43 Homestead Tax $4.82 Non -Homestead Tax
Annual Increase Annual Increase
Hillcrest Addition ENV $91,900.00
AV 19,232.00
.$4.35 Homestead Tax $8.98 Non -Homestead Tai
Annual Increase Annual Increase
Oakwood Industrial Park ENV $192,500.00
! AV 73,775.00
1 $25.75 Annual Increase
$50,244.30 a 15 years - $753,664.50 0
EXAMPLE OF TWO BUSINESSES: _
Block 52 with 67.9 linear front footage
ENV $149.700.00
AV 55.371.00 x .000349 - $ 19.324 Ad Valorem
$4.9487 a 67.9 LFF - $336.016 Assessed
$355.340 Annual Cost
$39.8895 x 67.9 LFF - $2,708.497 Original Cast
Block 35 with 22 linear front footage
EMV $53,400.00
AV 22,962.00 a .000349 - $ 8.013 Ad Valorem
$4.9487 x 22 LFF - $108.871 Assessed j
$116.884 Annual Cost
$39.8895 a 22 LFF - $877.569 Original Cost
5
l
MONTICELLO STREETSCAPE. SUMMARY OF COSTS (2/03/88)
Broadway Street:
Blocks 51 ,52, 53, 34, 35, 36
E 257,440.00
Block 35 West Side, Block 36 East Side
18,490.00
Blocks B 6, D
10,900.00
Subtotal
286,630.00
Fee
14,628.00
TOTAL
301,458.00
Public Parklnq Areas
Block 35
24,582.00
Block 34
6,199.00
Block 52
15,768.00
Subtotal
46,549.00
Fee
2,379.00
TOTAL
49,928.00
PROJECT COSTS 351,386.00
Design Development Fee 21,000.00
Monticello 10% Contingency of Project Coate 33,337.00
(does not include fee)
TOTAL 405,723110
J
3
I
C
MONTICELLO STREETSCAPE: PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (2/03/88)
COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE: BROADWAY - BLOCK 35 PROTOTYPE
UNIT
COST OTY TOTAL
Demolition
Remove Concrete
Welke
164 SF -4" Thick
Remove Asphalt
Remove Curb
Disposal to 5 Miles
Dump Charges
Subtotal
10% Contingency
TOTAL
PROJECT TOTAL
Commercial Frontoge
6 Blocks of Frontage
5.00 SY
510 SY
2,550.00
1.50 SY
30 SY
45.00
3.00 LF
52 LF
156.00
5.25 CY
63 CY
330.00
1.5 CY
63 CY
94.00
3,175.00
317.00
$3,492.00
x 20,952.00
0
t
I
COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE: BROADWAY (2/03/88) CONT"D
0
UNIT
COST
OTY
TOTAL
Construction
Curbing
B-6-18
9.00 LF
54
486.00
Curb Drain
-4" PUC w/Curb Opening
48 LF
1
500.00
Trees
300.00
6
1,800.00
Tree Grates -48" 1/2 Round h
1/2 Square
582.00
6
3,492.00
*Tree Guards
200.00
6
1,200.00
Concrete Edge
2.00 SF
144
288.00
Paving
Concrete
2.00 SF
1,816 SF
3,632.00
*Exposed Ag
2.50 SF
1,545 SF
3,865.00
Lighting
Point Existing
300.00
3
900.00
12 FT Ornamental
-4 Globes
3,000.00
2
6,000.00
-2 Globes
2,500.00
4
10,000.00
Refurbished Bridge Railing
.30" Height
60.00 LF
16 FT
960.00
Signage -Parking
1
400.00
Trash Receptacles
400.00
1
400.00
Benches
Concrete
--
--
--
Pods: 3' diameter
600.00
1
800.00
Subtotal
30.723.00
10% Contingency
3,472.00
TOTAL
95.00
PROJECT TOTALS
6 Blocks of Frontage x
38,195.00
"
229,170.00
0
BLOCK 35: WEST SIDE and BLOCK 36: EAST SIDE (2/03/88)
0
UNIT
BLOCK 35: WEST SIDE
COST
OTY
TOTAL
Demolition
Asphalt
-
--
Concrete-1,860 SF
5.00 SY
206 SY
1,033.00
Haul h Dump
6.75 CY
28 CY
187.00
Construction
Concrete Border
1.75
40 SF
70.00
*Exposed Ag. Concrete
2.50
1,050 SF
2,625.00
Concrete
2.00
698 SF
1,396.00
Tree Grates
582.00
3
1,746.00
Shrubs
20.00
20
400.00
Concrete Edge
2.00
24 LF
48.00
Subtotal
8,4050
109b Contingency
840.00
TOTAL
9,245.00
BLOCK 36: EAST SIDE
TOTAL
9,245.00
0
A
COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE: BLOCKS B & D (2/03/88)
0
UNIT
COST
OTY
TOTAL
Demolition
Concrete -Assume 1/2 Replaced
5.00 SY
122 SY
610.00
Haul h Dump
6.75 SY
60 CY
270.00
Construction
*Concrete Paving
2.00 SF
1,100 SF
2,200.00
Exposed Ag. Concrete
2.50 SF
300 SF
750.00
Lights -30 FT Paint
300.00
7
2,100.00
•Trees
300.00 EA
8
2,400.00
•Tree Grates
582.00
2
1,164.00
•Tree Guards
200.00
2
400.00
(
Subtotal
9,890.00
10% Contingency
989.00
TOTAL
10,883.00
Additional Items
Northwest and Northwest Corners
of Pine and Broadway
Refurbished handrail 96 LF x 60.00 each LF m
5,760.00
10%
576.00
6, 36.00
0
COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE: SPECIAL FEATURES (2/03/88)
1
Special Features
K i oaks
Bridge Parte
Entry Features
Sign
Well -60.00 LF
Concrete
Cutout -Concrete
Concrete Removal
Flowers
Taal
History Museum Plaza
Demolition: Restroome
Shrubs
Paving
Benches
Trees
Shrubs
Lights
Fountain
Subtotal
10% Contingency
TOTAL
I
UNIT
COST
QTY
TOTAL
6,000.00
1
6,000.00
2,500.00
1
2,500.00
60.00 LF
52 LF
3,120.00
1.00 LF
30 LF
30.00
5.00 CY
2.5 CY
12.50
1.00 SF
204 SF
204.00
5,8166.00
1,000.00
20.00 ea.
40
800.00
3.25 SF
1,600
5,200.00
750.00
4
3,000.00
300.00
5
1,500.00
30.00
25
750.00
3,500.00
2
7,000.00
10,000.00
29.250.00
2,925.00
32.175110
D
I
WEST PARKING LOT: BLOCK 35 - PUBLIC (2/03/88)
UNIT
COST
OTY
TOTAL
Demolition
Asphalt 9801
1.50 SY
296 SY
444.00
Excavate Subbase
1.50 CY
49 CY
73.5
Sod 28 CY
.15 SF
144 SY
21.6
Haul h Dump
6.75 CY
175 CY
1,161.00
Construction
Curb
8.00 LF
466
3,728.00
Concrete Sidewalk - South
2.00 SF
1,190 SF
2,380.00
Concrete Sidewalk - West
1,500.00
Exposed Ag.
2.50
108
270.00
Soil
15.30 CY
135 CY
2,065.00
Lights
3,500.00
2
7,000.00
Evergreens-&
320.00
6
1,920.00
Shade Trees -3"
300.00
3
900.00
Ornamental -2"
200.00
3
600.00
Mulch -rock w/met
0.30 SY
218
937.00
Sod
1.30 SY
77 SY
100.00
Subtotal
23,120.00
10% Contingency
2,312.00
TOTAL
25,432.00
PUBLIC PARKING: BLOCK 52 (2/03/88)
Demolition
Asphalt
Excavate Subbase
Concrete Islands
Haul h Dump
Construction
Soil - 1' depth
Rock Mulch - 4" depth
Curbing - B-6
Trees
Deciduous - 3" cal.
Evergreen - 8'
Shrubs
Evergreen - 5 gal.
Subtotal
10% Contingency
TOTAL
C
UNIT
COST
OTY
TOTAL
1.50 SY
194 SY
291.00
1.50 CY
59 CY
88.50
5.00 SY
188 SY
940.00
6.75 CY
186 CY
1,255.00
15.30 CY
117
1,790.00
4.30 SY
33 SY
1,436.00
9.00 LF
345 LF
3,105.00
300.00
7
2,100.00
380.00
6
2,280.00
30.00 35 1,050.00
14,335.00
1,433.00
15,768.00
0
0
l
PUBLIC PARKING: BLOCK 34 (2/03/88)
Demolition
Asphalt - cutout
Concrete
Excavate Subbase
Construction
Curbing - B-6 concrete
Soil - 6" depth
Sod
Shrubs
Evergreen - 5 gal.
Trees
Deciduous - 3" cel.
Evergreen - 8'
Subtotal
10% Contingency
TOTAL
UNIT
COST
OTY
TOTAL
1.50 SY
173 SY
260.00
5.00 SY
47 SY
236.00
1.50 CY
37 CY
3,339.00
9.00 LF
37 LF
55.00
15.30 CY
36
550.00
1.30 SY
40 SY
52.00
30.00
16
480.00
300.00
3
900.00
380.00
6
2,280.00
5.636.00
563.00
6.199.0
0
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
6. Consideration of Change Order +1 on 88-1A Deep well Project. W.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the last meeting, the Council awarded Project No. 88-1A to E.H. Renner
S Sons of Elk River, Minnesota, in the amount of $40,510. At that time I
informed the Council that we had scheduled a gamma log of the test well
to determine the production capabilities of the water bearing formation.
The original well log done by Layne Minnesota indicated clay, grit, and
sand below 179 feet. Indications from the test well were that the sand
was layered with clay and that a low producing well would result. The
gamma log, however, indicates that the formation is much coarser than the
test well indicates and that possibly only one small isolated pocket of
clay or silt exists near the 230 -foot level. Based upon this
information, both Minnesota Geophysical, the company doing the gamma
scan, and Renner felt the well would produce in excess of 1,000 gallons
per minute with a 14 -inch high tech screen. The 14 -inch casing, however,
would limit the size of the pump we would be able to install. It was,
therefore, the recommendation of E.H. Renner that we go to the 18 -inch
well with the outer 24 -inch casing. Chuck Lepak of OSM and I concurred
with this recommendation.
(range Order Al to go to the larger size well amounts to $7,865, making
the total price of the new larger well $48,375. This is well within the
25 percent legal limit and still under the second bidder on the project.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to approve Change Order Al in the
amount of $7,865.
2. The second alternative would be to stick with the 14 -inch well for
the original contract amount. This does not seem to be appropriate,
as there now appears that we can reach the desired volume of water
from the well but would be hampered by the casing size.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public works Director and engineer that
the Council approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $7,865.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the gamin scant' Log of test welly Copy of change order.
l
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. - SUITE 238
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55413
CHANGE ORDER NO. ....... I—. .—
S. -?'865!00. ........ RE: peep. .Wq1)..Nq!..3
City Project 88-01A
E. it, Remer. A .$omA�, PS. •.............. contractor
15088. Ar.yAs 5V 99t. INW. I I ... -- .......
.. Ti.k.�!ylpr.,..M�nneso.t.a...55330 ................
Dear Sir (a)
Under your contract dated ....... ...... .................... 10B8. wuh
.The. Lity, af-Monticello,. Minnesota ........................ 0— for imp. Weil
fro: 3, Ciiy Project No; 88 O1A
......................................................
wean suaraftald by the owner to hereby dlmct you to -00ett- Ahe -20"-f4SjrI4-4Vd..14".
......................................................
........ I ............................................................................
and to &W to (dWm2f10W Use comtowt, to accordance with contract and spocffk*tMo. do an of
.5ey.en. Thousand.Ught. WW red Sixtyfive. And. 1100 D011M
Tbrm will be sm extemiou of IVA ........ days for completion.
The data of campwom, at contract was A/15- It .88. and now wfo be
Antoine of oricl.411 comfut To#sl"IfIlloss Total colloctlaft cowe" to two
$40,510.00 $34,355.00 1 $26,490.40 1 $48.3)5.00
^PP-Vw - I ........................ w... naveeday sdmduoc
..........•
.......
Ow"t
a TIM W—
.......................................W E3
CNWVOOarles A. Lepak, P.
l
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
DEEP WELL NO- 3
CITY PROJECT NO. 88-OIA
FOR THE
CITY OF NONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY. MINNESOTA
ADD
180 L.F. @ $95 - $17,100
80 L.F. 0 $35 - S 6,300
70 L.F. 0 $65 - $ 4,550
40 L.F. 0 $139 - S 5.560
L. S. - S 765
10 Sacks @ $8 - $ 80
TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . .. $34.355
L
0
DELETE
Furnish and Drive 20° Casing
202 L.F. @ 865 - $13,130
Furnish and Drive 24° Casing
Furnish and Install' 14° Casing
202 L.F. @ $30 - $ 6,060
Furnish and Install 18° Casing
Furnish and Drive 14° Casing
50 L.F. @ $50 - 8 2,500
Furnish and Drive 18- Casing
Furnish and Install 141 Tel. Screen
40 L.F. @ $ 120 -S 4,800
Furnish and Install 14- pipe
size screen
Furnish and Install 14° leader pipe,
packer and reducer
Furnish and Install Cement Grout
TOTAL DELETIONS . . . .
. . .. $26.490
ADD
180 L.F. @ $95 - $17,100
80 L.F. 0 $35 - S 6,300
70 L.F. 0 $65 - $ 4,550
40 L.F. 0 $139 - S 5.560
L. S. - S 765
10 Sacks @ $8 - $ 80
TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . .. $34.355
L
0
NATURAL GAMMA LOG
CPS
N N v O
O Ln O Ln O
O. . . . ili,
I FI I 1
L
L11 I � I I I
I I I I
I I I
-- -I--- -- L -- - -I
I I 1 I
—
----r--fir---- r - - - -
I
-----r- r - ---r- - - -
,
-- -'
(D
Ln- ----L -- L ----L - - - -I
r- ----L ---'"SSL----I-----I
I I 1
r 1 1
N
I 1 I I
L - - - - I
I 1 1 1
1 I I
nl I II 1
o --
r- - - - r
----I
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Test Well - 4 inch
Jan. 26, 1987
KNNESOTA GEOPHYSICAL ASSOCIATES
SAND
CLAT
SILTY SM.SMD
TILL
SAINT
TILL
SM
TILL
SAND
R
GRAVEL
107.5
FID
257.
14124 IVYW00D ST N W • ANDOVER, MN 55304 • (612) 4279509
0
�_.... ..
w........Y'"='a..`..1caa0 4115134
Sherbr
une
_.. _.
...o....,.,.,...."� J
I_�_
I1� .
City of Monticello
Eetvee - rote_state 94 - Chelsea
RD C P. No. 117
Test Hole d� 1
�
25416"
T. P. -16-86
r I J t
:..:..'
'
•Cl,v
•�'.•
•0
�� ��•
.Sand u
sott, 11
•-.•'••.
7P •� '�i"•"'
Wee
_. �«.. ...
Sand 4 Silt a :;rave
soft 11 49
J
unu
4" 223
Cly+ I blue
sof. 49 67—�-
ra
9
I Sand Iblack unit
ao.'y 67 7 3
•1o!:nsoa
... hn
Clay Igrayy
ceu.
soft 73 77
n"''""i •A s
;qq
�y
fine sand
meds
22i �^ S253
4411
.;tr �tnv
GO r'_ 77 107
1�
1mvi
hard 10-, 179
3,41611
med
-
y8
Clav E Grit
Lite
herd 17S 199
62'5 ,., 80
yellow
med
•._-
Cla•: 6 Ori.
Ih,ite
I soft 1199 202
ySanA
cod
( soft
202 252'-
"252
25771-X,_
.._.~rortland B 25
North Bowe
�-
..A .�
LAYNE MINNESOTA COMPANY
3147 CALIFORNIA ST NE
SUBCONTRACTOR fico EY•via 1ie11 Comnaav 5?4
2
�
r.1 NNEAPOL IS MN 55418
r..4.
'
RR 1 R..r t77 Mini... MNn
LICENSE *23010
�
,.).-
i1:F 1l'ITM Or1'i- a :Y _ COPY
._._ �+� `l
r�`
1a
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
7. Consideration of Policy Approval of Survey Requirements. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Section 3-2-C of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to platted and unplatted
property currently states that any person desiring to improve property
shall submit to the Building Inspector a survey of said premises and
information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed
buildings, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments,
and other information which may be necessary to ensure conformance to
City ordinances. During the past, it has been somewhat up to the
Building Inspector to determine individually whether a building permit
request required the submission of a Certificate of Survey, depending on
the type of project, etc. Normally, a larger commercial or industrial
building permit request supplied a Certificate of Survey with the
required information, but there have been some cases where problems would
not have arisen for the City if a Certificate of Survey had been required
even on a residential home.
Since our zoning ordinances have always indicated that a Certificate of
Survey has been required, the City staff has researched what other
communities require the Certificate of Survey contain. As a result, a
survey requirement policy has been compiled that will more clearly define
what each Certificate of Survey must contain. The staff has reviewed the
information with Mr. Dennis Taylor of Taylor Land Surveying, who
indicated that the requirements would not be excessive and are easily
obtainable. It was estimated by Mr. Taylor that the average cost of a
survey meeting the City's requirements would be in the neighborhood of
$100 to $200.
The survey requirements presented for the Council's approval would allow
the staff to treat all building permit applications equally and should
eliminate the future problems of the Building Inspector determining
whether setback requirements are being met and will allow for easier
verification of actual placement of the building structure on a piece of
property. A copy of the survey requirements would be given to each
applicant for a building permit prior to the issuance of a permit.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the survey requirements as presented which will clarify
Section 3-2-C of our zoning ordinance.
2. Do not adopt the survey requirements.
3. Modify the policy before adoption.
-B-
Council Agenda - 2/8/88
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Although our zoning ordinance currently requires the Building Inspector
to obtain a Certificate of Survey before a building permit is issued, the
ordinance also indicates that a Certificate of Survey may be required to
have other information as determined by the Building Inspector. By the
adoption of a survey requirement policy, all applicants would be treated
equally and all would be aware of what information would be expected from
a Certificate of Survey prior to a building permit being issued. As a
result, the staff supports the adoption of this policy which will allow
the Building Inspector to adequately review each proposal to ensure that
all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance have been met.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of ordinance section requiring Certificates of Survey and survey
requirement policy.
—9-
21
CITY OF MONTICELLO
SURVEY REpUIREKiNfS
Section 3 -2 -ICI -1 of the Monticello City Code requires that each
application for a building permit be accompanied with a certified certificate
of survey less than one year old.
Each certificate of survey shall provide the following information.
1. Scale of drawing.
2. Legal description.
3. Dimensions of the lot and north arrow.
6. Dimensions of front, rear, and side yards with respect to building
location.
5. Locations of all existing and proposed buildings, accessory
additions, and future garage and deck locations on the lot.
6. Location of stakes established by the surveyor along each side lot
line a distance of thirty (30) feet or required setback from the
front lot corner. In the case of heavily wooded or rolling
topography, sixty-five (65) foot stakes will also be required. The
maintenance of these stakes, once established by the surveyor, shall
be the responsibility of the building permit applicant.
7. The location of all easements and utilities as shown on record
plats.
B. Grade elevations of the following points:
a. Each lot corner (both existing and proposed).
b. Center of existing or proposed street at each lot line extended
and at the driveway.
c. Proposed grades around buildings, driveway, and walkout if
included.
d. Proposed floor elevational basement, top of foundation, and
garage.
Such elevations may be based on assumed data but shall be tied by
the surveyor to a specified benchmark, if there is a known N.G.V.D.
within a one-half mile distance. In either case, benchmark
description shall be given on the drawing.
0
Survey Requirements
Page 2
9. The proposed disposal or drainage of surface waters (indicate
direction of surface water drainage by arrows). This should concur
with any existing subdivision drainage plan.
a. A permit is issued with the understanding that the relative
elevations of the proposed lot and the established or proposed
street grade shall not conflict in such manner as to cause
damage by altering the drainage or £ low of surface waters to the
street or nearby streets or to the adjacent or nearby premises.
The Building and Zoning Administrator may deny a permit for the
construction of a building or structure upon ground which is too
low for proper drainage and in the course of construction,
alteration, repair or moving of any building or structure, no
obstruction, diversions, ridging or confining, temporary or
permanent, of the existing channel or any natural waterway
through or over which any lake, stream or surface water
naturally flows shall be made without approval of the City
Administrator and Building and Zoning Administrator.
10. Location of sewer and water connections.
a. In the case of private septic systems and wells, location of
each shall be shown as approximate and septic system drainfie ld
laid out on the plan with proposed elevations.
b. If stubs for city water and sewer are available from city
records, the location and size and elevations Shall be shown on
the survey.
c. If stubs are not available, survey to determine elevation of
inverts to nearest manholes up and down stream of the proposed
building and show proposed location.
(C) PLATTED AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY:
1. Any person desiring to improve property
shall submit to the Building Inspector a
survey of said premises and information
on the location and dimensions of existing
and proposed buildings, location of easements
crossing the property, encroachments, and
other information which may be necessary
to insure conformance to City Ordinance.
2. All buldings shall be so placed so that
they will not obstruct future streets which
may be constructed by the City in conformity
with existing streets and according to the
system and standards employed by the City.
3. A lot of record existing upon the effective
date of this Ordinance in a Residential
District, which does not meet the requirements
of this Ordinance as to area or width may
be utilized for single family detached dwelling
purposes provided the measurements of such
area or width are within seventy-five (75)
percent of the requirements of this Ordinance.
a. Except in the case of planned unit development
as provided for in Chapter 20 of this Ordinance
not more than one (1) principal building
shall be located on a lot. The words "principal
building" shall be given their common, ordinary
meaning; in case of doubt or on any question
or interpretation the decision of the Building
Inspector shall be final, subject to the
right of appeal to the Planning Commission
and City Council.
5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2)
parallel streets), both street lines shall
be front lot lines of applying the yard
and parking regulations of this Ordinance.
(D) ACCESSORY BULDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT:
1. An accessory bulding shall be considered
an integral part of the principal bulding
if it is connected to the principal bulding
either directly or by an enclosed passageway.
2. No accessory buldings shall be erected or
located within any required yard other than
the rear yard.
9
INFORMATION ITEM
SEVERED PIPE AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
On Friday, January 15, we discovered a major problem with some of the
underground piping at the wastewater treatment plant. The main drain
line from the majority of the plant's processes back to the head of
the plant had become plugged. Repeated attempts to unplug the line
failed. On Friday early in the morning the entire treatment plant
was shut down and an examination made of this line where it enters
the main wet well for the treatment plant some 24 feet beneath the
ground surface. It appeared that the pipe was constructed of PVC or
plastic and was severed at its entrance to the treatment plant. The
examination revealed that as the pipe was severed, significant
amounts of sand, gravel, and cobblestones found their way into the
wet Well.
During the week of the 18th, further investigation and research of
the as builts for the wastewater treatment plant showed that the
failure of the pipe was due to improper materials and improper
construction. The failure was not really a design problem as it was
a field installation and inspection problem, as the actual type of
connection was not shown on the plans.
The pipe that failed is located on the south side of the wet well in
a very tight area. In order to repair and/or modify the existing
piping system, we would have to dig an excavation in the area of
26 feet deep well beneath the ground water table in a confined area.
I asked Johnson Brothers to look at the site and give us a cost
estimate to sheet an excavation down to this depth. The preliminary
estimate given by Johnson Brothers, not including dewatering, was
$24,000. I then asked Tri-State Drilling for an estimate on the
dewatering. The site was extremely tight for the dewatering well
installation, and Tri-State was reluctant to give a figure indicating
there would be problems with the installation. They did, however,
indicate an approximate figure of around $5,000 to $6,000 for a
10 -day period for a couple of wells.
Seeing that the repair bill could easily exceed $30,000, I began
looking for an alternative. I alnke with Chuck Lepak of OSM about an
alternate type of construction. If we dug to the bottom depth, we
would more than likely use a ductile iron pipe and a drop type of
connection more suitable to the existing conditions. That, however,
did not appear to be coat effective. We then began looking for an
alternate method. The research so far has shown that we may be able
to dig to a ahal lower depth, possibly in the area of 16 feet, and
come directly into the building, relocate some equipment in the
building, and construct a drop down to the bottom of the wet well
inside the building. In order to get a better indication on the
ground water, I had a boring drilled outsider and we found that the
ground water was at 11 foet. We, therefore, even to dig at a shallow
a depth of 15 to 16 feet, would be pulling 4 to 5 feet of water and
Information Item
Severed Pipe at WWTP
Page 2
possibly more from our excavation. At this time, I am still
investigating which method to use for repairs but expect the cost of
repairs to be half or less than our original estimate.
We are currently renting equipment from Tri-State Pump to utilize a
temporary lift station setup to bypass this broken pipe. We have had
two pump failures in the te¢porary lift station as of this time and
do not want to operate this system any longe_ than we have to. our
goal is to have the repairs made by the first week in February and be
back to normal situation so we can begin addressing the odor problems
at the plant. The entire cost of this repair would be borne by the
City of Monticello, as it would be clearly outside the scope of our
original contract with PSG. Any one of the Council members
requesting additional information can feel free to contact me at any
time or have questions ready for the Council meeting. Thank you.
John Simola
Public Works Director