City Council Agenda Packet 05-08-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 8, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
` Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 24, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public hearing on the re -assessment of the 81-1 Improvement Project -
Edgar Klucas and Dan Frie.
5. Consider a rezoning request to rezone residential unplatted property from
R-3 (medium density residential) to PZM (performance zone mixed).
Applicant, J 6 K Properties.
6. Consideration of a preliminary plat request for a proposed new
residential subdivision plat. Applicant, West Prairie Partners.
7. Consideration of approving declaration of protective covenants and
restrictions of the Evergreens.
8. Consideration of adopting Evergreens Development Agreement.
9. Consideration of final plat approval of phase I of the Evergreens
subdivision. Applicant, Kent Kjellberg.
10. Consideration of rezoning agricultural land to residential and commercial
usage - Evergreens development.
11. Consideration of ordering publication of notice of environmental
assessment worksheet comment period.
12. Consideration of adopting Kjellberg Mobile Rome Park East Development
Agreement and consideration of approving expansion of the Kjellberg East
Mobile Homs Park.
13. Review and discuss plan of action designed to address concerns of Meadow
Oak residents.
14. Conaideration of approval of contract with Polka Dot Recycling for
curb -aide recycling in the city of Monticello.
15. Consideration of change order #2 for Project 88-01C, Pumphouse 13.
16. Consideration of Council support requesting the Department of Revenue
hold a public hearing on a proposed rule change concerning valuation and
assessments of electric utility companies.
t ,
Council Agenda
May 8, 1989
Page 2
18. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement motive water pump
for equalization basin - WWTP.
19. Consideration of awarding Project 89-1 to Channel Construction for the
improvement of Marvin Elwood Road extension and discussion of potential
assessment method.
20. Consideration of adopting Meadows and Meadows Second Addition Developer
Agreement.
21. Consideration of granting final plat approval - The Meadows Second
Addition. Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
22. Public Rearing - Consideration of vacating streets, utility, and drainage
easements.
23. Consideration of townhouse association to own and maintain sanitary sewer
main.
24. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 24, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen,
Shirley Anderson
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and
unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
April 10, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
Rhonda Thielen, of 1020 Meadow Oak Drive in Monticello, voiced her
concerns regarding public nuisance related problems in the Meadow Oak
Subdivision. Thielen went on to make the following requests:
1. The City should provide better enforcement of existing public
nuisance ordinances.
2. Action needs to be taken to control garbage in the development
associated with the construction of houses and that the
practice of creating dirt piles on vacant lots in anticipation
of house construction needs to be regulated by the City. The
dirt piles are a dangerous playground for children and are
impossible to mow once weeds set in.
3. Property owners should be required to sod and seed their yards
within a reasonable time period.
4. Thielen requested that the City take steps to assist local
homeowners in protecting the value of their individual
investments.
5. The City is asked to regulate placement of recreation vehicles,
boats, etc., in the Meadow Oaks area, as the lots are too small
to allow placement of ouch items in the front yard areas.
6. Thielen was generally unpleased with the weeds and garbage in
the Meadow Oaks Development and that the City should take a
"get tough" approach to enforcing its existing ordinances and
possibly creating now ordinances to address the problems that
have developed in the area. It was her view that this action
needs to be taken especially in light of the fact that the
covenants regarding the regulation of that property were never
filed even though it was a Council requirement at the time of
the platting of the property.
(C3;?
Council Minutes - 4/24/89
Mr. Thielen also spoke on the topic and suggested that the City develop
a system of issuing fines to those that violate public nuisance
ordinances.
Jamie Schwartz asked that the City apply pressure to the developer to
encourage him to follow through on promises to sod and seed lots. She
also noted that the dirt hills are a safety hazard for children and
that the pond in Meadow Oaks should be fenced for the safety of
children.
Rick Bush requested that the City do something to discourage people
from cutting through his yard to get to the park.
Mayor Maus noted that staff will address these concerns and prepare
alternatives for action to the City Council at the next meeting. He
went on to mention that the City may wish to enter in with the
residents in a class action suit against the developer for violating
the covenants associated with the development.
4. Consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow auto body
shops as a conditional use within the B-3 (highway business) zone.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the recommendation of the
Planning Commission which was in favor of allowing auto body activity
to occur in the B-3 zone provided that numerous conditions are adhered
to. Ken Maus reviewed the proposed conditions and suggested that the
vehicle storage area be limited to 509 of the floor space of the
structure housing the auto body shop rather than 308 of the floor
space. It was his view that it would be more likely that all the
vehicles that were to be serviced by the body shop would remain inside
the storage area if it was slightly larger. He also suggested that the
floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete
paving. Mayor Maus also noted that the development of an auto body
shop in this area does tie in with the existing land uses and that
given the conditions listed, it is likely that the auto body shop will
have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Fran Fair concurred with
this viewpoint.
Warren Smith noted his concern regarding this issue and indicated his
uneasiness about allowing auto body shop activity to occur in the B-3
zone. It was Smith's view that it will be difficult to guarantee the
adjoining property owners that their property values will not be
diminished by the presence of an auto body shop in the neighborhood.
After continued discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded
by Shirley Anderson, to include auto body repair as a conditional use,
including but not limited to the following conditions:
a. Door opening to service area garage must not face street
frontage.
b, vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor apace of the
structure housing the auto body shop.
v
Council Minutes - 4/24/89
c. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be
stored inside or in vehicle storage area.
d. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to
screen the view of vehicles in storage from the outside.
Enclosure shall consist of a six-foot high, 1008 opaque fence
designed to blend with the auto body shop structure and
consisting of materials treated to resist discoloration.
e. The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt
or concrete paving.
f. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside
the confines of the auto body shop.
g. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall
consist of no more than 508 metal material.
h. The secondary or non -advertising wall facing a public
right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials
that serve to break up the monotony of a single color flat
surface.
i. The development shall conform to minimum parking and
landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
J. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body
shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at
the time the conditional use permit is granted.
Motion based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the amendment, and concurrent conditions result in
auto body shop activity being compatible with the character of the
surrounding area. Voting in favor of motion: Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Dan
Blonigen, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Warren Smith. SEE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 175.
Consideration of a conditional use permit request - Monticello Auto
Body -
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that Monticello Auto Body be awarded a
conditional use permit as requested. Warren Smith noted that since the
Council had agreed to establish auto body activity in the B-3 zone that
he would not oppose this particular conditional use request, as it was
his view that auto body shop activity at this particular location is
appropriate.
There being no further discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair,
seconded by Dan Blonigen, to grant Monticello Auto Body Shop a
conditional use permit to allow the operation of an auto body shop in
the B-3 zone. Applicant must comply.with all conditions included in
the recent zoning amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Consideration of resolution receiving report and approving Qlans and
sL)ecificatione and ordering public hearing on Misaissippi Drive
improvement pro3ect.
City Engineer, John Badalich, reviewed the preliminary cost and
feasibility report which indicated that the proposed construction will
3
Council Minutes - 4/24/89
cost approximately $144,000. John Simola suggested that the
feasibility study may include costs that are slightly conservative, and
it is his view that the ultimate cost of the improvement with some
modifications to the plans will be closer to $80,000.
At this point in the meeting, Council discussed a potential method of
assessing the cost of the project. It was the view of Mayor Maus that
the adjoining property owners should not be required to pay 100% of the
cost of the project because the original street did not achieve its
design life of 15-20 years.
Dan Blonigen did not necessarily support the idea of the City paying a
portion of the cost to reconstruct Mississippi Drive. He was also
concerned that the City will be placed in a position to reconstruct the
entire street because the original street was designed and constructed
incorrectly. John Badalich responded by saying that all streets are
not designed to last 20 years and that this particular street, given
the poor subsoil conditions, could not be expected to last as long as a
street located in another area in Monticello. Shirley Anderson noted
that this seems to be a good time for the construction to occur given
the favorable prices. John Simola concurred and noted that the City
should push ahead with this reconstruction in order to receive the
benefit of the favorable construction costs available at this time.
There being no further discussion, motion by Fran Pair, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to order a public hearing for improvements, approve
plans and specifications, and authorize advertisement for bids on the
Mississippi Drive improvement project. The public hearing date to be
net for May 22, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. SEE
RESOLUTION 89-13.
Consideration of cost study for street upgrading within the Oakwood
Industrial Park and ordering public hearing on the improvement.
John Badalich reviewed the history behind development of the existing
streets in the Oakwood Industrial Park area. Badalich noted that the
cost to bring industrial park roads from their existing capacity to
10 tons will range from $245,000 to $420,000 depending on which streets
are selected for improvement.
Council reviewed the alternatives and determined that it would not be
necessary to improve Fallon Avenue at this time. Mayor Maus noted that
the Industrial Development Committee had recommended that a feasibility
study be developed for this project but had not recommended a plan for
financing this program. Now that the cost estimates are in, this
information should be returned to the Industrial Development Committee
for further input, regarding financing. It was the consensus of Council
to go ahead with ordering plans and specifications for this
improvement, an the engineering information will be useful in the
future even if the project is not ordered today. Council was again
reminded that the cost to overlay this area will never be cheaper than
it is this year and that this matter needs to move ahead in order for
0
Council Minutes - 4/24/89
the City to gain the benefit of the reduced prices associated with the
County Road 39 overlay work scheduled for early this summer.
After discussion, motion was made by ?ran Fair, seconded by Warren
Smith, receiving feasibility study and ordering a public hearing for
improvements, and authorizing advertisement for bids on the street
upgrading within Oakwood Industrial Park. The public hearing date to
be set for May 22, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. SEE
RESOLUTION 89-14.
8. Consideration of establishing Council representatives on Economic
Development Authority.
Fran Fair and Warren Smith volunteered to serve on the Economic
Development Authority. Tenure of the Council membership on the EDA
runs parallel to the Council members term of office.
9. Consideration of authorizing Deputy Registrar appointment.
Administrator Wolfsteller informed Council that he is recommending Pat
Rovich for the position, as she has four years of experience as a
Deputy Registrar Clerk.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran
Fair, to appoint Pat xovich to the position of Deputy Registrar Clerk
at a base salary of $7.50 per hour. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of authorizing Junk Amnesty Day - May 20.
Motion made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, to authorize
Junk Amnesty Day for May 20, 1989. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Consideration of request by Monticello Township to modify previously
adopted fire agreement on aerial ladder truck.
Motion made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to ro-affirm
the previously adopted fire agreement on aerial ladder truck. Motion
carried unanimously.
12. Consideration of adopting Softball/Baseball Association agreements for
use of NSP Softball fields.
City Administrator Wolfsteller noted that although the Softball
Association and Baseball Association aro aware of our regulations
concerning usage of the field, including reservations, tournaments,
etc., staff feels a policy should be adopted. Although it appears that
by only charging the Softball Association 8125 for every team that
participates and a tournament fee in addition revenue will not match
the expected maintenance and operation coats of the field, the fees
expected will help offset the coat of this complex. The 8125 charge to
similar to other communities. If the intent is to cover 100% of our
operating cost, the cost may be prohibitive.
9
Council Minutes - 4/24/89
Councilmember Blonigen outlined his opposition to utilizing general tax
money to maintain this ballfield which is primarily used by organized
leagues. Shirley Anderson concurred with this viewpoint. Ken Maus
stated that this facility is used at times by the general public and
that the City should be responsible for financing a portion of the
basic expenses associated with maintaining the fields. It was also
noted by Kevin Hoglund that the fields are used by the Little League
teams and that the Softball Association does not have unlimited access
to the fields.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, to adopt the
agreement with the Softball Association with the provision that the
Softball Association submit a financial report to the City by
October 1, 1989, which spells out concession revenue earned by the
Softball Association for the year. Motion seconded by Fran Fair.
Motion passed unanimously.
13. Consideration of ratifying new Fire Chief appointment.
Motion node by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve
the appointment of Jerry Wein to the position of Fire Chief. Motion
carried unanimously. Council also recognized and commended Willard
Farnick for his outstanding performance as Fire Chief.
14. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement diverter gate
mechanism - WWTP.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan
8lonigen, to authorize replacement of the diverter gate control unit
from Limitorque Corporation of Willowbrook, Illinois, for a cost of
$2,800. Motion carried u,9nimously.
15. Provide recommendation to Council representative to OAA on prolposal to
rezone agricultural land to R-1 usage. Proeerty located at the
northeast 1/4 of Section 22, Township 121, Range 25. Property also
known as the Berry Farm.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the developer has
withdrawn his application for rezoning at this time and that the OAA
will not be hearing this matter at the May meeting.
O'Neill did go on to inform the Council that the OAA will be discussing
a request submitted by Kurt Markling to subdivide property from the
property owned by Robert Rrautbauer. This property is located along
the eastern edge of the city limits and is divided by the freeway.
Markling is applying for a variance which would allow the legal
subdivision of land that is physically separated by the freeway. It
was the consensus of Council that the representative of the City to the
OAA should support this request for a variance.
8
Council Minutes - 4/24/89
16. Consideration of Extended Area Service endorsement.
Council was informed by Economic Development Director, 011ie Koropchak,
that the Industrial Development Committee requests that the City
consider endorsing the study of gaining Extended Area Phone Service.
Koropchak informed Council that 100 additional names are needed in
order for the City's petition to be valid. Submittal of a valid
petition only creates the potential for bringing a matter to a vote at
some time in the future. The cost per residence for Extended Area
Service will be available at such time that the vote is taken. It was
Shirley Anderson's concern that there may be people who cannot afford
metro area service. Dan Hlonigen noted that many people do not need
metro area service and the higher bill that these people will pay will
be used to subsidize those individuals that use metro service. Ken
Maus reiterated the fact that supporting this petition will contribute
towards bringing the matter to a vote of the people and that he
supports the concept of opening up the question of whether or not to
obtain metro area service to the people.
Aftcr di==rion, motion was made by Fran Pair, seconded by Warren
Smith, to endorse Extended Area Phone Service to the city of
Monticello. Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Fran Fair,
Warren Smith. Opposed: Shirley Anderson.
17. Review of year-end liquor store financial report.
Ken Maus commended the manager of the liquor store for the improved
performance of the facility. Maus noted that gross profits had
increased; but more importantly, net profits after adjustments for
interest earnings had increased at a greater rate than gross profits.
It was noted that the 1988 operating profits amounted to $94,000.
18. Consideration of bills for the month of April.
Motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Pair, to approve
payment of bills for the month of April.
Other Matters.
Councilmember Smith asked for a report on the vaccination clinic that
was held recently. Public Works Director Simola reported to Smith that
he observed that numerous animals were vaccinated at the clinic that
would more than likely not have been vaccinated. He went on to report
that the vaccination process went smoothly. Councilmember Smith was
concerned that the information given to Council prior to establishing
the clinic was not completely objective and that he was not informed
that the State Veterinarian Association is not in support of such
clinics.
9
Council Minutes - 4/24/89
�J Administrator Wolfsteller reported that numerous cities, including
Minneapolis, Elk River, Clearwater, and Big lake have conducted similar
clinics in the past and have had similar successes.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
L,
9
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
Public hearing on the re -assessment of the 81-1 Improvement Project -
Edgar Klucas and Dan Prie. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As part of the 1981-1 Improvement Project, sewer, water, street
improvements, and storm sewer improvements were constructed within the
Meadows subdivision, and also included the same utility extensions and
rural paving along River Street to service the new NSP Training Center.
Mr. Edgar Klucas at that time owned 651.82 feet of frontage along River
Street that received sewer and water along with street benefits; but
because of his opposition to the project and pending appeal of the
assessment roll, the Council decided at that time not to assess
Mr. Klucas's share of the cost to his property but wait until the future
when his property developed and required services. The intent was that
either Mr. Klucas or a future property owner who was desiring to develop
the property would then have to pay for all the improvements. With the
upcoming extension of Marvin Elwood Road from the Meadows subdivision to
connect with River Street being planned, Mr. Klucas's property and the
new corner lot being created in the Meadows subdivision would benefit
from the street improvement; and it is proposed that these parcels be
assessed for the Marvin Elwood Road extension. Since this public hearing
on the improvement has already been held, it now seems appropriate to
also assess the prior improvements from 1981 to Mr. Klucas and Mr. Dan
Prie, who will own that corner lot.
Of the original 651 feet, Mr. Klucas sold 160 feet of frontage to
Mr. John Sandberg, who then sold this parcel to Mr. Dan Prie, who is
including it within the Meadows subdivision plat. The original
assessment prepared in 1981 totaled $37,206.32 for the entire
651.82 feet. With 60 feet of this frontage now being dedicated for
Marvin Elwood Road extension, I recalculated the assessment based on 1981
cost by eliminating the 60 -foot frontage and respreading the old cost
amongst the 591 feet remaining. Using this method, Mr. Klucas would have
had an assessment based on 1981 cost of $31,026.31, and the remaining
100 -foot corner lot now owned by Dan Prie would have had a $6,179.92
assessment. Had these original amounts been assessed in 1981, the
deferred assessment would have totaled almost $70,000 today because of
the 13 percent interest rate that would have accumulated for 7-1/2
years. Although this large assessment may be hard for the City to
justify, I certainly believe it is logical to adjust the 1981 cost by an
inflation factor to account for the increased cost if the project was
done today. I previously consulted with John Badalich at OSM to obtain
the construction price index increases since June of 1981, when the
project was bid, to March of 1989. The CPI has increased 30.63 percent
over the last 7-1/2 years, and this would seem to be the appropriate
method of adjusting the original assessment roll to bring it into today's
cost. Using this percentage increase, it to recommended that
Mr. Klucas's share of the 1981 project would total $40,529.67; and the
remaining lot consisting of a 100 -foot parcel would amount to $8,072.83.
These are the figures I sent to the property owners for this public
hearing.
1
Council Agenda - 5/B/89
Even with this assessment roll being adopted today, it is assumed that
Mr. xlucas would still qualify for green acres deferrment; and thus, the
City may not receive any payment on Mr. Rlucas's share of the assessment
roll. But we would at least have it certified to the County Auditor and
recorded as a future lien. The portion of the assessment roll pertaining
to the 100 -foot lot within the Meadows subdivision is anticipated to be
paid when the parcel develops in the near future.
It is also recommended that like similar projects assessed recently the
interest rate on the assessment roll be at 8-3/4 percent based on the
recent cost of City borrowing.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would be to adopt the assessment roll as
presented.
2. The second alternative could be to adopt an assessment roll but at a
different dollar amount if the Council desired.
3. The third alternative would be not to assess the benefiting property
at this time with the intent of collecting a future amount when the
property is developed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff feels somewhat uncomfortable with a large potential assessment
not being officially recorded as a lien. By not adopting an assessment
roll, it places a large burden on the City staff or Council members to
remember that this property has never been assessed for prior
improvements. With the upcoming Marvin Elwood Road extension being
proposed for assessment to the benefiting property owners, it certainly
makes sense now to also assess the benefiting property for prior
improvements that was omitted in 1981. Although there are certainly many
methods to determine what an appropriate cost would he in today's
dollars, I feel the construction price index increase of 30 percent is a
logical method for establishing the cost today and would recommend that
the proposed assessment amounts be adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Worksheet reallocating
original assessment amount based on CPI Increase.
-2-
RESOLUTION 89 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
improvements to West River Street between County Road 75 and I-94 with sanitary
sewer, water main, bituminous paving, and other appurtenant work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land
therein included and hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
improvements in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending
over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on
or before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall bear interest at
the rate of 8.75 percent annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest
on the entire assessment for the date of this resolution until
December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be
added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of
the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged
if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of his
resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer
the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such
payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged
through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment of the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists
of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the Council this. 8th day of May, 1989.
Ken Made, Mayor
1 Rick Woltsteller
City Administrator
0
N
I
1981-1 PROJECT
ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT - EDGAR RLUCAS
Original Frontage 651.82'
Less: Marvin Elwood Rd. (60.00)'
Assessable Frontage Today 3R-.8 r
Sanitary Sewer
$10,100.38
— 591.82'
_ $11.0666 ft.
Sewer Service
$ 363.91
Water Main
$ 9,441.20
— 591.82'
_ $15.9528 ft.
Water Service
$ 268.32
Street
$17,032.51
591.82'
- $28.7798 ft.
ORIGINAL TOTAL
$37,206.32
(491.821)
(1001)
Rlucas
Prie
Sanitary Sewer @ $17.0666
ft.
$ 8,393.70
$1,706.66
Sewer Service @ $363.91 ca.
$ 363.91
-0-
Water Main @ $15.9528 ft.
$ 7,845.90
$1,595.28
Water Service @ $268.32
$ 268.32
-0-
Street @ $28.7798 ft.
$14,154.48
$2,877.98
ORIGINAL ASHT WITHOUT 60'
$31,026.31
rr, T" M.
ROAD FRONTAGE
Construction Price Index
x 130.638
x 130.63%
Increase - 7-1/2 yrs.
Proposed Assessment
$40,529.67
$8,072.83
J�.
06/
M
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
5. Consider a rezoning request to rezone residential unplatted property from
R-3 (medium density residential) to PZM (performance zone mixed).
Applicant, J 6 K Properties. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
J 6 K Properties, represented by Jim and Ken Maus, requests that a parcel
of land directly east of the Maus Foods store be rezoned from R-3 to PZM
zoning. Staff and Planning Commission have reviewed the Comprehensive
Plan and reviewed the Zoning Ordinance in terms of the proposed amendment
and is recommending that Council approve this request. Council is asked
to, as always, review this proposed amendment in accordance with Chapter
22 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that the City consider
possible adverse impact created by the proposed amendment. City council
judgement regarding adverse impact shall be based upon, but not limited
to, the following factors:
1. Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan.
2. Geographic area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
Following is an outline of the proposal and potential impact on adjoining
property, then followed by a review of potential adverse impact.
PROPOSAL
The proposal to rezone this property from R-3 to PZM provides the land
owner with flexibility in developing this area as either residential R-3
usage or commercial/retail usage. There are also a number of other uses
allowed in the PZM zone as outlined in the attached pertinent sections of
the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the "PZ" or performance zoning
district is to allow for development flexibility and special design
control within sensitive areas of the city due to environmental or
physical limitations. The performance zoning district also attempts to
create a reasonable balance between the interest of the property owner in
freely developing his property; and at the same time, protect the
interest of surrounding properties. Please refer to the attached
sections of the Zoning Ordinance for more information regarding the
purpose of the "PZ" zoning district. Essentially, the reason for the
rezoning is to provide J i K Properties the flexibility of developing a
retail facility complementary to the present Maus Foods store. Such a
development could also be combined with a multi -family development under
the PZM zoning. Please note that at this time, the applicants have
provided a verbal report on their goals for the development area and have
not at this time solidified plans on paper. Ken and Jim Maus will he
present at the meeting to discuss this matter further with the council.
-3-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Following is a brief review of the site and surrounding area. The site
itself has an awkward shape and consists of area approximately equal to a
city block. Access to the property is available only along Cedar
Street. Presently on the site are two somewhat dilapidated residences.
The land itself is relatively low and will likely require soil correction
prior to future development. The property to the south and southeast of
the proposed rezone area contains the Lauring Lane Apartments. The
apartments are separated from the rezone area by a steep embankment. To
the north of the rezone area is the Burlington Northern Railroad, which
separates the property from Cedar Crest Apartments. Of course, to the
east of the property is Maus Foods, which is separated from the
development area by Cedar Street. Homes lying east of Cedar Crest
Apartments and directly northeast of the rezone area have been earmarked
by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority as a potential area for
redevelopment. A future plan for development of the rezone site might
also include plans for redevelopment of this somewhat blighted area east
of the Cedar Crest Apartments. Such a plan would require development of
Palm Street which would include creation of a railroad crossing.
ZONING AMFMMENT CONSIDERATIONS
1. Relationshie to municipal Comprehensive Plan. Attached are sections
taken From the municipal Corrrprehensive Plan that might impact your
decision on this matter. In reviewing this proposed request, I have
found no policies that would be violated by this proposal and have
found Bow that seem to support this proposal. Please refer to
copies of per tinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan for more
information.
2. Geographic Area. The proposed area for rezoning is adjacent to a D-4
zone and adjacent to an R-3 zone. In a sense, PZM zoning is a
combination of B-4 and R-3 zoning. Therefore, in terms of transition
between the two zones, the PZM zoning appears appropriate. In
addition, the site being located directly adjacent to a food store is
a prime area for retail development. Therefore, use of this property
for retail purposes may represent the highest and beat use of the
property. The property is also located adjacent to apartment
buildings, however, those apartment buildings are buffered by
railroad tracks to the north and a steep grade to the east and
south. It appears, then, from a geographic standpoint that the
proposed rezoning in compatible with the general area.
3. The character of the surrounding area. This particular consideration
1s similar to the item above. The proposed rezoning will not create
a land use in, conflict with the adjoining properties. It should also
be noted that any development of a retail establishment on this site
does require a conditional use permit, which provides the City with
tho potential of attaching additional conditions designed to mitigate
negative impacts of retail development.
-4-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
4. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed. Given the presence of physical features that
buffer this area from adjoining lands, it appears reasonable to
expect that establishment of a retail establishment on this site will
have a negligible effect on the property values of adjoining lands.
5. The demonstrated need for such use. A case could be made that
development of this particular parcel as a commercial site represents
the highest and best use of this land because it is so close to a
strong commercial activity center and because the property is so well
buffered from other uses. The fact that it appears suitable for
retail development does, in a sense, support the idea that there is a
need for rezoning demonstrated at this particular site. The proposal
also serves to contribute toward consolidation of a retail area,
which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the proposed rezoning of subject parcel from R-3 to
PZM zoning.
Motion to approve based on the finding that the proposal is 1)
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) compatible with the
geographic area and character of the adjoining lands; 3) the rezoning
will not tend to depreciate the area in which it is proposed; 4) the
need for the proposed rezoning has been sufficiently demonstrated.
2. Motion to deny the rezoning amendment.
3. Table the matter pending development of plans.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As stated earlier, Planning Commission recommends approval of the
proposed rezoning request. The only hesitation is that a concrete plan
has not been proposed prior to this rezoning request. This negative is
mitigated, however, by the fact that any retail development in this area
will require a conditional use permit which provides the City with the
opportunity to attach conditions to the permit designed to protect the
values of the adjoining properties.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the zoning map; Excerpts from the zoning Ordinance regarding PZM
zoning; Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan.
-5-
CaAPTER 10
t "PZ-REa^IDENTI.IL" & •PZ-MZ%ED" ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION:
10-1: Purpose
10-2: General Description
10-3: PZ -R, Permitted Uses
10-4: PZ -R. Permitted Accessary Uses
10-5: PZ -R, Conditional Uses
10-6: PZ -M. Permitted Uses
10-7: PZ -M, Permitted Accessory Uses
10-8: PZ -M, Conditional Uses
10-9: Procedure
10-10: Compliance
10-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "PZ", Performance Zoning
Districts are to allow for development flexibility
and spacial design control within sensitive areas
of the
City due to environmental or physical limitations.
The Performance Zoning Districts also attempt to
create
a reasonable balance between the interest
of the
property owner in freely developing his property,
and at
the same time protect the interest of surrounding
properties in the following ways:
(A]
Ey sacouraginq.a more creative approach in
commercial and,housing developments, that
vill result in quality living environments
through innovative design and aesthetic controls:
(sI
By parmittinq a combination of housing types
and styles,includinq single family, two family,
and multiple Tamily dwellings, with the exception
of mobile homes,
(C7
By allowing flexibility in design by permittinq
cluster developments and a variety of architectural
styles and treatments,
(Ol
By allowing flexibility in setback and height
restrictions.
(EI
By providing an efficient use of land resulting in
more cost efficient installation of utilities.
streets, and other facilities,
(I(
By encouraging the preservation of eom n
open space, recreational facilities, natural
features, such as woodland. wotlsnd, and floodplain,
\r/
(e)•'VhaD araaa.are to be preserved by the
developer the City may require that auch
arses be .leased daring coastraetion oto:
assure .that, equipment' rill' 'sot damage
'preservation' -are".
10-6: PERFORMANCE ZONE = TSD (?PZ -M") PERllitto USES: Ooly''the
following uses are permitted mea within a.PZ-M District:' "
"PZ-,MI70 , ZON=IDISMIC'•
(Al Thosa'uaea listed as.permitted uses within
the "R-3" Zoning District subject to the standards
contained therein.
(BI Club or Lodge without the serving of food
or beverages.
(CI Those uses that exist prior to the adoption
of this Chapter.
(DI A parsittad use shall be regulatedand controlled
by the terms, conditions, and provisions of
this Ordinance as they pertain to -an R-3.Distact.,
10=4: Vz-M:. ,PgtHI.=. 'AC=SSORY USES: Only t", following
user,ari-permitted `accessory, alas vithla•,a'PZ-M'District'.
l (A7 Thgaa; uset: liated.;ae. permitted, accessory.uses
Zoainq District._ i
(e1 A;pa-sLtted:ad cts6ry..uss,shall'be 'regulated I
snd Controlled by'tha,.[arms, eoddStiaaa, and,
yrovlsioeu'ot Chis Ordlnanca as t)iay,yasenia
to an!R-3,1.0"taict.,
10-5: PZ-M:CONDiS10NAL USES: Onty the_,toilowing.usss
Are Conditional ussee;Ln.,Wk=K Districe.
(AI Thoma
listed, 6i Conditional usaa ,in ,th'a
"R -3" -Zoning District aed`as equioted,therein
sicapt• as madiaed Lr. this 'C.iaptar. `
pleb Hospitals, medical offices and ciin Ica, dental
offices and clinics, professional offices_
and commercial (leased) otficau (limited -to
appraisers, archltacts, attorneys, certified
public accountants, clergyman, dentists, engineett,
manufacturers representatives. physicians,
real estate agents, and other similar esu
which have no storage of merchandise, and
are service orianted with no retail sale of
'7 goods on the promises), and funeral hoses
and mrtuaries provided that:
!1
cv
1. When abutting -R-1-, -R-2-, -R-3- or PZ -R
'
Distict, a buffer area with screening
and landscaping in Compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G1 -shall be exacted.
(C1
Nursing Homes and similar group housing, but
not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar
institutions, provided that:
1. Side yards are double the minimum requirements
established for this District and are
'
screened in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G1 of this Ordinance.
2. One (1) off-street loading space in compliance
with Chapter 3, Secion 6 of this ordinance
is installed.
• (D)
Parking Facilities for adjacent commercial
or multiple dwelling establishments provided
that:
1. Screening of abutting residential uses
and landscaping is provided in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G1 of this
ordinance.
i
(E1
Retail commercial activities as listed in
Chapter 12, Section 2, of this Ordinance, (w,d& raa
provided that? C4 J
1. Merchandise is sold at retail only.
2. She procedures outlined hereinafter are
complied with in full.
(F1
Buildings combining residential and non-residential
uses allowed in this district provided that:
1. Residential and non-residential uses shall
•
not be contained on the same floor.
2. She procedures outlined hereinafter are
complied with in full.
(G1
Senior citizen housing provided that:
1. Not more than ton (10! percent of the
occupants may be persons sixty (60) years
of age cc under (spouse of a person over
sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, etc.).
2. Except for caretaker units, occupancy
shall be limited to man and wife, blood
relativaa, or a single man or single woman.
cv
3. To continue to qualify for the senior
citizen housing classification the owner
or agent shall annually file with the
City Administrator or the Building inspector
a certified copy of a monthly resume of
occupants of such a multiple dwelling,
listing the number of tenants by age and
clearly identifying and setting forts
tho relationship of occupants sixty (60)
years of age or under to qualified tenants,
or to the building.
4. One (t) off-street loading space in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 6 of this Ordinance
is Installed.
5. Elevator service is provided to each floor
level.
6. Usable open space as defined in Chapter 2,
u Section 2 of this Ordinance, at a mini=m,
is equal to twenty (20) percent of the
gross lot area. .
7. The site of the main entrance of the principal
use is served or is located within four
- hundred (400) feet of regular transit
service.
8. The site of the main entrants of the prtrcipal
use is within four hundred (400) feet
of commercial shopping development or
adequate provision for access to such
facilities is provided.
(S) Private clubs and lodges ssrvii q food and
beverages provided that:
t. Such use shall be restricted to members
and their guests.
2. Adequate dining roam, kitchen, and tar
space must be provided according to standards
Imposed on similar unrestricted customer
operations. The serving of alcoholic
beverages to members and their guests
shall be allowed, providing that such
sarvics is in compliance with applicable
.federal, State and Municipal regulations.
3. Offices of such use shall be limited to
•
_ no more than twenty (20) garment of the
gross floor area of the principal structure.
r? [II APART.1=;T DMISITY SOWS: When multiple family
structures of ten (10) units or more are approved
a maximum of ten (10) percent reduction In
the lot area per unit a3 regulated in Chapter 3,
Section 4 may be allowed. The reduction in
lot ares shall be deter=ined based upon the
..following table:
Condition To Earn Bonus lot Area Reduction (per unit)
1. Type two (2) construction lob of.
2. Elevator serving each floor. 50 of.
3. Transit service available within three
hundred (300) feet of the entrance. 50 of.
4. Two-thirds (2/3) of the required
fee free parking underground
or within principal structure
(not including attached or
detached garages). 180 at.
S. Indoor recreation and social
rooms equal to twenty-five
(25) square feet per unit
or seven -hundred -fifty (750)
square foot total, whichever
is greater. 50 sf.
6. Major outdoor recreation
facilities such as switming
pools, tennis courts or
similar facilities requiring
a substantial investment
equaling at minimum five
(3) percent of the construction
cost of the principal structure. 10 of.
[J) FI1MXNG3 OF FACT: Prior to granting of a
conditional use par=it the City Planning Cc=iss£on
and City Council shall Oaks the following
findings of fact. in the event that the applicant
shall submit insufficient materials for the
City to make informed findings of fact the
City Staff and Planning Comsiasion shall request
additional information pursuant to Chapter 22
of this Ordinance.
1. The proposed project is consistent with
the spirit and Intent of the Monticello
Comprehensive Pian goals and policies
and in keeping with the intent of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
r�
2.
The proposed project is consistent with the
purpose of the performance Zoning Ordinance
as outlined Section 1 at this Chapter.
` 3.
The proposed project will not have any
adverbs impacts as outlined in Chapter 22
of this Ordinance.
4.
The proposed project shall meet minimum
screening and landscaping requirements
as outlined in Chapter 3, section 2 EG).
5.
The proposed project shall provide adequate
parking pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 5
of this Ordinance and off—street loading
pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 6 of this
Ordinance,
B.
The proposed project shall provide a wider
a
range of housing types, price ranges,
and styles within tie comauatiy.
7.
The proposedproject will provide amenities
and facilities and open spaces greater
than the minimum requirements under alternative
zoning.
8.
The proposed project shall in no way be
detriaantal to the environmant. Scenic
aspects and natural features, such as
streams, tress, topography. and geological
features, shall be protected and prssarved
to the.greatest extent possible.
9.
The proposed project shall not impose
any undue burden upon the public services
and facilities, such as fire, polies.
schools, strests,water, sanitary sewer,
and storm sever.
14.
The proposed project is designed in such
a mannas to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries,
and also which will not be detrimental
to future land uses in the surrounding
ar4as. Architecture and site treatments
shall be compatible with adjacent structures
and site plans and shall respect the privacy
of neighboring homes and/or businesses.
11.
findings at fact submitted by the Planning
Commission to the City Council shall address
additional requirements necessary to asks
the project in compliance with this Chapter
in all areas where the Planning Commission
foals the proposed project is lacking.
C-1.)
! Variance from these guidelines may be permitted
when site specific conditions and specific
proposal elements show that a strict interpretation
_ of the guidelines will either place undue
hardship on the developer or will be detrimental
to adjacent properties. in no case shall
standards be reduced so that the findings
of fact outlined above cannot be achieved
• AND in no case shall the guidelines prevent
the City from requiring greater standards
when specific conditions outlined above must
be satisfied.
1. Setback Guidelines
(a) The following guidelines shall serve
as a starting point in the discussion
of setbacks of structures from property
lines and existing adjacent structures.
The following table represents guidelines
° for side yard setbacks for principal
structures based on the type of proposed
structures as well as the adjacent.
use:
PROPOSED USE
S.F. LESS T1L1N LrSS THAN MORE THAN
• S UNITS 9 UNITS 9 UNITS
m B.F. 10 FT. iS FT. 20 FT. 25 FT.
N
LESS THAN
S UNITS iS FT. 15 FT. 20 FT.
y LESS THAN
„ 9 UNITS 20 FT. 20 FT. 20 FT.
m
MORE THAN
9 UNITS 20 FT. 20 FT. 20 FT.
(b) Site specific conditions such as
topography, existing and proposed
vegetation, and visibility from other
Properties may warrant increasing
these standards. setbacks *hail
not be reduced below those set forth
in the applicable zoning district.
(c)- The front yard guidelines shall be
a■ described in Chapter ], section
of this Ordinance.
(d) The rear yard setback shall be 20
feet unless natural topography shall
dictate a greater setback. The applicant
F shall preserve vegetation and eiaiaize
r grading to the extent that consideration
is given to these features.
20 FT.
20 FT.
2s FT.
(Kj STANDARDS: Except as Specifically provided
herein, there shall be no fixed standards
for conditional uses within the Mixed Parformancs
Zoning District. In their review the City
shah take into account standards that are
contained in other sections of this Ordinance
that moat closely resemble those that would
apply to a similar use if it ware proposed
in a district other than the Performance Zone.
EL) PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: The following are
guidelines for reviewing projects within the
PZ-RLxed toning District. Procedures for
the review of such proposals shall be as outlined
in' the PUD section of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance. The City Staff and Planning Commission
&.hall reviev the project and give recocmandationa
so as to permit the City Council to make informed
findings of fact as outlined above. variance
from these guidelines may be permitted when
site specific conditions and specific proposal
elements show that a strict interpretation
to the guidelines will either place undue
hardship on the developer or will be detrimental
to adjacent properties. In no east shall standards
be reduced so that the findings of fact outlined
above can not bit achieved AND in no case shall
the guidelines prevent the City from requiring
greater standards when specific conditions
culined in above must be satisfied.
1. Setback Guidslinas
{a) Setback requirements shall be based
upon the zoning requirements of the
District for which the project would
be zoned if conventional zoning was
applied, as described in Chapter 3,
Section 3 of this Ordinance.
(b) Site specific conditions such as
topography, existing and proposed
vegetation, and visibility from other
Properties may warrnat increasing
these standards. Setbacks should
not be reduced below those set forth
M in the applicable zoning district.
(c) The front yard guidelines shall be
aI described in Chapter 3, Section 3
of the ardlannce.
(d) The rear yard setback shall be as
described in Chapter 3, Section 3
of this Ordinanctunless natural topography shall
dictate a greater setback, The applicant
shall preserve vegetation and sinimizs
grading to the extent that consideration is
given to thea• features. +'
(e) schen projects propose to construct
more than one principal structure
on the same lot the above guidelines
shall apply to the perimeter of the
site. Internal setbacks ahati give
duos regard to such consideration
as fire protection and public safety.
traffic .visibility at circulation
intersections. Reduction of internal
standards shell be perzitted it the
applicant can deacnstrate that external
setbacks are adequate and that the
reduction is used to enhance the
layout or shall preserve significant
natural features.
2. Density Requirements
(a) Density calculations shall be basad
on the zoning requirements of the
district the project would be zoned
for it conventional zoning were applied.
(b) In applying these standards credits
for innovative construction methods
or provision of &manitie■ above normal
construction may be permitted. The
" following is a list of density credits.
J. Underground Parking -600 sq. ft. per space
` provided under the
et--ucture.
11
ii. Preservation of
uaturai 8a4cures - when the project will
Preserve significant
natural features the
area preserved may be
deducted froo the required
lot area. This deduction
shall not include required
setbacks.
iii. Additional
Landscaping - When the project provides
for landscaping above and
beyond the normal requirement
a density allowance shall
be pa=ittad. The extentof
the credit shall be determined
by evaluating the visibility
of the project from &("¢
parcels and similar projects
within the City.
G
iv. traable Recreation
Space -When the project provides
usable recreational open
space above the normal
requirament that area
may also be deducted from
the lot area requirement.
V. Innovative Housing - When the project shall
propose innovative housing
apporrAnities a reduction
of the site requirements
may be permitted. Such
Tanovations must be demonstra-
such that this type of
housing would not be feasibl
without a density credit.
Financial feasibility
alone shall not be consider*
unless the applicant can
demonstrate that the housing
will benefit low and/or
moderate income households.
(c) Negative Credits
i. Under special conditions the
City may consider requiring additional
area requirements to ensure the
preservation of significant natural
site features, when utility demands
will place a burden on public
facilities, when projected traffic
counts are greater than the carrying
capacity of the surrounding transportation
system.
Li. When imposing negative credits
the city shall base such determinations
on studies prepared by qualified
professional City Staff or consultants.
When such conditions may warrant
the Staff shall direct the applicant
to have prepared such studies
that will daswnstrate that those
issues will in fact not cause
a nogative impact to the health,
safety, and general welfare of
the City. should the planning
Commission or the City Council
feel that these issues have not
been properly addressed they
shall withhold any approval until
such tis* as the applicant at
City Staff has pr*par*d necessary
studies.
s
1-01
M
y
iv. traable Recreation
Space -When the project provides
usable recreational open
space above the normal
requirament that area
may also be deducted from
the lot area requirement.
V. Innovative Housing - When the project shall
propose innovative housing
apporrAnities a reduction
of the site requirements
may be permitted. Such
Tanovations must be demonstra-
such that this type of
housing would not be feasibl
without a density credit.
Financial feasibility
alone shall not be consider*
unless the applicant can
demonstrate that the housing
will benefit low and/or
moderate income households.
(c) Negative Credits
i. Under special conditions the
City may consider requiring additional
area requirements to ensure the
preservation of significant natural
site features, when utility demands
will place a burden on public
facilities, when projected traffic
counts are greater than the carrying
capacity of the surrounding transportation
system.
Li. When imposing negative credits
the city shall base such determinations
on studies prepared by qualified
professional City Staff or consultants.
When such conditions may warrant
the Staff shall direct the applicant
to have prepared such studies
that will daswnstrate that those
issues will in fact not cause
a nogative impact to the health,
safety, and general welfare of
the City. should the planning
Commission or the City Council
feel that these issues have not
been properly addressed they
shall withhold any approval until
such tis* as the applicant at
City Staff has pr*par*d necessary
studies.
s
1-01
M
3. Surrounding property Owners: Surrounding
property owners shall be notified is writing
of any proposed developments. Applicants
shall be encouraged to meat with property
owners prior to public hearings or when
ever ouch a meeting will allow better
involvement of neighbors in the review
process. While complete consent of adjacent
property owners shall not be mandatory
for approval of projects developed under
the PZ -Mixed Zoning.involvement
with adjacent owners shall be encouraged
through all steps vithim the approval
process.
4. Submission Requirements. Amen ants and
Special Requiremants:
(a) All applicants shall submit final
building plans plans to the City prior
to the granting of permits. No changes
to the plans shall be permitted without
consent from .the City Council. All
requirements as a condition of approval
shall be addressed in the final development
agreement and indicated an all appropriate
plans. City Staff shall inspect
the work during construct' -on to assure
that such plans are followed.
(b) The C4ty Council may at its discretion
place special requiraments that will
ensure the complete construction
of all requirements. Such conditions
may include performance bonds, time
limitations for commencement of the
work, and limitations on the hours
of contraction.
(c) When areas are to be preserved by
the developer the City may requ'=a
that such areas be fenced during
construction to assure that equipment
will not damage preservation areas.
10-9: PROCE01)RES: Applicants requesting a conditional
use permit sh&4 submit plans, specifications, and
other materials as outlined in Chapter 20 of this
Ordinance. Application procedures shall be defined
pursuant to provisions contained in Chapter 20, Section 4.
of this Ordinance.
A 10-10: COMPLIANCE: No development shall occur, nor shall
any building permits be issued for any construction,
that is not in accord with the approved final plans.
01.,
EXCERPT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CCXMERCIAL POLICIES
1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing
!unctions should occur both in the central business district and
17,?
987 the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94.
2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures
and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the
/ needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to
properly control such enterprises at the local community level;
a commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible,
and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive.
3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable
04 areas for highway oriented commercial davalaoaent requiring
N large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement
dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses
should be encouraged to develop in new locations along
Interstate 94 at Highway 25.
4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an
adequate market study (market radius, customer potential,
suitabia Location in the market radius, arc.) and consideration
for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern.
S. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact
commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses,
af{/ as they toneant-ate shopping and parking. A community is
L r' benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a
better cont_ol over parking and traffic needs. For this reason,
'st:ip" and "Spot' commercial development should not be
permitted.
8.
Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated
to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prim*
commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable as
a 'viable commercial area'.
7.
Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the
Integrated business center developed according to a specific
f
site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to
be served.
S.
All major commercial areas shall be pro -zoned based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. NO areas shall be ce-toned to commercial
i�
—
use unless they are Shown to be properly located in accordance
with the policies end standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
f
;
9.
Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as
to prevent intrusion into residential areas; residential areas
r
-41.O
L s•,
must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of
adjacent and nearby commercial area.
�+A•�o.1r tiff -
J
-4B-
!!
ti�
�J
4
.. . .. -1 7_ - . - Sao_ . ---�. - -
Central Business District policies
1. The Central Business District along County Bighway 75 and Walnut 2.
St:eet should be further developed to de-emphasize through
-traffic in favor of emphasizing convenience and safety for the
Nj► shopping public. Development of aesthetically desirable
(r conditions should be accomplished through the addition of new
paved surfaces, landscaping, better lighting, benches, -
fountains, canopies, and other street furniture to provide a
more attractive environment for the pedestrian and shopper.
2. The downtown should be as compact and intensively developed as
possible.
3. The retailing component should be tightly nucleated and
ON all-weather connection (interior and exterior) between stores
should be provided.
4. Consistent designs for street furniture, informational signs,
street lighting, and landscaping should be developed to make the
a downtown appear more unified. The City will work with private
�1 enterprise to encourage consistency in other areas of appearance
and design.
5.11. -The major flow of vehicular traffic should be around the area -
;•0 not through it.
Pedestrian circulation within the downtown must be emphasized.
Pedestrian access from parking areas to the retail canter must
+ be free from unnecessary conflict with vehicular traffic.
7. Adequate off-street parking should be provided to reach a
satisfactory floor area to parking area ratio and said parking
should be so located to to provide the greatest convenience to
EV retail customers. The convenient location of customer parking
should take priority over employee parking.
8. Within the Central Business District emphasis should be given to
h�Vy creating additional parking rather than accommodating the
Iv traditional through traffic movements.
9. .t Parking needs should be solved on an area -wide basis and not on
L j% a site-by-s:ts basis. The City should play a strong role in the
determination of the parking solution.
10. The core area should be surrounded by activities that complement
�i those in the retail core. itself; such activities include
winstitutions, sgrvice industry, automotive services, medium to
high density housing, and the like.
A rezoning request to rezone
t\4 a -
''`.` 4' �+,.,,�f��/i'*++""II„�.c„ "" ••1���+++'. ' ' :,_ /t�! •s,.: residential unplattad property
tr",r�`b•! w /I �r'•�ii f ` IrF - .,, R-3 (aedium density residential)
err
It (' il/ & z ornance zone mixed) .
`�: K'PY�tias.
J`� 't �tf /� l(�Ilt,. .•r-j"`���G/./��i�f.'��' � •',� `'�
�','Ai�'tt �"f� ./ /t�� •,.,,� •;':i•.�/. �� /�/• .J.,�;i // �• ./l�! . � , . ' •aims / ../ /� /` `,,:
��.v' Tt., ,��/yi�!•�,,. •a !„ � '• w ,. �5„W/ t i � • N J` ����v;,�� `� 1• fq \ ` �•
t` taJ'l� �,,` �, rd :%c• �/i •f� i�,cyj,J ,� •!r t ��yt/,/,�,/�� 'St
- -- _. �f � '. ��' /f_r,�: ./�r . '!`vim � .., , o' • y •I� //'��/t+f •[)/J,� /;�'a �_ ��,
I' ~
k awar / =��;? �`"'��•',
•t; `�� w, v� ,1, � tet. ,
r. .r—/) .�' 7'�` � r�'I . i • i'�►�M ted• _
ep \ e A)
,� 7, +� f �� )tea ' 7 wri • , � a-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
6. Consideration of a preliminary plat request for approposed new
residential subdivision plat. Applicant, West Prar ie Partners. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
West Prairie Partners requests that Council consider providing
preliminary approval of the preliminary plat of the Prairie West
subdivision. Planning Commission recormnends that Council provide
preliminary approval of this plat. Following is a narrative review of
the site plan which is intended to supplement the drawing prepared for
your review.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Council is familiar with this particular site, as it was recently
reviewed as part of a request for rezoning from R-2 to R-3. As you
recall, the zoning in this area retained its R-2 nature; and subsequent
to that decision, the developers have developed a site plan that is
consistent with the R-2 (medium density residential) use. The nature of
this particular development is more R-1 in nature; however, this
development character is not inconsistent with the R-2 zoning.
The proposed platted area encompasses 2.5 acres and calls for the
creation of a cul-de-sac and seven lots. To the north of the development
area is Wright County Highway 75; to the south is the Burlington Northern
Railroad tracks; to the east is Monticello School District property; to
the west is the property owned by Daniel Reed; and further west is Gille
and Katzmarek.
Each lot created with this subdivision was reviewed in terms of setback
and minimum square foot area, and each complies with the Zoning
Ordinance. You will notice that Lot 5 has a long and slender access to
the cul-de-sac. This particular design, though not ideal, is within the
requirements of the ordinance. The long, slender access to the
cul-de-sac is 32 feet at its narrowest point, which provides plenty of
room for a driveway and snow storage area.
ENGINEERING ISSUES
Engineering data has not been filed prior to consideration of this
preliminary plat. It is the view of staff that in this situation, such
information is not deemed necessary prior to preliminary plat approval,
as it appears evident that this area can be served by sewer, water, and
storm water drainage service. It should be noted, however, that final
plat approval will be contingent upon the positive recommendation by the
City Engineer. It is staff's understanding that the developers will
effploy the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications.
PARK DEDICATION
It appears evident that the developer deoiree to make a cash payment in
lieu of a dedication of land for park purposes. As you know, the
developer is required to pay 10 percent of the raw value of the
subdivided area in lieu of dedication of 10 percent of the land area.
-6-
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/2/89
A cash payment makes more sense in light of the fact that there is
limited land area on which to develop a park on this site, and there is
semi-public park land available on the school district grounds. Staff,
therefore, supports the concept of a cash payment in lieu of land. A
cash payment amount has not been established at this time.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Prairie West.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of Prairie West.
3. Motion to table item pending gathering of additional data.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Prairie West. The
proposed subdivision is a very positive addition to that area and is
highly compatible with the golf course and Pinewood Elementary School
environment. The presence of this development will serve in the long run
to increase the value of the adjoining property and provide continued
momentum toward eventual redevelopment of the blighted properties to the
west.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed preliminary plat of Prairie Westl Location map provided on
proposed plat map. Section of Comprehensive Plan pertaining to
subdivision policies.
�l
-7-
....6f\.....�y
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPT
SLMOTJTSiON POL:C:E$
/JJ
'1.s All subdivisions should conform to the Comprehensive Plan (land
use, transportation, and co=unity facilities) of the community.
2. All land developments should be controlled in a logical and
);f5 practical way through the planning process so as to gradually
develop the land utilizing its advantages yet being sensitive to
(f 1 existing natural features worth saving for the future.
3. Daphasis shall be given to contiguous development accentuating
the homogenous nature of the community Cather than a patchwork
PAA o! localized and unrelated projects, and discourage the
�fli extension of public utilities to this non-contiguous
development, thereby discouraging 'leap frog' development.
4. All subdivisions, no matter how small, should be planned in such
a manner as to allow proper subdivision of surrounding land at a
�Ot {,;future date; a preliminary plan for the potential subdivision of
the surrounding sites should be prepared regardless of ownership
to involved to assure that the smaller subdivision will not
OLT conflict with future development potential. where a subdivision
is surrounded by previously platted land, said subdivision
should be'related to the existing conditions.
4. Land platted into larger lots should be so planned and developed
as to permit proper re -subdivision in the future even in
NI situations where further re -subdivision may not appear likely.
6. The subdivision regulations should contain adequate pcovisions
for deviation from the strir_ application of the regulations to
N allow reasonable flexibility and imaginative site design within
the intent and purpose of zoning and subdivision regulations.
7. All lots should abut on a public street; access via private
0& streets or easements should not be pecmitted except where
absolutely essential to the enjoyment of property rights.
a Street names should be in.accordance with a uniform street
VN naming and numbering system adopted by the City.
4. All lots and Streets should be arranged as as to avoid
1,I� inef!icient land Shapes (such as triangle) and sizes (such an
CO t very narrow outlots).
10. All subdivision proposals should be complete; that in, they
Ossmould have paved attests, curb and gutter, all utilities, and
ti public areas such as parka and playgrounds.
11. Overhead utility lines and poled should not be permitted. All
t-r;utilities should be placed underground and should be along rear
td"? or side lot lines when feasible.
-42
S
I
H
12. Subdivisions should be physically develored in full, urban
density areas should be provided sanitary sewer, paved streets,
curb and gutter, public water and other improvements deemed
G necessary.
11. In the case of small subdivisions or multiple ownerships, the
complete subdividers or developers may not be required to
install complete facilities provided it is demonstrated that
this is clearly not feasible or practicable. Prior to final
approval of all subdivisions, however, it shall be determined
what improvements may be added by the community. when
substantially developed, full facilities (sanitary sewer, public
water, paved streets, etc.) should be added thcough action
initiated by the community and assessed against the benefited
properties.
14. Fvture subdivisions, whether residential, commercial, or
industrial, shall be required to set aside public green space
4;45 (parks, playgrounds, etc.) or cash in lieu of land for public
recreation in accordance with a uniform set of standards.
Y a
—a3-
s^�
• r
� � r
I
I
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
7. Consideration of approving declaration of protective covenants and
restrictions of the Evergreens. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attached you will find a copy of the declaration of protective covenants
and restrictions of the Evergreens. Council is asked to review these
covenants and comment accordingly. Staff is recommending approval of the
covenants as described. Following is a brief summary of the list of
covenants. Generally speaking, the covenants are not highly
restrictive. However, they do provide some protections to property
owners in the area. Following is a list of those restrictions that are
included in the covenants and not otherwise covered by ordinance.
1. The covenants limit the number of cars on each property to four.
2. All lots abutting the mobile home park shall have attached garages.
3. No earth home shall be permitted.
4. All houses shall have attached or detached garages, shingled and
aided the same as the house.
5. Exterior colors of homes shall be limited to pastels and earth tones.
6. Lawn establishment required within one year of occupancy.
7. No motor vehicles shall be kept or stored upon the premise except
those that are being driven and currently licensed or registered.
Currently in Monticello, veh%%s that are licensed but not driven
may be stored on private property.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve declaration of protective covenants and
restrictions of the Evergreens.
2. Motion to modify and approve protective covenants and restrictions of
the Evergreens.
3. Motion to deny approval of the protective covenants and restrictions
of the Evergreens.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of declaration of protective covenants and
restrictions of the Evergreens. As noted above, the restrictions do
provide additional protection to area residents not already supplied by
local ordinances. A number of these covenants are in place as a result
of negative experiences witnessed in other city developments. Such
restrictions would include the requirement that garages
-8-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
be established and the requirement that pastel or earth tones be used as
paint for structures in the subdivision. In addition, there is strict
language governing lawn establishment, storage of trash, garbage, or
other debris. The restrictions, when taken together with City
ordinances, may contribute towards the proper and pleasing development of
an area primarily designated for first time home buyers on a budget.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of declaration of protective covenants and restrictions of the
Evergreens.
Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions
of "THE EVERGREENS"
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that KENT KJELLBERG, a
single person, owner of all the following described premises,
situated in the County of Wright, State of Minnesota, to -wit:
and desiring to establish the nature of the use and enjoyment
thereof, does hereby declare said premises subject to the
following expressed covenants, stipulations and restrictions as
to the use and enjoyment thereof, all of which are to be
construed as protective covenants and restrictions running with
the title to said premises and with each and every part and
parcel thereof, to -wit:
1. LAND USE. All lots hereinbefore described shall be
known and classified as single family residential lots, subject
to all appropriate city, county and state regulations.
2. GENERAL PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS COVERING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
A. Buildings. No structure shall be erected, altered,
placed or permitted to remain in any of said lots other than one
(1) detached single family dwelling not to exceed two (2) stories
in height and a private garage not to exceed two (2) stories in
height for not more than four (4) cars. No tent, shack, or other
portable or temporary structure shall be placed upon said lots,
whether used for residential purposes or in any other manner. No
mobile home, except a recreational vehicle mobile home, or
trailer house may be stored upon the lot nor used thereon for
residential Purposes, either temporary or permanent. All lots
abutting the mobile home park shall have attached garages. No
"earth home" shall be permitted. All houses other than abutting
the mobile home park shall have either attached or detached
garages, shingled and sided the same as the house. No garage or
other building whatsoever shall be erected on any of said lots
until a dwelling house shall have been erected or until a
contract with a reliable and responsible contractor shall have
Page 2
Declaration of Protective Covenants and
Restrictions of "THE EVERGREENS"
been entered into for the construction of a dwelling which shall
comply with the restrictions as herein contained. Prior to the
erection or after the erection of such dwelling house, no garage
or other buildings shall be used for residential purposes. No
portion of the premises shall be occupied until the exterior of
the dwelling is completed and no used lumber shall be used on the
exterior.
B. Color of Homes. Exterior colors of homes shall be
limited to pastels and earth tones, it being the intent that
"garish," "bright" or "luminescent" colors not be used.
C. Subdivision. None of said lots shall be subdivided into
smaller lots nor conveyed or encumbered in less than the full
original dimensions of such lot, as shown by the plat of THE
EVERGREENS, except for public utilities, provided that this
restriction shall not prevent the conveyance or encumbrance of
adjoining or contiguous lots or parts of lots in such a manner to
create parcels of land in common ownership having the same or a
greater street frontage than originally shown. Thereafter, such
parts or adjoining or contiguous lots in common ownership shall,
for the purpose of these restrictions be considered as one lot.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the dedication or
conveyance of portions of lots for public utilities, in which
event, the remaining portion of any such lot shall, for the
purpose of this provision, be treated as a whole lot. '
D. Use of Premises. No livestock, horses, fowl or poultry
or animals of any type shall be kept on any of said lots, except
that no more than two 12) dogs and two (2) cats over three (3)
months old may be kept upon the premises provided the same are
properly kenneled or tied when not attended, and no business of
any kind or character whatsoever, for commercial use shall be
conducted from or in any residence on said lots.
E. Trash, Garbaqe and Other Debris. No trash, garbage or
other debris shall be kept on these premises and each lot owner
shall promptly carry away or cause to be carried away, all such
trash, garbage or debris, so that the premises belonging to each
owner shall be kept clear and orderly. No motor vehicles shall
be kept or stored upon the premises except those that are being
driven and currently licensed or registered.
The foregoing restrictions and covenants run with the land
and shall be binding on all persons owning any of the lots herein
described until twenty (20) years from date, at which time said
covenants shall automatically extend for successive periods of
ten (10) years each, unless by a vote of a majority of the then
owners of the said lots in this subdivision it is agreed to
change the said covenants in whole or in part.
Deeds of conveyance of said property, or any part thereof,
may contain the above restrictive covenants by reference to this
document, but whether or not such reference is made in such
7
• Page 3
1 Declaration of Protective Covenants and
Restrictions of "THE EVERGREENS"
deeds, or any part thereof, each and all of such restrictive
covenants shall be valid and binding upon the respective
grantees. violation of any one or more of such covenants may be
restrained by any court of competent jurisdiction and damages
awarded against such violator; provided, however, that a
violation of these restrictive covenants or any one of them
shall not affect the lien of any mortgage now of record, or which
hereafter may be placed of record upon said lots or any part
thereof.
Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions
by judgment or court order shall in no wise affect any of the
other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNES WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
day of , 1989.
KEa�KELL 'R1-
Subscribed
GSubscribed nd sworn toafore
this , day of
19
1989. y�� Q �w�L�%n Gtl��
l �l�u0 - I I.�C2
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
METCALF b LARSON
Attorneys at Law
313 W. Broadway
P.O. Box 446
Monticello, MN 55362
(612) 295-3232; 421-339:
^...�.
A lawn consisting of sodded or seeded grass shall be
established on each developed lot within one (1) growing season
from date of issuance of occupancy permit. If drought conditions
and concurrent City watering bans prohibit lawn development
during lst growing season, the lawn shall be established during
the subsequent growing season. The lawn area shall be defined as
the area that encompasses the front and side yards of each lot.
7
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
8. Consideration of adopting Evergreens Development Agreement. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed is a copy of the Evergreens Development Agreement, which is
identical to the copy you received as supporting data to previous
consideration of the preliminary plat. The agreement has not been
modified since your review of it at that time. Staff recommends adoption
of the developer agreement, as it is our view that it sufficiently
protects the City's interest with regards to the development of the
Evergreens subdivision.
It should be noted that Wally Anderson of ARADCO will be purchasing the
development area and will be bound to this agreement. Anderson has
reviewed the agreement and supports it. Please review supporting data
for information regarding Anderson's development background. I have
reviewed the new owner's background and found that he has an excellent
track record and worked cooperatively with other communities on various
development projects.
The following staff report provides an article by article recap of
significant items covered in the agreement and includes agreements that
are peculiar to this development.
Article 1: Before work is commenced, all plans and specifications must
BF approved by the City.
Article 2: No construction shall commence and no building permits shall
EFTs—s-Na before plat of record and all financial considerations are in
place.
Article 3: The City will provide full-time inspection of the
nr rovements during the time the work is being performed. it should be
noted, however, that staff will be working diligently with the developer
to coordinate schedules and make every effort to provide inspection only
when necessary so that costs can be kept to a minimum.
Article 4: The developer agrees to post financial guarantee in an amount
equa to 125 percent of the total estimated construction cost.
Article 5: City shall release the guarantee in a sum equal to estimated
cost improvement so completed prior to acceptance of the final
plat. In no event shall the City release an amount equal to or greater
than 25 percent of project cost prior to the expiration of the warranty
period unless the project is fully completed and bonded in an amount
equal to the full cost of the project.
Article 6: Warranties and bonds provided by subcontractors must identify
tTe Comas a third party beneficiary.
Article 7: Developer shall, prior to commencement of the work, deposit
7 w t t a City separate cash deposits for engineering, City staff
r administration, construction inspection, soil borings, City Attorney
time, and erosion and siltation control. These funds will be used to pay
for City costs associated with actual construction.
-10-
`14�
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
Article 8: Park commitment. Park area shall be dedicated with phase I
o t e evelopment; and along with that, City is granted a one -rod wide
walking and bicycle easement contiguous and parallel to County Road 117,
which will allow movement of pedestrians from phases I through III to the
park area.
Article 9: The developer shall, at the same time the plat of the
event is filed with the Wright County Recorder, file with such
office a declaration of protective covenants and restrictions pertaining
to Evergreens.
Article 10: Governs the duration of the contract.
Article 11: Developer shall keep premises free from accumulation of
waste materials, rubbish, and other debris resulting from the work and
the completion of the work.
Article 12: No utilities and street work shall be done until the
appropriate approvals are gained from various state and county agencies.
Article 13: Indemnifies the City against any loss, including suit and
reasonable attorney fees, incurred on account of injury or death of any
person that may have been related to the work mentioned in the
agreement. It also requires that the developer provide to the City
general public liability and property damage insurance protecting the
City and developer from all claims for personal injury, etc. Such
insurance shall be written with a limit of liability of not less than
$600,000.
Article 14: The developer's own expense shall install street lighting in
accoraance with Northern States Power requirements, City policy, and
specifications at City direction.
Article 15: The developer shall install traffic and street signs.
Article 16: The developer shall place iron monuments in all lot and
block corners and at all other angle points and boundary linea.
Article 17: The developer's engineer shall furnish an affidavit stating
that the site grading was done in accordance with the grading plan.
Article 18: Includes language that binds future owners of the property
to thio agreement.
Article 19: Outlines the process for issuing occupancy permits prior to
acceptance of streets. City agrees to issue occupancy permits on
acceptance by the City of sanitary sewer and water mein and the required
class V gravel and first lift of bituminous being placed on the streets
in the development so long as a number of conditions are met. Please see
the agreement for those conditions.
SM
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
Article 20: Requires that the City Engineer will make a final inspection
of the work before final acceptance is made by City Council for potential
maintenance. The City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is
satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications and City standards.
Article 21: Outlines the payment of area assessment for trunk sewer and
water. The area assessment amount equals $2,500 per acre, which shall be
paid by the collection over time of $200 per residential lot. This fee
shall be collected prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by
the City. Since this amount is inadequate to pay the area assessment for
trunk sewer and trunk water, the balance shall be collected by the City
as a designated trunk user fee surcharge collectible periodically at such
rates and terms as the City deems appropriate on a per syqle family
residential household basis. The initial charge will be{4 r quarter.
Article 22: Developer shall pay to the City all preliminary plat fee
costs greater than the original preliminary plat application fee.
Article 23: East Park sanitary hookup. Language within this article
provides the City with some assurance that the Rjellberg East Mobile Home
Park will be connected to City service within a reasonable time period.
This article stipulates that no occupancy permits will be allowed for
phase II of this development until such time that the Rjellberg East
Mubile Hone Park Is cvnnected Lu CILy services. If the pollution problem
requires extension of the City utilities to the mobile home park sooner
than construction of phase II, easements are provided that will allow the
City to install the utilities and charge the cost back to the developer.
This language provides the City with some assurance that the long term
pollution problem created by the mobile home park will be rectified at
sometime in the near future.
H. ALTERNATIvP. ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt the Evergreens Development Agreement.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the Evergreens Development Agreement.
3. Motion to modify and adopt the Evergreens Development Agreement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 11. The document before you represents a
significant effort by City staff and the developer and stems from
numerous negotiation sessions. It is the view of the City Attorney that
the agreement provides the City with protection against some of the
problems recently experienced with other City developments.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Evergreens Development Agreement[ Letter from AAADCO, Inc,
q and liat of references.
-12-
ARADCO, Inc.
13445 Heather SL N.W.
Anoke, Minnesota 55303
Phme (612) 4273056
may 3, 1989
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I am purchasing form Mr, Kent Kjellberg the property between Highway 25
and County Road 1 17. This property has been approved by the City of
. -
Monticello as a preliminary plat known as 'The Evergreens".
The first phase of the final plot is nc*.,y at the Cit:j f;,r their apurzev,!I.
At the present time I am working on financing for the project and, D.ar;s
are for construction of the Water, sanitary se.%,;z.** xn4 stria"!
when permits are granted in 1989.
Best regards,
-
4)
W. C. Anderson, President
WCA/ncss/rk
ARADCO, Inc.
13445 Heather SL N.W.
Anoka, Minnesota 55363
Phone (612) 4273056
April 5, 1989
Developments in progress or previous
TARTAN HEIGHTS 1st b 2nd Additions -Oakdale
96 lots
66 sold
30 in a lot pool to be used by 5 builders
Tartan Heights 3rd 6 4th Additions -Oakdale
44 lots future
Brandon Heights -Oakdale
70 lots --all sold
86% built on
Hadley Meadows -Oakdale
120 lots --all sold
85% built on
Oakdale Ponds -4 Additions -Oakdale
194 Lots --all sold 1
90 % built on
Baes Lake Woods ---Plymouth
Edgewood Heights --- Brooklyn Park
Colorado Addition- --Brooklyn Park
Fremont -Girard---Brooklyn Park
Steffensen Additior---Brooklyn Park
Huaboldt Addition ---Brooklyn Park
Lone Pine Addition ---Brooklyn Park
Park Overlook Addition--- Shoreview
Rustic Hills ---Eagan
There are in addition to the above about 12-15
sub -divisions that
Ihhave developed.
W. C. Anderson, President
(Do
EVERGREENS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,
1989, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA,
hereinafter referred to as the "City" and KJELLBERG'S, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns,
hereinafter referred to as the "Developer".
WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted a written request
to the City as outlined in the Preliminary Plat Application
entitled "EVERGREENS" for the platting and development,
hereinafter referred to as the "Development", of the
following described property located in the City of
Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota,* to -wit:
WHEREAS, the parties additionally desire a permanent
resolution to utility issues associated with Kjellberg's
Mobile Home Park East. That Kjellberg' Mobile Home Park
East shall be the subject of a separate development
agreement.
7
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the Development, known
as "EVERGREENS", utilize city sewer and water service.
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested the extension of
sewer service to the Development.
WHEREAS, the City desires that sewer facilities be
extended from its present termination point at Dundas Road
to a position in the County Highway 117 right-of-way at the
northeast corner of the Development.
WHEREAS, the Developer will act to extend the sewer
factility as desired by both parties to said point at the
northeast corner of the Development at his expense which
construction cost of $50,000.00 will be credited against
other fees which are the subject of the Kjellberg's Mobile
Home Park East Development Agreement.
Whereas, the parties desire that municipal water lines,
sanitary sewer lines, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous
surfaced streets, and other improvements hereinafter
described, be constructed within "EVERGREENS" development
phased in five ADDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council by resolution adopted
has granted final approval
to the preliminary subdivision and EVERGREENS FIRST through
FIFTH ADDITION on the condition that the Developer enter
I
Rol
into this agreement to provide for the installation of
street, water, sewer, and other improvements hereinafter
described on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Each ADDITION shall meet the conditions of this agreement
independent of the other ADDITIONS.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
of the parties made herein,
IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO that the
Developer will forthwith employ at its expense a contractor
or contractors, approved by the City, who will construct
municipal water line and sanitary and sewer lines, concrete
curb and gutter, and bituminous surfaced streets within the
Development.
IT IS ALSO AGREED:
ARTICLE ONE - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The Developer shall, at its own expense, forthwith,
construct the improvements mentioned above. Before the work
is commenced, the Developer shall obtain written approval of
the City Staff and Engineer of the plans and specifications,
including landscape plans, for the work which shall be
prepared by the Developer, at its own expense, in accordance
With the City's Engineering guidelines as outlined in the
Monticello Design Criteria Manual. Soil borings shall be
provided as recommended by the City Engineer and the
Developer's engineer jointly
After completion of the work, the Developer's engineer,
under the direction of the City Engineer or his assignee,
shall prepare all As -Built drawings of the improvements
mentioned above in the original mylars. In case of any
dispute as to what is meant by the plans and specifications,
the decision of the City Engineer shall control. One set of
reproducible plans (mylars) and three (3) sets of the
As -Built blue line plans shall be delivered to the City by
the Developer's Engineer. The Developer shall notify the
City of the names and addresses of all the engineers who
assist the Developer in the project.
All plans for connection to City water service shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to construction of
connecting water lines.
ARTICLE Two - BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Developer shall not commence construction of any
building on a lot in the Development until all bonds or
security agreements required by this Development Contract
have been filed and accepted by the City, and until all
legal, administrative, and engineering expenses then due
WIN
have been paid, and also until the final plat of the
Development has been filed, along with all restrictive
covenances and conveyances, with the Wright County Recorder
or Registrar of Titles, as the case may be. A copy of all
conveyances and restrictive covenants shall be sent to the
City Attorney by the title company, if any, as proof that
they were filed or recorded. Developer shall provide a copy
of the approved Final Plat and a copy of the updated
abstract for the City Attorney to complete a title search.
Five copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the City
at the time that the plat is signed by the City for filing
at Wright County.
NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMMENCE AND NO BUILDING PERMIT
SHALL BE ISSUED BEFORE PLAT OF RECORD AND ALL FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS ARE IN PLACE.
The final design cross-section of each class of street
or roadway is to be in conformance with the requirements for
each class or roadway as contained in the Monticello Design
Criterial Manual.
ARTICLE THREE - INSPECTION
The City will provide full-time inspection of the r
improvements during the time the work is being performed.
The City will charge against the escrow for these and other
services at an hourly rate of E 550/hr Total cost of
inspection of project improvements is dependent on the time
to complete such inspection. It is recommended that
detailed work schedules be provided so that the inspection
costs can be kept to a minimum.
ARTICLE FOUR - CONSTRUCTION GUARANTEES
This agreement is conditioned upon and subject to the
Developer posting with the City a financial guarantee in an
amount equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of
the total estimated construction cost for the improvements
and the estimated indirect costs in the form of a cash
escrow outlined in Article Six as to each ADDITION.
The financial guarantee has been determined for all
improvements included in this contract as set forth in
Exhibits 1 through 5 for each ADDITION which exhibits are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
The financial guarantee may be in the form of a cash
deposit, a bond, or irrevocable letter of credit approved by
the City. If cash, deposited in an interest bearing account
in favor of Developer and City under Developer's social
security number. A financial guarantee shall be written in
favor of the City and be used for or to provide for the
0
payment, as payments become due, of all just claims for
work, tools, machinery, skill, materials, insurance
premiums, equipment and supplies for the completion of the
work and for saving the City harmless from all costs that
may accrue on account of the doing of the work by the
Developer or its agent or to pay the City in the event the
City must complete such work, to also insure that the
improvements function as intended for their purpose in
accordance with the standards established by the City
Engineer and for the costs of enforcing the standards
established by the City Engineer and for the costs of
enforcing the terms of the bond if action is brought
thereon, including reasonable attorney's fees.
ARTICLE FIVE - RELEASE OF GUARANTEE
The City Council shall not accept dedication of
required improvements, nor release, nor reduce financial
guarantee until the City Engineer has submitted a
certificate stating that all required improvements have been
satisfactorily completed and until the applicant's engineer
or surveyor has certified to the Engineer, through
submission of detailed "as -built" plans, survey plat bf the
subdivision, indicating location, dimensions, materials, and
other information required by the City Council or Engineer,
that the layout of the line and grade of all public T
improvements is in accordance with construction plans for
the subdivision and that the improvements are completed, are
ready for acceptance by the City, and are free and clear of
any and all liens and encumbrances. Upon such approval and
recommendation, the City Council shall thereafter accept the
improvements for dedication in accordance with the
established procedure.
Upon the request of the Developer, the amount of the
guarantee shall be reduced in a sum equal to the estimated
cost of the improvements so completed prior to acceptance of
the final plat. The financial guarantee shall be reduced
upon actual acceptance of the portion of the improvements
completed upon recommendation by the City Engineer, and then
only to the ration that the cost of public improvement
dedicated bears to the total cost of the public improvements
for the plat. For purposes of showing payment, the
Developer's engineer shall submit to the City payment
estimates, along with lien waivers, for the work done. All
reductions of the financial guarantee must also be
authorized by the Developer or its agent and the financing
institution, if any.
In no event shall the City release an amount equal to
or greater than 259 of project costs prior to the expiration
of the warranty period unless the project is fully completed
and bonded in an amount equal to the full cost of the
project.
Developer agrees to furnish to the City a list of
developer contracts being considered for retention by the
Developer for the performance of the work required of the
contractor.
Any changes to the approved plans and specifications
shall be approved by the City Engineer in writing before
they are made.
The Developer will be responsible for not only plans
and specifications preparations, but also for providing
construction staking of said improvement.
All sanitary sewer and water main testing shall be
completed and copies of service ties submitted to the City
prior to issuance of any service connection permits.
ARTICLE SIX - WARRANTY
After acceptance by the City, the Developer warrants
and guarantees that the improvements constructed will be
free from defects in materials and workmanship that may
occur within one (1) year from the date the City accepts
them. WARRANTIES AND BONDS PROVIDED BY SUBCONTRACTORS MUST
IDENTIFY THE CITY AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY.' Twenty-five
percent (25%) of the total construction cost shall be held
by the City until all items to be corrected have been
satisfied under warranty or until expiration of the
warranty, whichever occurs later.
Guarantee Period: If within the time prescribed by law
or by the terms of any applicable special guarantees
required by the Contract Documents any of the work is found
to be defective or not in accordance with the Contract
Documents, the Developer shall correct it promptly after
receipt of written notice from the city to do so unless the
City has previously given the Developer a specific written
acceptance of the particular defective or nonconforming
condition. The City shall give prompt notice to the
Developer after discovery of the condition.
ARTICLE SEVEN - DEPOSIT
The Developer shall, prior to the commencement of the
work, deposit with the City separate cash deposit for the
following items:
A. Engineering construction review and
warranty inspection computed at
1-1/29 of construction cost (fixed fee)
B. City Staff Administration
1% of construction cost (fixed fee)
H410
C. Construction inspection and
plan review !hourly)
D. Geotechnics thourly or 1/29 whichever is less)
E. City Attorney (hourly)
F. $1,000.00 cash for Erosion and Siltation
Control ton deposit)
If, as the work progresses, the cash escrow becomes
depleted, then Developer shall deposit additional funds in
the escrow account as directed by the City. The City
reserves the right to raise the fees for Items A, C, D, and
E if final construction costs are above the original
estimate. City shall document costs associated with A, C,
D, and E and any surplus shall be refunded to Developer.
The separate cash deposits shall be set forth in Exhibits 1
- 5 for each ADDITION which exhibits are incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
ARTICLE EIGHT - PARK COMMITMENT
Prior to the time of recording the final plat of
"EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION" Developer shall tender a T
Warranty Deed free of any liens with easement of ingress and
egress lying westerly to County Highway 117 for permanent
j park purposes. The park area shall be described in a manner
consistent with the Preliminary Plat. This park dedication
shall be in lieu of any and all other park ordinance
requirements.
The City is hereby granted a one rod wide walking and
bi cyle easement contiguous and parallel to County Road No.
117 having as its most northerly point the southeasterly
termination of the southeast corner of Phase I with County
Road No. 117. At such time as Phase 11 and V roads are
accepted by the City it shall provide Quit Claim -Deeds
extinguishing the easement to that phase. Said easements,
if ever improved, shall be at City expense. The easement
shall not be considered in calculating any setbacks.
ARTICLE NINE - CONVEYANCE AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
The Developer shall, at the same time the plat of the
Development is filed with the Wright County Recorder, file
with such office a Declaration of Protective Covenants and
Restrictions pertaining to "EVERGREENS", covenant attached
as: Exhibit 6. Said covenants may include additional
restrictions inconsistent with those in Exhibit 6 and the
applicable ordinances of the City of Monticello.
11 ARTICLE TEN - DURATION OF CONTRACT
FM
See Exhibits 1 through 5 which are incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
ARTICLE ELEVEN - CLEAN-UP
The Developer shall keep the premises free from
accumulation of waste materials, rubbish, and other debris
resulting from the work; and at the completion of the work,
it will remove all waste materials, rubbish, and debris from
and about the premises as well as all tools, construction
equipment, machinery and surplus materials, and will leave
the site clean and in a condition as approved by the City
Engineer.
ARTICLE TWELVE - OTHER GOVERNING BODIES
No utilities and street work shall be done until the
Minnesota Health Department approves watermain plans and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approves the sewer plans.
The plans and specifications shall be approved by state and
local agencies as required li.e. as Department of Natural
Resources, Wright County Highway Department, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Watershed Management
Organizations, etc.)
The Developer shall pay for all costs of temporary and
permanent relocations of public utility facilities while
constructing any portion of the improvements.
ARTICLE THIRTEEN - CITY DISCLAIMER/LIABILITY INSURANCE
The Developer shall indemnify the City against any
loss, including suit costs and reasonable attorney's fees,
incurred on account of injury or death of persons that may
have been related to the work mentioned in the agreement, on
account of damage or destruction of property that may have
been related to the work mentioned in this agreement. The
Developer, at its expense, agrees to repair or replace
property damaged, by reason of the work, that belongs to
others.
The Developer shall provide to the City, at the
Developer's expense, general public liability and property
damage insurance, protecting the City and the Developer from
all claims for personal injury, including Leath, and all
claims for destruction of or damage to property, arising out
of or in connection with any operations under these contract
documents, whether such operations be by the Developer, its
contractor, or by any subcontractor, or anyone directly or
indirectly employed by the Contractor or by a subcontractor
under him. Insurance shall be written with a limit of
liability of not less than $600,000 for all damages arising
out of bodily injury, including death, at any time resulting
65
therefrom, sustained by any, one person in any one accident;
and a limit of liability of not less than $1,000,000.00 for
any such damage sustained by two or more persons in any one
accident. Insurance shall be written with a limit of
liability of not less than $300,000 for all property damage
sustained by one person in any one accident; and a limit of
liability of not less than $600,000 for any such damage
sustained by two or more persons in any one accident. The
insurance policies shall accompany the contract for its
execution by the Developer and the City of Monticello. The
above insurance policies shall be in full force and effect
during the life of this contract whether or not the
improvements have yet been accepted and any warranty
periods.
ARTICLE FOURTEEN - STREET LIGHTING
The Developer, at his own expense, shall install street
lighting in accordance with Northern States Power
requirements, City policy, and specifications at the City's
direction.
ARTICLE FIFTEEN - TRAFFIC AND STREET SIGNS
The Developer, at his own expense, shall install
traffic and street signs as directed in writing by the City
Public works Director. No Occupancy Permits are to be
issued until street signs have been installed. within
forty-five (45) days of signing the agreement the City shall
provide written specifications for said signage.
ARTICLE SIXTEEN - MONUMENTATION/WARRANTIES OF TITLE
The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and
block corners and at all other angle points on boundary
lines. Iron monuments shall be placed after all streets and
lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the lot
markers for future property owners. The Developer shall
also provide a minimum of one monument within the
Development, set in concrete, for horizontal and vertical
control for the City's benchmark system. More monuments may
be required by the City Engineer to serve the area. The
Developer's land surveyor shall furnish the City an
affidavit that all iron monuments were placed as stated
above.
Developer warrants marketability of title to all real
estate interests conveyed or to be conveyed hereunder. A
title opinion shall be submitted with final plat of
Evergreens First Addition as to the condition of title along
with a warranty Deed for park land transfer.
ARTICLE SEVENTEEN - CERTIFICATION OF SITE GRADING
W1 Prior to the acceptance of the completed subdivision by
S
the City, the Developer's engineer shall furnish an
affidavit stating that the site grading was done in
accordance with the grading plan as approved by the City
within limits acceptable to the City Engineer.
ARTICLE EIGHTEEN - BINDING EFFECT
The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon,
and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives,
successors, and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be
binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the
subdivision and shall be deemed covenants running with the
land. References made herein to the Developer, if there be
more than one, shall mean each and all of them. This
Agreement, at the option of the City, MAY be placed on
record so as to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers
and encumbrances of all or any part of the subdivision and
all recording fees, if any, shall be paid by the Developer.
ARTICLE NINETEEN - ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS PRIOR TO,
ACCEPTANCE OF STREET
The purpose of this article is to allow issuance of
occupancy Permits prior to acceptance of the streets.
The City agrees to issue Occupancy Permits upon
acceptance by the City of the sanitary sewer and watermain
and the required Class 5 gravel and first lift of bituminous
being placed on the streets in the Development so long as
the following conditions are met:
1. The Developer shall maintain and snow plow the
streets until they are accepted by the City and all
homeowners shall be'notified of such. Any cost incurred by
the City shall be paid out of escrow. The homeowners' shall
be given a phone number of Developer or its agent to contact
in the event that there is a problem with the street. A
phone number of the person who will be maintaining the
streets and storm sewer shall be provided to the City. This
person shall be on twenty-four (24) hour call.
2. The Developer agrees to place street and traffic
sign at each intersection within the Development. The signs
are to be furnished by the Developer. If Certificate of
Occupancy Permits are needed prior to availability of signs,
then the Developer shall provide temporary signs that 2 feet
long by 6 inches high, with 3 -inch letters. The base of the
signs are to be placed in the ground a minimum of 2 feet.
The signs are to be 6 -foot high to the bottom of the sign.
3. In the event that the Developer does not maintain
the streets or keep fire hydrants free of snow in a manner
satisfactory to the City, the City will do what maintenance
it deems necessary and charge labor and equipment back to
A
the Developer as follows:
Snow Plow Operations $80.00 per hour
Maintenance Work $35.00 per hour
Materials At Cost
4. The Developer agrees to place $50.00 per lot
contained in each ADDITION of the Development on deposit
with the City to cover any and all costs incurred by the
City under Article Nineteen. This includes snow plowing and
maintenance cost for any equipment damage sustained by the
City in the course of maintaining streets that have not been
accepted. If additional funds are needed ,to supplement the
amount of deposit, the Developer agrees to place additional
funds into this account. This fee shall be applicable until
the improvements are accepted by the City.
ARTICLE TWENTY - ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
Upon completion of all the work required, the City
Engineer or his delegated representative, a representative
of the Contractor, and representative of the Developer's
engineer, will make a final inspection of the work. Before
the final acceptance is made by the City Council for
perpetual maintenance, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with
the approved plans and specifications and City Standards.
Final acceptance of said work for perpetual maintenance
shall be made by resolution of the City Council upon the
recommendation of the City Engineer.
ARTICLE TWENTY-ONE - PAYMENT OF AREA ASSESSMENT FOR TRUNK
SEWER AND TRUNK WATER
The Development shall be subject to the area assessment
policy of the City for trunk sewer and trunk water which,
according to the present policy and formula for calculating
the area assessment, requires the payment of an area
assessment amount equal to a $2,500.00 per acre fee times
the approximate number of acres benefitted by potential
municipal service. The approximately acreage includes
residential lots, park lands and streets. Said assessment
shall be paid by the collection over time of a $200.00 per
residential lot fee. It shall be collected prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City. The
parties hereto acknowledge this $200.00 per lot fee is
inadequate to pay the AREA ASSESSMENT FOR TRUNK SEWER AND
TRUNK WATER and the balance shall be collected by the City
as a designated TRUNK USER FEE SURCHARGE, collectable
periodically at such rates and terms as the City deems
appropriate on a per single family residential household
basis.
ARTICLE TWENTY-TWO - PAYMENT OF CITY COST R£ PRELIMINARY
10
N
PLAT FEE PAYMENT
Developer shall pay to the City E 5.506 (as if 5/1/AV)the
preliminary plat application fee which covers City review
costs determined to be in excess of fee paid by Developer at
time of preliminary plat application. The final plat of
each ADDITION is subject to normal final plat fees in
existence at time of submission.
ARTICLE TWENTY-THREE - EAST PARK SANTIARY HOOKUP
It is anticipated that the proposed plat will develop
consistently with its Preliminary Phased Plan. The City
shall not issue any Certificates of occupancy for residences
in Phase 2 until such time as the East Park is hooked up to
City sanitary sewer service on a temporary basis. The
permanent sewer hookup of East Park shall occur at the time
that Phase 5 underground utilities are installed from the
permanent lift station site as reflected on the February 6,
1989 Revision of the utilities plan. In the event the
temporary and permanent sanitary sewer hookup from the East
Park do not occur the City is hereby granted a temporary
easement for sanitary sewer installation one rod wide
consistent with the proposed road layout as outlined in
yellow on the attached Exhibit A. The temporary easement
shall terminate as the roads within Phase 2 and 5 are
acccpted by the City and it shall provide a Quit Claim Deed
extinguishing the easement as to that Phase. The temporary
sewer line shall be a private line installed and maintained
by the Developer.
The City shall have the right to utilize said temporary
easement and hookup the East Park, charging Developer
therefore, upon the occurence of one of the following
events:
(A) Failure of Developer, his successors and assigns
to hook up the East Park when installing
underground utilities for Phase II of "THE
EVERGREENS"; or
(8) In the event a state or federal regulatory agency
imposes pecuniary sanctions or limitations upon
the City or Developer; or
(C) Thirty days after commencement by a state or
federal regulatory agency of administrative or
Judicial proceedings against the City -)r Developer
to force sewer hookup of the East Park.
11
E40
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands the day and year abovementioned.
CITY OF MONTICELLO KJELLBERGS, INC., a
rilrawsot-ar-cgri5bratiot,
Kenneth Maus, Mayor Kent Kjellberg� President
Rick wolfsteller, City Admin,
(CITY)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1989 by Kenneth Maus, Mayor and ,
Rick wolfsteller, City Administrator of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
(DEVELOPER)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
) as.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
Th foregoing i strument was acknowledged before me this
day of 1989 by Kent Kjellberg, President
of Kjellberg's, I , a�Minnesota corporation, on behalf of
the corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
METCALF & LARSON
•.: ns�r cov,r•
Attorneys at Law
313 West Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
13
SO18LT A
EXHIBIT 1
EVERGREENS
FIRST ADDITION
ARTICLE FOUR - CONSTRUCTION GUARANTEES
The financial guarantee has been determined for all
�'•, improvements included in this contract for EVERGREENS FIRST
9 ADDITION as follows:
CONSTRUCTION COST GUARANTEE GUARANTEE
$ $245,200 X 125% = $306,500
ARTICLE SEVEN - DEPOSIT
THE Developer shall, prior to the commencement of the
work, deposit with the City separate cash deposit for the
following items:
A. Engineering construction review and
warranty inspection computed at 1-1/2B of
construction cost (fixed fee) - $3.678
B. City Staff Administration
1% of construction cost (fixed fee) - $2.452 ` }
C. Construction inspection and
plan review (hourly) 4.5% of construction cost - $11,000
D. Geotechnics (hourly or 1/2% whichever is less) . $1,226
F. 51,000.00 soil erosion control
ARTICLE TEN - DURATION OF CONTRACT
The Developer shall cause construction of the municipal
water, sanitary and storm sewer and street improvements to
commence no later than
and the construction of the municipal water, sanitary and
storm sewer and street improvements shall be completed on or
before Any extension
shall be requested by the Developer in writing and approved
by the City Council prior to the completion date above. In
the event that the Developer or Contractor has not completed
the aforementioned work on the completion date as set forth
above, or in the event the Developer violates any of the
agreements as set forth herein, the Developer shall be
considered to be in default. Should the Developer be in
default, the Developer authorizes said City, its officers,
its employees, or its authorized agents to enter upon the
Developer's property and to complete any uncompleted or
improper work. The Developer's security shall be used for
all costs incurred by the City, including attorney's fees,
that are connected with this work.
The Developer
intent to commence
shall notify the
the improvement
City
work
Engineer
at least
of his
forty-eight
C(9
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
9. Consideration of final plat approval of phase I of the Evergreens
subdivision. Applicant, Kent K3ellberg. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Kent Kjellberg requests final plat approval of phase I of the Evergreens
subdivision subject to successful completion of the environmental
assessment worksheet review process. Staff recommends approval of the
final plat subject to EAW review, as the final plat will not actually be
signed until after the EAW process is complete and because the City
Engineer has reviewed the EAW and believes that there will be no problem
in gaining approvals from all the agencies that will review the
environmental assessment worksheet. John Badalich has indicated that
final plat approval subject to EAW review is a standard practice in
situations where the environmental assessment is noncontroversial. Tom
Hayes recommends final plat approval prior to EAW review so long as the
plat is not signed until after successful completion of the EAW review
process.
Following is a checklist of items that have been completed as required
prior to application for final plat approval.
1. The City Attorney has reviewed the title opinion and found that the
final plat application must bear the names of the individuals holding
the deed. The two true owners of the property include Wayne and
Donald Morrey. The final plat at this point does need to be updated
to indicate the deed holder. Dennis Taylor noted that inclusion of
room for Morrey's signature will be included on the final plat.
2. The final plat clearly indicates easement areas which will be
utilized in the event that the City must install sewer and water
utilities from the southerly most portion of phase I to the Kjellberg
Park East Mobile Home Park.
I have been informed by a potential buyer of the property that his
purchase agreement with Kjellberg requires that Kjellberg connect the
mobile home park to phase I of this development within 30 days of
installation of the manhole located at the southerly most point of
phase I. if Kjellberg does not make this connection within 30 days,
the new owner of the Evergreens will direct such improvements and
deduct the cost for such from the purchase price of the development
area. Although this is good news to the City, the City is not
involved in this tranaaction and must proceed in accordance with the
developer agreement.
1 -13-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
4. Project cost estimates have been established, and the escrow
agreement amounts have been determined and incorporated into the
developer agreement. The escrow is to be used to pay for City costs
associated with co,Qoleting the public improvements. Such costs
include inspection, engineering, legal costs, etc.
5. The park area will be dedicated as part of the final plat of
phase I. This area is clearly delineated in the final plat
documentation.
6. Two executed copies of the restrictive covenants have been submitted
to the City which are reviewed in another agenda item. In light of
recent events in the Meadow Oaks development, it is important that
the City make sure that this document is filed with the County
Recorder.
7. The developer has submitted two signed copies of the developer
agreement.
8. Adjustments to the street names have been completed as requested
during preliminary plat review. As a result of the successful
completion of the items above, staff to recommending that Council
provide final plat approval to phase I of the Evergreens, which will
create 48 new lots in the city of Monticello.
Pinal plat approval to subject to the EAW process and subject to payment
of all unpaid costs associated with plat review, which now amounts to
$5,338, which will not be completed until after June 12, 1989.
Construction cannot occur until after that date. There are a number of
other steps that must be successfully completed prior to installation of
utilities. Following is a list of those items that staff will be
following up on prior to construction.
1. Five copies of final plat must be signed and recorded, along with
signatures on developer agreement.
2. Developer moist receive written approval of all engineering
specifications.
3. Soil borings must be completed if required by the City Engineer.
4. All bonds and security agreements must be filed and accepted by the
City per the developer agreement.
5. The escrow deposit must be paid.
6. The construction guarantee must be filed with the City being
identified as the third party beneficiary.
7. Liability insurance certificate must be provided.
It B. The plat of the development must be tiled with the County Recorder.
-14-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
9. Restrictive covenants must be filed with County Recorder.
10. Copy of conveyances and restrictive covenants sent to City by title
company. Developer must provide a final copy of updated abstract to
City Attorney. Five copies of final plat submitted to City at time
of signing by the City.
11. Developer shall furnish a list of contractors being utilized.
12. Utility construction can only begin after 48 hours notice.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approval final plat approval of the Evergreens subdivision
subject to successful completion of environmental assessment
worksheet review process.
2. Motion to deny final plat approval of the Evergreens subdivision.
3. Motion to table matter.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends final plat approval of the Evergreens subdivision
subject to successful completion of EAW process. The EAW will be
published next Thursday and must be available for comment for at least 30
days. Development would be able to occur after this time period. After
June 12, 1989, construction could begin.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of final plat of phase I of Evergreens subdivision.
-15-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
10. Consideration of rezoning agricultural land to residential and commercial
usage - Evergreens development. 0.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUf7D:
As part of the final approval process of this subdivision, the land
subdivided must be rezoned from the agricultural classification to a
combination of revised classifications. Planning Commission has reviewed
the rezoning issues and has recommended that the entire residential area
encompassed by the Evergreens be rezoned from agricultural status to
R-1. This particular rezoning issue is noncontroversial, and no further
comments will be made.
The second rezoning issue is somewhat controversial and includes the
rezoning of outlets bordering the residential area to the east and
Highway 25 to the west. The Planning Commission recommended that this
entire area be rezoned to B-3 (highway business). Unfortunately, the
Planning Commission decision to rezone this area to B-3 was made with
less than adequate information. Consideration of this particular
rezoning issue was conducted on short notice during the meeting at which
time the Evergreens subdivision was considered for rezoning from
agricultural to R-1 zoning. The developer requested that the Planning
Commission also consider rezoning the outlots abutting Highway 25 at that
same meeting. Unfortunately, staff had not prepared backup information
regarding that particular request. The Planning Commission at that time
elected to make a recommendation regarding that rezoning, and that
recommendation was to rezone the property along Highway 25 to B-3
(highway business) zoning. Since that time, I have reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan and found that there may be reason to send that
particular rezoning issue back to the Planning Commission for further
review or act to overrule the Planning Commission recommendation and zone
this property to a less intense use. Following are sections of the
Comprehensive Plan commercial policies that seem to indicate that B-3
zoning of this area is not appropriate.
commercial policy 15 on page 48 of the Comprehensive Plan states that
commercial areae should be as compact as possible. Conpact commercial
areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they concentrate
shopping and parking. A community is benefited by reducing exposure to
residential areas and having a better control over parking and traffic
needs. For this reason, strip and spot commercial development should not
be permitted. it could be concluded that this development constitutes
strip or spot commercial development, which is adverse to the commercial
policies set Eorth.
Also attached to a copy of the proposed land use plan, which does not
show commercial activity extending to the outlots proposed for rezoning.
At the same time, however, the land use plan does not show multi -family
development extending into this area.
Uses permitted in the B-3 zone.
Following to a list of uses that can be in the B-3 zone as outlined in
the Zoning Ordinance. These are all uses that can be permitted without a
-16-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
conditional use permit. When reviewing this list of potential business
activities, keep in mind that an R-1 district will be in place directly
across Cedar Street.
Barber shops
Beauty parlors
Essential services
Convenience grocery stores
Laundromat
Commercial offices
Government buildings
Bakery
Bank
Bicycle sales and repair
Candy shop
Drug store
Florist shop
Grocery store
Hardware
Meat market
Auto accessory store
Commercial recreation area
Motel
Restaurant
Private club
Print shop
Following are uses that could be allowed as conditional uses:
Drive-in and convenience Car washes
food establishments Gas station
Minor auto repair facility New and used automobile,
Animal pet clinic Y truck sales
Commercial storage Consignment or auction sales
Daycare center Go-cart track
For those items above that are permitted uses, there is no way to
regulate the design of the site plan in such a manner to mitigate any
possible negative impacts on the adjoining residential areas. It is
recommended that if Council so desires to allow business development to
occur in this area, the PZM zoning should be awarded which would allow
the City to attach conditions to the operation of business establishments
in this area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
DECISION A:
1. Motion to rezone area encompassed by phases I-V from agricultural to
R-1.
2. Motion to deny rezoning of area encompassed by phases I-V from
agricultural to R-1.
DECISION B:
1. Motion to rezone Outlote A and B from agricultural usage to B-3
(highway business).
2. Motion to table rezoning of Outlots A and B pending further review by
the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to deny rezoning from agricultural to 0-3 zoning and, instead,
rezone Outlets A and B to PZM (performance zone mixed).
-17-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
4. Motion to rezone Dutlots A and B from agricultural to R-3 (high
density residential).
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Regarding Decision A, staff recommends alternative #1. Rezoning should
occur if Council desires that the project proceed.
Regarding Decision B, staff recommends alternative #2 which calls for
further review by the Planning Commission.
It appears that there are some distinct reasons why this property should
not be rezoned to B-3 zoning. At the same time, however, an obvious
proper alternative has not emerged; and therefore, it is recommended that
the Planning Commission spend some time to study this issue and come up
with a zoning plan that is appropriate for Outlots A and B. Tabling this
item for further scrutiny should do nothing to delay or inhibit the
Evergreens development and would contribute towards decision- making
based on complete information.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of pertinent excerpts from the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
c
E4
COMMERCIAL POLICIES
1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing
functions should occur both in the central business district and
the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94.
2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures
and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the
needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to
properly control such enterprises at the local community level:
commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible,
and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive.
3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable
areas for highway oriented commercial develooment requiring
large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement
dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses
should be encouraged to develop in new locations along
Interstate 94 at Highway 25.
4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an
adequate market study (market radius, customer potential,
suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration
for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern.
S. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact
commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses,
as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is
benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a
better control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason,
"strip" and 'spot' commercial development should not be
permitted.
6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated
to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime
commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable as
a 'viable commercial area".
7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the
integrated business center developed according to a specific
site pian and justified by an economic analysis of the area to
be served.
8. All major commercial areas shall be pre -zoned based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be re -zoned to commercial
use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance
vita the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as
to prevent intrusion into residential areas; residential areas
must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of
adjacent and nearby commercial area.
11q, -48-
rX
FS
'. ` •fix,,{.'. t.,L.
1�1 ,Single Famijy
• j-✓ t7
0 Multiple Family l
Q Commercial
® ,Ahdustrial
' Public/Quasi—Put
Proposed Park-
1� X .
!\ .�
33 Afe-
.and' Use
Ian I Q' : i N : '1' `i C E L L ..0 # • _ �, .�
10. To make major public expenditures according to a capital
improvements program and budget which establishes priority
schedules for five or six years in advance based on projections
of need and estimated revenues.
11. To encourage suitable housing in good living environments for
people of all ages, incomes, and racial and ethnic groups
throughout Monticello.
12. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony
with the natural environment and where adequate services and
facilities are available.
13. To eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor
maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible.
14. To concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact
and well-planned areas by discouraging 'spot' and 'strip'
business development.
15. To encourage the development of a strong industrial employment
base so that persons can live and work in Monticello.
16. To develop high quality industrial areas which are free from
nuisance characteristics such as noise, smoke, odors,
vibrations, glare, dust, and other objectionable features.
11. To purchase recreation sites for long-range needs at an early
date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urban
development or land costs render acquisition hopeless.
18. To develop public utilities and services that are well planned
and cost-effective for present and future needs at the lowest
possible operating and maintenance coats.
14. To evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to
develop various land use strategies to prevent congestion on the
public streets.
20. To protect residential areas by channalin9 major traffic volumes
onto a relatively few major streate.
-39-
o�
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
11. Consideration of ordering publication of notice of environmental
assessment worksheet comment period. (J.0 .)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Minnesota state law stipulates that for developments as large as the
Evergreens subdivision, an environmental assessment Worksheet must be
completed and provided to public agencies and the general public for
comment. The oomment period lasts for 30 days from the proposed
publication date of May 11, 1989. The final plat may not be signed until
such time that the public review period and all other processes
associated with the environmental assessment worksheet review are
complete. It is recommended that the final plat approval be awarded
subject to the completion of this public review process. According to
the City Engineer, the environmental assessment worksheet is complete,
and there does not appear to be any information that would lead the City
to believe that there will be any problems associated with review by the
public or by other state and county agencies. It is important, however,
to note that the signing of the final plat will not occur until such time
that all comments have been duly received by any individual organization
interested in this particular project. According to Mr. Badalich, it is
a fairly standard practice to approve a final plat subject to successful
completion of the FAW process.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to order publication of notice of environmental assessment
worksheet comment period for the Evergreens development and declare
Monticello as the responsible governmental unit.
2. Motion to deny publication of notice of comment period for the
environmental assessment worksheet for the Evergreens development.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City Engineer, John Badalich, has reviewed the environmental assessment
worksheet and found it to be complete. Staff, therefore, recommends that
the notice of the RAW comment period be published and that copies of the
EAW should be distributed by the developer to the proper agencies.
Publication of thin notice in the May 11 issue of The Monticello Times
would allow construction of utilities to begin during the second week of
June 1989.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of environmental assessment worksheet and supporting documentation.
-19-
N
orr
2021 Eos[ Hennepin Avenue
i MiM."Polls. 84155413
612=1:1.8660
FAXIY.3606
I
II �,
May 5, 1989
Mr. Jeff O'Neil
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Enineer.
5v e•,ors
Planners
Re: EAW, Evergreen Subdivision I
OSM Comm. No. 1748.56
Dear Jeff:
I received a copy of the revised EAW for the EvergreenlSubdivision a few days ago
and have reviewed this document prepared by Melchert/Block Associates, Inc. I
found the document satisfactory and recommend that the thirty (30) day review
procedure be implecented.
Enclosed for your information and guidance is a coply of the latest EQB Monitor and
a list of the EAW Distribution List we received from. the EQB. You will need at
least twenty-five (25) copies of the EAW for distribution and public review.
Attached also is the Public Notice format for the Everglreen EAW that should be sent
to the EQB Monitor and also published in the Monticello ITimes. The thirty (30) day
comment period runs from the City Council acceptance of the EAW at their May 8th
meeting to the June 8th closing date. The City Council should also declare that
the City of Monticello is the Responsible GovornmentallUnit (RGU).
If you have any questions, plea:o give me a call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCIIELEN$-MAYERON
yl
OL P' BEngineer
JPB:tja
Attachments
3-69 F -PI 10:19
---------------
1 �
it
Ew�OPPa+um9'e�f� I I.
i I
612I33i
DIV -
96
I
t y
EAH - COMMENTS DUE JUNE 8, 1989
Qroget Titles- Evergreen Subdivision, Monticello, MNi
Descriotioq: The proposed project consists of develolping 228 RI, R2 single family
homes and 28 mobile homes (256 total) on a 126 acre parcel. The project will be
developed in a series of 5 phases and will require the extension of all utilities
(sanitary sewer, water, gas, electric) and the construction of a street network
through the subdivision and to individual units. Al trunkline sanitary sewer and
watennain will be extedned along County Rd. 117 from Dundas Rd. to service the
development. A lift station with a temporary foreemaio will be constructed to
phase I sanitary sewer to serve the existing East trailer park and future trailer
park units, j
I� I
Copies of the document are available at the following' locations: Monticello Public
Library, 4th and Walnut St., Monticello, MN 55362 and City Hall, 254 East Broadway
St., Monticello, MN 55362.
EEL City of Monticello G� �II T
Mr. Jeff
Mont�o MN 5352, phone(6121)11
1295-27CiLy Administration, 250 East Broadway,
' u
05 -73 .)1 1`71PL5, rtr t
P.a
I ':
nqv
II11/16/87
_1 MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY;SOARD
1 ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROGRAM
I:
EAW DISTRIBUTION LIST
NOTE: Approximately 25 copies are needed for distribution. For further
information regarding this list,
contact EQBI(metro: 612-296-8253;
non -metro: 1-800-652-9747).
II III
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY BOARD
BOARD OF'WATt IiND SOIL RESOURCES
Environmental Review Program
JimijBirkholz
300 Centennial Office Building
90 West;Plato Boulevard
658 Cedar Street
St.'JPaul, HN 55107 (1 copy)
St. Paul, MN 55155 (1 copy)
HISTORICAL SOCIETY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
State Historic Preservation Off.
Dennis Devereaux
Fort Shelling History Center
900 American Center Building
St.I!Paul, MN 55111 (1 copy)
150 East Kellogg Boulevard
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY
St. Paul, MN 55101 (1 copy)
Zona Dewitt
NATURAL RESOURCES
6451'St6te Office Building
Don Buckhout
St.lPau'l, MN 55155 (2 copies)
Office of Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LIBRARY
500 Lafayette Road, Box 10
300'Nicollet Mall
St. Paul, MN 55155 (3 copies)
Minneapolis, MN 55401 (2 copies)
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Cliff Anderson
Ben,Wopat, Chief
520 Lafayette Road
Regulatory Functions Branch
St. Paul, MN 55155 (3 copies)
1135'U.IS. P.O. 6 Custom House
;^aaapORTATION
St.IPaul, MN 55101-1479 (1 copy)
Cheryl Heide
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Room 704, Transportation Bldg.
William,D. Frand
John Ireland Boulevard
Chief of Environmental Review Sr.
St. Paul, MN 55155 (3 copies)
230 South Dearborn Street
HEALTH
Chicago; IL 50604 (1 copy)
Laura Oatman
U.S. FISW AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
State Health Building
St.'Pau4 Field Office
717 Delaware Street SE
50Park;lSquare Court
Minneapolis, MN 55440 (1 copy)
400 Sibley Street
IFau]I
AGRICULTURE
St. MN 55101 (1 COPY)
Paul Burns
METROPOLITANI,COUNCIL (Metro area only)
90 West Plato Boulevard
JohnIRutford, Referral Coord.
St. Paul, )1N 55107 (1 copy)
300 Mctio Square Building
7th,andlRobert Streets
St.IPau_, MN 55101 (1 copy)
ALSO DISTRIBUTE COPIESIIITOc
- Proposer of the project
Local government unit within which the project will take place
- Regional Development Commission, whore applicable, and Regional Development
Library for the region of the project site (see'eccompanying lists and map)
- Representative of any petitioners pursuant to 6 pCAR13.026
- Any other parson upon written request !I
PRESS RELEASE r C()f
A(.•ess release must be provided to at least one newapepo= of general
circulation in the project area within 5 working daysgof EAW distribution. The
release must include the name, location, and a brief doncription of the project
the location(a) of which EAWs can be rovlawodi tha"comment period deadline
(a&11 EQD if unknown); and to whom to submit comments:
1D
Et"QB
� ,
SNI May f, 1989 -
0 IIIIIUI Volume 13 Issue 20 �.. .
Monitor
Next issue:May 15, 1989
Nezt Deadline: y
May 8, 1989
EIS PREP NOTICE
Prniecr tette: IGH Resort Communif)
RCU: City of Inver Grove Heights
The RGU will prepare an EIS examining the following
ssua: abandoned we!!s, soils and erosion control,
shoreland zoning. DNR protected wedands, groundwater ap-
piopriasion, air quality, existing and proposed land cover
types, noise, odors, wildlife habitat and threatened species.
traffic, economic, employment and sociological impacts.
Three alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS: 1) No -build
2) Build according to the developer's proposal and 3) Build
according to the City Comprehensive Guide Plan as
amended.
ens ct txrSn: Mr. William Meeker, Planning Super.
visor. City of Inver Grove Heigtts. 8150 Btrbara Avenue.
Inver Grove Heights. NC4 53075. Phone (612,45 2111.
MN DOT ALTERNATIVE REVIEW
E=* Environmental AssessmenuProject path Report
ftljjerr ride: TH 2 Bridge Replacement --Red Lake
River
2Lr.IiDI m: The proposed project will replace the exist-
ing bridge near Crookston. The preferred alternative will
place Use new structure on an abgnmeni nand of the current
alignment. Other than she no -build aliems6e, all
reasonable oltemaiives make it impossible to utili2e the
present entrance to Central Park.
Puhlic meetina: will be held at Crookston City Hall on
Thursday. May 18, 1989. An Open House/Public Meeting
formas will be used which allows all interested persons,
governmental agencies and public interest groups to attend
at their convenience between 4:00 and 7:00 pm to view ex•
hibits, discuss Use proposed project with NIN DOT person.
nel and provide comments for the hearing record.
enntm r.on: R.E. Wolfe. District Enpnecr, KN
Department of Transportation, P.O. Bas 490. Bemidji, NL,I
56601,,.
e+�����
nM ,,nl=riQatnLd5: May 3Ill. 1989.
s.•
1�i10 t
25
EAWs —COMMENTS DUE MAY 31ST, 1989
I ii
Pro'err erlee Wgt"i
Rivtr Road from 1.694 to 73rd
Ave (Brooklyn Center)
Descrim ono: The proposed project consists of improv.
ing West River Road (old TH 252) from 66th Ave North to
73rd Ave Norah.. Allemadve designs being considered in•
elude overlay, a combination of pavement overlay and total
reconstruction or total reconstruction of the entire roadway.
Storm sewer is proposed to be extended to serve West River
Road. Trail and sidewalk are proposed along the road. The
trail would be a continuation from that of the City of Block.
In Park and would extend to o culde-sac re r 1.694. No
additional right-of-way. is expected to be required.
f'ntricr of the document are available at the following
locations: Hennepin Coumy Library, Broukdale Branch,
6125 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Ccntti, MN 55430
and Information Center&, City of Brooklyn Center. City Hall,
6301 Shingle Creels Plivry, Brooklyn Center, NMN 55430.
8Si17: City of Brooklyn Center
C lout, rrnn- Mi. Sy Knapp, Director of Public
Works. 6301 Shingle Creck Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, NLS
55430 phone (612) 561; 5440.
Praia' $Ince Fslrsray Creek
ne<crinsiax, The pioposed project is a 432 unit apart.
mens complex to be situated on a 39.8 acre site near Shingle
Creek in Brooklyn Park. The project proposes w shift the
creek to the north Barn( the neap slope, and Iowa the
creek bottom to provide greater water depth. Reeeation
space will include areas for tennis, swimming and trails.
There are 1016 Proposed parking spaces.
BL City
.,o;ft:
Brooklyn park.COTLCr rte+atin• W Oary B erg, Director of Planting,
5800 85th Avetuse N. Brooklyn Park..MN 53443 Phone
(AI?)07a.8M0.,
i
Rare dart Blandlo Paper Company R Expansion
2tudp1j a• Rlantlln proposes to modify and expand its
paper mdl in dee City of Grand Rapids. The project in-
cludes the addition of a complete coated papa line and in.
creased wood processing and pulping facilities. The No. 7
expulsion is similar to ft No.6 expansion. which will be
completed during 1989: exc6 p that new steam generation
facilitics will not headded. Production capaeayfor the new
No.7 Paper machine will be 650 tons a day. The Grand
Rapids wastewater aeauneru facility will be upgraded to IC
t �1
6121331 0660 P.05
—�"r^rove t7� 'e9 tt��5 +7�rt rut�.r>r+
T
The person to contact to discuss inrormal disposidon of
the cast pursuant to part 1400.5900 or discovery procedures
pursuant to parts 1400.6700 and 1400.6800 of the above
described rules is William A. Szotkowski, Special Assist=
Attorney General. Suite 200.520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul,
AIN $5155 telephone (612) 29606%,
All panics have the right to be reprc=ted by thrmsel-
ves, by legal counsel, or by a person of their choice if not
prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. Keeler
should file a notice of appearance 20 days before the hear-
ing. Other persons may petition the administrative law
judge for permission to intervene. All p=on who are af.
fected by the project will have an opportunity to testify and
introduce exhibits, whether panics or not. if non-public
data is admitted Into evidence, it may become public unless
a pany objccts and asks for relief under MN Statutes 14.60
subdivision 2.
EQB Monitor
Minnesota Envirnnmental Quality Board
300 Centennial Building
659 Cedar Sucet
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
(61:)296.8253
John He4n4srs
(i$f1
2021 E. Hennepin
IVIS W 55413
P rte
0A
r-1
4
E R. • trilled in by EQal
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
MARK APPROPRIATE BOX:
❑x REGULAR EAW ❑ SCOPING EAW
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: For regular £AWs. Written eommtnte should addtess tht accuracy and completeness of the EAW
information, potential impacts that may w -arrant investigation and/or the need for an EIS. For %roping EAW,. wrinen c om•
mens should address the accuracy and completeness of the infor marion and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. Such
comments must be submitted to thi Respons,ble Government Unit (RGUI during the 30 -day period following notice of the
EAW* availability in the EQ8 Monteoc Contact the EQB (metro: 612!246.8253: no-meuo: 1.800.652.4747, as4 for emr•
ronmental review program) or the RGU to find out when the 30 -day comment period ends.
1. Project Name Evergreen Subdivision �eyy
2. Proposer Kjellberq's Inc. J. RGU City of Monticello
Contactperson Kent Klellberq Coolactiterson Jeff 0'n ' 7
Address P.O. Box 866 .ndTirhrAsst. City Administrator
Monticello. MN 55167 Addrets 250 East Broadway
Phone 1612) 295-2931 Monticello. MN 55362
Phone ( 612 ) 295-2711
4. proiecr Location: . SW + Section 14 Township 121 Range 2
a. County Namawria r City! Township Name MOn— cam]n
b. Attach copies of tach of the following to the EAW:
1. a county map showing the general area of the project.
2. a copytiesi of USGS 71 'e minute, 1:28.708 scale map.
3. a site plan showingrha locadono(significant features such as proposed IIruCIUIM toads, r.trnt of good plain,
wetlands, wells. eu.
4, an e.iuing land use map and a toning map of the immediate area, if available.
5. Describe the proposed project completely (anach additional %hens a necessary).
Kjellberg's Inc. proposes to develop 228 RI, R2 single family homes
and 28 mobile homes (256 total) on a 126 acre parcel. The project
will be developed in a series of 5 phases and will require the
extension of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water, gas, electric)
and the construction of a street network (see attached plan) through
the subdivision and to individual units. A trunkline sanitary sewer
will be extended along County Rd. 117 from Dundaa Rd. (see attached
plan) to service the development. A lift station with a temporary
forcemain will be constructed to phase I sanitary sewer to serve
the existing East trailer park and future trailer park units.
Q
6• Reason for EAW preparation: Ri,ntsirPri by/ Minnoant EO
List all mandatorycetegoryrule"I.hichapply' 4410.4300, Subparagraph 18B a 19(A)2
7• Esumaiedconstructioncost $2.000,000.00
8• Total projrct area (acres) 126 acres +r length (miles( N/A
9• Number ofresidantlat units 256 or commercial. Industrial. or institutional square footage 9.5 acres
10. Number of proposed parking spaces N/A
11 • List all known local. stair and federal permits: approvals: funding required:
Level of Government Type of Application Status
MN Dept. Permit For Not Applied For
Bnfocadx of Health Water Extension
State: MN Pollution Permit For Not Applied For
Control Sewer Extension
Minnesota Review Not Applied For
Local: Dept. Trans.
Wright Cty. Review Not Applied For
I�
Dept. Trans.
12. • Is the proposed project Inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use
plan or any other adopted plans? No Yes
If yes. e.plain:
13, Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site.
7
Agricultural Land
14, Approtimatdy how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories?
(Acreages should add up to total project area before and &her construction.)
Before After Belore After
Forest / Woodrd Wetland (types 3•81
Cropland Impervious Surface +19 Streets, Houses a Driveway
Brush/gussland Other(specifyl `LLandscaped Yards a Parks
15, Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types. if known.
- Estherville Loam 0-28 Slopes, 25-69 Slopen
- Estherville Sandy Loam 29-69 Slopes, 6%-128 Slopes Moderately Eroded
- Wadena Loam 0-28 Slopes
16* Does the sit. contain prat sods, highly erodible soils, steep dopes. sinkholes, shalluw
limestone formation,, abandoned ueils. or any geologic harards? 11 yes, shnw on tut
map and esplaim LL No L' Yea
17. What is the approtimate depth lin Ivan tri:
a. groundwater 20 min_asg. It. bedrock BjAmin.-avg. 1'
18s Dora any part of the project area involve:
a, shoreland toning district? No Yrs
b. delineated 100 -year flood plain? No Yrs
e. state or federally designated river land use district? L No 11Yes
II yes. identify tearer body and applicable state class ibca t ion(s). and describe measures
to protect rater and related land resources:
19, Describe any physical alteration (e.g.. dikes. cscavatfon. fill. stream di-suonl of env
drainage system. lake. stream. and;ot wriland. Describe measures to mins. im.
pairmeni of the rater-rrlimed resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged
and Indicate where spoils will be deposited.
N/A
20. ..Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? If yes. esplain
(Indicate quantity and source): ❑x No ❑ Yes
b.Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells Ion or off the site)? It yes. ea.
plain: 2— No Cl Yes
21e Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and shot
construction of the project.
Applicable Soil Conservation Service methods.
22. a. Will the project genetsar
1.
face and stormwater runoff.' No Yrs
2. unitary waatewetar? No Yrs
3. industrial wase sm.t. No Yes
C. cooling water Icontact and noncomactl? It No I Yes
If yrs. Identify sources. volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewagal.
and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates.
See attached plan. 9 Retention Ponds will be constructed to control
storm water runoff. The Unit Hydrography Method was used to calculate
storm water runoff and size of Retention Ponds.
b. Identity receiving waren, including groundwater. and evaluate the Impacts of the
discharges listed above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated. provide per.
colation/per meabllhy and other hydrogcological test data. if avarlable.
23. Will the project generate (either during or aha construction):
a.
If pollution? No q Yes
b. dust?{xi No Yrs
C. noise? 1HI No Yrs
d, odors? x No Yes
lilies. esplain. Including as appropriate: distances to senstilwe land uses: e.pected 1—
efs and duration of noise. types and quantities of air pollutants from mocks. mobile
sources. and fugitive emissions Idutl: odor sources: and mitigative measures for any
Impacts. Give the bads or merhodoingy ul estirtsares.
� 3
�l
`�.
Describe the type and amount of solid and. or hazardous waste including sludges and
ashes that will be generated and the method and location of disposal:
Domestic wastewater generated by 256 units @ 320 GPD/unit =
81,920 CPD
Commercial wastewater generated by 9.5 acres x 1000 Gal/A.=
9,500 GPD
25.91,
420 GPD
Will the project affect:
a. fish or wildlife habitat. or movement of animals? x No
_ Yes
b. any native species that are officially listed as .tate endangered. threatened. or of
CIf
special concern (animals and; or plants)? L.. No
yes. explain ftdentrly species and describe impact):
26o
Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project
site? If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impacil: E No
❑ Yes
See Attached
27.
Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of:
a. designated park or recreation areas? x No
Yes
b. prime or unique farmlands? x No
Yes
C. ecologically sensitive areas? No
l Yes
d. scenic views and villas? No
l Yea
e. other unique resources Ispecilyl? No
❑ Yes
If yes. explain:
Q
28.
For each affected road Indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT). incre ase in ADT
contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic.
County Rd. 117, ADT = 661, increased to 1,941
MN State Highway 25, ADT = 6,608, increased to 7,888
ADT generaged by project n 2,560, assume equal distribution
to each road.
7
29.
Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? II not.
In t addld I i Ill' d r 'll b ' ds ❑
M
w a one tea tet an • o services wt a requue No Yes
Summary of issues
For regular EAWo. Ilse the Issues as identified by _yes* answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these
Issues. For scoping EAWs. list known Issues. allernattws. and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS.
CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
1 hereby certify that the Information contained ...his document Is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that
copin of the completed PAW have been made ...,table to all points on the official ECB distribution Int.
49 grealure . Date 4
Tide 9
BRAINERD mwy. Is
ILLE LACS LAKE
Gm
in
z 23
.CLOUD
NORTH
ELK RIVER
MONTICELLOI$� I
------ BUFFALO
'2
THE EVERGREENS
KJELLBERG*S INC.
HWY. 25 SOUTH
MONTICELLO, MN
CITIES
LOCATION MAP
L!"
RG�EENS
1NE Ev�o s �Nc_
E�
z$Soo w
G��40.
A
MPP
,,s ,7 p°°
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIET '
FOUNDED IIV 1849 fore Srrcfbng tirstur} CMWI.5t. owt. Mv55111 • tbib 726.1171
March A, 198$
Ms. Teresa Abbott
Rjellberg'a Incorporated
P. 0. Box 866
Monticello, Minnesota $5362
Dear No. Abbott:
Re: Develop 90 acre parcel of land into Mobile Dome Park and
Residential Development, Monticello, Wright County
MSS Referral File Number: 88-0897
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above
project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given
the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the National
Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (36CFRSOO).
This review reveals the location of no known sites of historic,
architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering
significance within the area of the proposed project. There are
no sites in the project area which are on the National Register
or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and
therefore, none which may be affected by your proposal.
Again, thank you for your participation in this important effort
to preserve Minnesota's heritage.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DAG: dmb
Q
lot
a
\\\\\\\\\\\\\
NOTCS•
t7' S- SE. 0 0.27
t7 sm. St.. • 0.2e
M B.W. SM 0 0 -0
A . erul Ulu 101
MB IB •COICTJBW
'27av Bnm Ont
MOOS 1pTS, Il D
FOR COISTBUCOOM.
EVERUHEENS
A
did
ARK
u
MELCHERT / ®LOIN ASSOCIATES NC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
367 E85L Kellogg Elva. • Sl. Paul. MN. 55101 • 612.226-9564
DATE
87
ATTER TION
`0AW
IE
TO psi A SSG�C1.4r /NG
WE ARE SENDING ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA
❑ blrHfl O SH@ MINING$ ❑ CONTRACTS
❑ LITEAITUIE O fHtlo[l111B OIIWII6S Qrx1R l A�, J
❑ PIANS 0 CHANGE ORDERS
O PNINTS O LETTERS
COPIES MITE NO DESCRIPTION
I
i
SE ARE R SENT:
Ia ow Foul APPROVAL
m
o APPROVED AN 1or1D
p 1 A FOUL UI[
O APPROVED At SUBMITTED
01 F0u1 :[VIEW
O APPICI[D AN CHANGED
O r01 VOUA COrr[NT.
O :EJECTED IS NOTED
O r0: 1011 tIGNATUIE
O REJECTED AS CHANGED
O FOR FOUR
O 11TURNED FOR CORRECTIONS
O IISUIHIf COPIES FOR APPROVAL
O tulrll Corltt FOR OnTRnuTION
O 1utW CORN FOR
O
(3
M
4
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
12. Consideration of adopting Kjellberg Mobile Home Park Fast Development
Agreement and consideration of approving expansion of the Kjellberg Fast
Mobile Home Park. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the Kjellberg's Mobile Home Park East
Development Agreement. However, it is also recommended that Council
withhold approval to expand the mobile home park itself.
Kjellberg Mobile Home Park East Developer Agreement.
Kjellbergs Mobile Home Park East Development Agreement outlines
agreements pertaining to payment of the area assessment associated with
the Kjellberg Park Fast, anti it also outlines steps leading to the
ultimate connection of the mobile home park to City services. The
agreement outlines a credit of $50,000 toward the area assessment for the
mobile home park. In return for this credit, Kjellberg will be
installing the connection between the City services and the northeast
corner of the Evergreens development. Kjellherg is receiving this credit
because the expense to connect existing City services to the northeast
corner of the Evergreens development will allow the City to defer the
high cost of installing the trunk line to a position where it can be used
by the development. This strategy for providing services to the
Evergreens and uitlnately the i-ablle hr,, -,,e park greatly reduces the City's
financial exposure associated with extending a trunk line which would
have otherwise cost the City a minimum of $230,000.
The agreement also outlines the method by which the City will collect the
remaining area assessment amount of $37,500 from the mobile home park.
The payment will occur over 30 years at an interest rate of 6.5 percent
and will result in an approximate surcharge of $2 per month per mobile
home. Thio surcharge mist be paid whether or not the mobile home park is
actually connected to City services. The agreement also outlines a
phased sewer connection plan which contains the following requirements.
1. City shall not issue any certificates of occupancy for residences
in phase II until such time as the east park is hooked up to City
sanitary scorer service.
2. In the event a state or federal regulatory agency imposes
sanctions on the City or developer, the City can act to install
the utilities and charge the coat to the developer.
Mobile Homo Park Expansion Request.
In terms of the immediate request to expand the Kjellberg East Mobile
Homo Park, staff does not recommend that Council authorize expansion of
the mobile how park, as Mr. Rjellberg has failed to gain approvals
necessary from state and federal agencies regarding this expansion. As
-20-
Council Agenda - 5/8/84
you know, the City is concerned about the adequacy of the existing septic
system: and it would not be wise to llow expansion of the mobile home
park prior to PCA and State Health Department authorization.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
DECISION A:
1. Motion to adopt Rjellbergs Mobile Home Park East Developer Agreement
and deny plans to expand Rjellbergs Mobile Home Park Fast. council
to consider allowing expansion when appropriate approvals are in
place.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Ajellbergs Mobile Homs Park East
Development Agreement and deny authorizing mobile home park
expansion.
DECISION B:
1. Motion to authorize expansion of Rjellberg East Mobile Home Park.
2. Motion to deny authorization to expand Rjellberg East Mobile Rome
Park.
C. STAFF RECC#6 --PANG;.
DECISION A: Staff recommends alternative il.
DECISION B: Staff recommends alternative 02.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from MPCA regarding Evergreens and Ejellberg Park East Development
Agreements.
•21.
KJELLBERG'S MOBILE HOME PARK EAST
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of
1989, between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, hereinafter referred
to as the "CITY" and KJELLBERG'S, INC., a Minnesota
Corporation, its successors and assigns, hereinafter
referred to as the "DEVELOPER".
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has submitted a written request
to the City as outlined in the Preliminary Plat Application
entitled "EVERGREENS", a residential subdivision contiguous
on its proposed southerly boundary line with the existing
mobile home park development within the CITY commonly known
as KJELLBERG'S MOBILE HOME PARK EAST, hereinafter referred
to as the "EAST PARK";
WHEREAS, the parties and certain other governmental
agencies desire the East Park utilize CITY sewer service;
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has requested the extension of
trunk sewer S2rViCc LO the EVFRGrcai*S;
'j WHEREAS, the CITY desires that trunk sewer facilities
be extended from its present termination point at Dundas
Road, to a position in the County Highway #117 right of way
at the northeast corner of the EVERGREENS;
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER will act as part of the utility
improvements to EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION to extend at its
expense the sewer laterals through anticipated public
right-of-ways not within EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION, to a
point where it can hook up EAST PARK to CITY sewer.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 462.358 authorizes the CITY
to require execution by the DEVELOPER a contract secured by
financial consideration and guarantees that insures that the
improvements described will actually be constructed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
of the parties made herein.
IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO that the
DEVELOPER, pursuant to financial guarantees set forth in
that certain contemporaneously executed companion agreement
hereinafter known as the "EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT"
will forthwith employ at its expense a contractor or
contractors approved by the CITY and pursuant to plans
approved by the City, to install without the
1
borders of proposed EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION the necessary
sanitary sewer laterals, lift stations and monitoring
devices necessary to put the EAST PARK on CITY sanitary
sewer.
IT IS ALSO AGREED:
That the agreed $50,000 cost of extension of
the municipal trunk sewer line from its present
termination at Dundas Road to a position in the
County Highway 117 right-of-way at the northeast
corner of EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION shall be
credited against the EAST PARK AREA ASSESSMENT FOR
TRUNK SEWER AND TRUNK WATER.
2. That the EAST PARK shall be subject to an AREA
ASSESSMENT FOR TRUNK SEWER AND TRUNK WATER
equivalent 35 acres times $2500 per acre equalling
$87,500. The balance of 537,500, after the credit
set forth at paragraph one, shall be payable at
the rate of approximately $2872. annually,
including interest at 6.56. DEVELOPER hereby
consents to certification by the CITY as
prescribed by law to the Wright County Auditor of
an amount not to exceed $37,500, as herein
-----late- at an interes, rate not to exct=d 6.51
annually, based ona 30 year amortization, subject
to Developers right to prepay before interest
accrues as provided by law.
That the EAST PARK sewer access charge and water
access charge shall be $225 per mobile home pad.
This SAC/WAC fee (123 pads x 5225) of 517,675
shall be payable annually over five years plus
6.56 interest.
At such time as a trunk sanitary sewer line
becomes available easterly of the EAST PARK in
County Highway 117 right-of-way DEVELOPER may hook
at his expense without further fees or charges.
5. The parties acknowledge that EAST PARK is serviced
by a private common water supply. At such time as
municipal water may become available or necessary
DEVELOPER may hook up to the municipal water
system at its expense. Developer may hook up at
the then prevailing fee based upon pipe size, not
a fee based upon inhabitants or the number of
mobile home pads. The parties acknowledge that
the current hookup charge would be approximately
$1,500.00, it being the intent of the parties that
the methodology of calculating the hookup fee not
be changed.
2
6. EAST PARK shall be charged a user fee for sanitary
sewer service and water service if and when
connected at normal residential rates based upon a
flow meter installed at Developer's expense.
7. CITY agents are hereby granted the right to come
upon the premises for purposes of periodic meter
readings.
8. The parties acknowledge and agree that the East
Park has been and shall continue to be subject to
the licensing and jurisdiction of the Minnesota
Department of Public Health.
9. It is anticipated that the EVERGREENS proposed
plat will develop consistently with its
Preliminary Phased Plan. The City shall not issue
any Certificates of Occupancy for residences in
PHASE 11 until such time as the EAST PARK is
hooked up to City sanitary sewer service on a
temporary basis. The permanent sewer hookup of
EAST PARK shall occur at the time that PHASE V
underground utilities are installed from the
permanent lift station site as reflected on the
Fc!::* -a:*,* 6, 19F9 Rcl.,-ision cf the utilities plan.
In the event the temporary and permanent sanitary
sewer hookup from the EAST PARK do not occur the
City is hereby granted a temporary easement for
sanitary sewer installation one rod wide
consistent with the proposed road layout as
outlined in yellow on the attached Exhibit A. The
temporary easement shall terminate as the roads
within PHASE II and V are accepted by the City and
it shall provide a Quit Claim Deed extinguishing
the easement as to that Phase. The temporary
sewer line shall be a private line installed and
maintained by the Developer.
The City shall have the right to utilize said
temporary easement and hookup the EAST PARK,
charging Developer therefore, upon the occurrence
of one of the following events:
(a) Failure of Developer, his successors and
assigns to hook up the EAST PARK when
installing underground utilities for PHASE II
of "THE EVERGREENS"; OR
(b) In the event a state of federal regulatory
agency imposes Pecuniary sanctions or
limitations upon the City or Developer, OR
3
(c) Thirty days after commencement by a state or
federal regulatory agency of administrative
or judicial proceedings against City or
Developer to force sewer hook up of the EAST
PARK.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By
its Mayor
By
Its Administrator
KJELLB$/RGS—, ;,IJC.
Ke t Kjel'I er_
CITY OF MONTICELLO)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1989, by Ken Maus,
Mayor, and Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator, on behalf of the
City of Monticello.
KJELLBERG, INC.)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF WRIGHT)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
_fA— day of &, , , 1989, by Kent
Kjellberg as President of Kjellberg, Inc. on behalf of
Kjellberg, Inc.
� ii i��-t9�✓JOCCUY,(�
`ono �l
4
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 f
Telephone (t; t 2) 296-6300
MI?I IAtYJtA Tpaa
April 14, 1989
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
Re: Evergreens and Kjellberg Mobile Home Park East
Development Agreements
we are in receipt of the pertinent sections of the proposed Evergreens
Development Agreement and the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park East Development
Agreement. Copies of the above documents have been forwarded to Mr. Charles
Schneider of the Environmental Health Division of the State Health Department
for his review. t
we understand that the city will allow expansion of the East Park if Mr.
Kjellberg can obtain the proper licensing from the governing state agencies.
j It is the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) position that no
expansion of the East Park shall be allowed until such time that the park is
connected (temporarily or permanently) to city sever service or an approvable
on—site system is provided. The existing system at the East Park is not an
approvable system. The State Health Department has indicated that they will
not be licensing the East Park expansion unless the MPCA approves the sewage
treatment and disposal system. This prohibition against expansion means that
no mobile homes will be allowed to be moved into the new lots to the east of
the existing park.
We also understand that according to the Development Agreements, the city will
not issue any Certificates of Occupancy for residences in Phase 2 of the
Evergreens until such time that the East Park is hooked up to city sever
service on a temporary basis. The MPCA has taken the position that connection
of the East Park to the city sever system via n temporary line must take place
by the end of 1989. We recognize that delays from Mr. Kjellberg's original
time schedule may have occurred, however, we feel there is still ample time
for connection in 1989.
It was noted in the documents that the city shall have the right to utilize a
temporary casement and connect the East Park at the developer's expense should
a state or federal regulatory agency impose pecuniary sanctions or commence
administrative or judicial proceedings against the developer to force sever
hookup to the East Park. This right of the city could be triggered by the
Introduction of a Stipulation Agreement by the MPCA or the initiation of �.
license revocation proceedings by the State Health Department.
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroa Lakes • Marshall - Rochester I�
Equal ppportunay Employer printed on Rxyebd Paper
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page 2
At this time, no definite plans for a Stipulation Agreement with Mr. Kjellberg
have been made by the MPCA. This option remains, however, should we feel that
Mr. Kjellberg is not making sufficient progress towards a 1989 connection
date. The Health Department, to my knowledge, has no plans to initiate
license revocation proceedings for the existing East Park at this time. Mr.
Schneider, however, will be discussing legal aspects of this possibility with
Department attorneys.
In summary, it is the MPCA's position that no expansion of the Eact Park take
place until city sever service is provided. The Health Department will not
license any park expansion without MPCA approval of the sewage treatment
method. In addition, the MPCA is still requiring connection to city service
by the end of 1989. A letter outlining these positions will be sent to Mr.
Kjellberg in the near future.
We appreciate your efforts in the resolution of this matter. We look forward
to continued cooperation in the future and to providing any assistance that
may be helpful. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact me at 296-8828.
Sincerely,
,� •moi
Richard Clark
Regulatory Compliance Section
Division of Vater puality
RC:jrk
Q 0
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
13. Review and discuss plan of action designed to address concerns of Meadow
Oak residents. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 1989, City staff, along with Ken Maus, met with Dickman Knutson
and his son to discuss problems highlighted by Meadow Oak residents. A
general plan of action was developed at that meeting, which is outlined
in the attached meeting summary notes. Included in the summary is a plan
of action which calls for the rewriting and recording of the restrictive
covenants that apply to that area. It is also proposed that the City
look at amending its ordinances to address public nuisance related
problems that pertain to the Meadow Oaks area and the city as well.
At this time, City staff and Dickman Knutson plan on meeting with Meadow
Oak residents to begin the process of rewriting the restrictive covenants
for the purpose of adding clarity to the document. It was felt that the
Meadow Oak residents should be involved in rewriting the covenants, as
they will be asked to join in the effort to assign the restrictive
covenants to all properties in the development area. Council is asked to
discuss the matter and provide City staff with further direction on this
matter.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Authorize staff to follow the plan of action as outlined in the
meeting summary notes.
2. Modify plan and direct staff accordingly.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
May 3 meeting summaryr Copy of letter submitted by Rhonda Thtelen to City
staff which outlines various public nuisance and restrictive covenant
related problems.
Q
-22-
250 East Broadway
Monticello. MN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
MEMO
A: nneth \taw
C.„C.w..,
TO: Dickman Knutson, Craig Knutson, City Staff,
Wn [3L,nig:n
City Council, Residents of Meadow Oaks Subdivision
Fran Fair
U$rrrn Smith
Ax'J"e Smith
FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
” Ric
Rirl.11idjse.•iler
DATE: May 4 1989
y �
c.,mdI'0` "\")e
RE: Summary of meeting held May 3, 1989
JO'N)ea
P.M. W.L.
Jah„Sim,b
On May 3, 1989, Rick Wolfsteller, Tom Hayes, John Simola, Gary
n..,u^,oi—A
Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Ken Maus, Dickman Knutson, and Craig
Carr rin.7r,,,.”
Knutson met to discuss problems brought to the forefront by
�•^'^��*••sem^
local residents in the Meadow Oaks area. Following are
off. Kr,lwha4
clarifications of problems existing in the area and potential
methods by which specific problems might be resolved.
Problem — Unrecorded Covenants
Many of the problems noted by the residents of the Meadow Oaks
area would not have occurred if the original covenants had
been properly recorded. In addition, it appears that
additional language needs to be incorporated into the latest
unsigned version of the covenants which would make the
covenants consistent with Council requirements. After
discussing the major issues that the restrictive covenants was
intended to address, it was concluded that the covenants
should be rewritten to include those restrictions that were
part of the draft documents it should include additional
restrictions added by Councils it should apply to the Meadow
Oak Estates area; and finally, the rewritten version of the
covenants should take into account additional concerns that
might be expressed by residents in the area.
Mr. Knutson agreed to filing the covenants to apply to his
remaining 35 or so lots. In addition, he agreed to work with
the Meadow Oaks and City of Monticello in rewriting the
covenants as requested.
>3
4
Memo
May 4, 1989
Page 2
Specific Problem Identification
Below are the different problem areas that the covenants or potential new
ordinances would address.
1. Outside storage of boats and/or recreation vehicles. This particular
issue will be addressed in the rewrite of the covenants. At some point
in the near future, Council will be asked to address the possibility of
creating an ordinance amendment that would regulate storage of boats or
large recreation vehicles inside the front yard setback. Such an
ordinance requirement would be necessary in order to regulate those
properties not regulated by restrictive covenants.
2. Storage shed design. This item will be included in a rewrite of the
restrictive covenants. The covenants shall be written to encourage
design of sheds to match the primary structure on the property. At
present, the City does not regulate the design of storage buildings.
This may be an issue that Council would like to address at some time in
the future. It was not the view of the small group meeting on this
matter to make storage shed design regulations a high priority for
Council review.
3. Storage shed setback. This issue will be included in the rewrite of
the covenants. City ordinance now addresses setbacks of storage sheds
in residential districts and requires that storage sheds be set back at
least five feet from lot lines. This ordinance is enforced on a
complaint basis. it was the general consensus that the present
ordinance is sufficient to address this particular problem for those
areas not regulated by restrictive covenants.
4. Sodding and seeding requirements for new development. This issue will
be addressed in the rewrite of the restrictive covenants. It was the
general consensus of the group that unsodded and unseeded properties
now existing will be properly sodded and seeded in the near future.
For the most part, this problem for those late that might not be
covered by the covenants will take care of itself, as many of the
unneeded/unoodded lots are at this moment receiving seed or sod. At
the same time, it was the view of the group that Council should
consider adopting an ordinance amendment that would require development
of ground cover on bare lots which would be necessary in order to
control dust and erosion. Tom Hayes indicated that he will incorporate
a sodding and seeding requirement into the appropriate sections of the
City ordinance. Mr. Knutson indicated that he is not responsible for
sodding and seeding properties that are now developed and without green
lawns. It was his view that the covenants should not be retroactive,
as the individual arrangements for home building and lawn development
were negotiated without the understanding that the developer would be
installing lawns.
Memo
May 4, 1989
Page 3
5. Tree planting. This item will be addressed in the rewrite of the
restrictive covenants. Currently, the City ordinance requires that one
tree be planted per each lot that does not already contain a tree.
Weed abatement program. It was the consensus of the group that the
weed ordinance needs to be amended to allow for expedient process of
cutting or removing noxious weeds. It was suggested that a new weed
ordinance should include a process that would 1) require that the City
notify a property owner only once during a growing season and that no
further notifications would be necessary prior to City action to cut
noxious weeds; 2) subsequent to proper notification, City staff or
designee would act to cut noxious weeds; 3) the cost to cut noxious
weeds would be billed to the property owner; and if the bill is not
paid, the cost would be collected as an assessment against the
property. Tom Hayes indicated that he will draft an amendment to the
ordinance that will accomplish the streamlining of the weed abatement
process. This document will be provided to Council at a subsequent
meeting.
7. Sand Rile abatement. In response to the complaints regarding the sand
piles present in the development area, the developer indicated that he
will encourage contractors to level sand piles now present in the
development area.
8. Other matters. Mr. Knutson indicated that he has buried trees in the
development area. He further indicated that all trees have been buried
in easement areas or areas not otherwise buildable. Staff indicated
that the City should be kept informed as to where tree burial is
occurring.
Schedule for Resolving Problems
1. May 8, 1989. Meeting summary presented to Council. Council reviews
plan of attack and makes comments. Council may elect to provide
direction to City Attorney regarding potential ordinance amendments
discussed above.
2. Mr. Knutson and City staff meet with Meadow Oaks area residents to
discuss and formulate a revised restrictive covenants for the area.
3. Representative of Meadow Oaks to work with Knutson and staff on revised
covenants.
4. Draft of revised restrictive covenants submitted to City staff, City
Attorney, and residents of Meadow Oaks. Parties involved review
documentation and meet to discuss potential amendments to draft
document.
�I 5. original group that drafted revised covenants discusses comments and
v� incorporates such into final version of the rewritten covenants.
Memo
May 4, 1989
< Page 4
6. City Council considers approval of final draft of restrictive
covenants.
Representative of the Meadow oak development submits revised covenants
to homeowners. Homeowners asked to join an association and/or give
individual approval to assigning restrictive covenants against their
property.
8. Action is taken to record restrictive covenants against remaining
vacant properties and against those properties where individual
homeowners support the restrictive covenants.
While the process above is taking place, City staff and Council will be
working towards development of ordinance amendments that will address
city-wide problems relating to boat and RV storage in front yards, sodding
and seeding requirements, and an irrproved weed abatement program.
Please call me if you see any problems with this meeting summary. I want to
make sure that everyone at the meeting is clear on expectations for present
and future action on this important matter. If you should have any
questions, please let me know.
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
14. Consideration of approval of contract with Polka Dot Recycling for
curb -side recycling in the city of Monticello. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE. AND BACKGROUND:
At the April 10 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate a
contract with Polka Dot Recycling.
The contract was drafted taking into consideration the City's recycling
plan, our request for proposals, Polka Dot's proposal for curb -side
recycling service, and the possibility of packaging changes, market
decline for some products, and new market development for others. The
only real changes in the contract from the RFP and Polka Dot's proposal
are the addition by the City of a third scanner needed as a backup and
the reduction of office paper pickup to monthly, with the fee cut in half
to $5.00 per site per month.
The contract has been approved by the City Attorney, City Administrator,
the Monticello recycling committee members, and Polka Dot Recycling. A
copy of the contract signed by Polka Dot is enclosed for your review.
Upon approval of the contract by the City Council and signature by the
Mayor, Polka Dot will forward their certificates of insurance and
performance bond.
Many of you have probably read in newsprint or heard on the local
television news the possibility of Super Cycle going bankrupt in the city
of Minneapolis. I have discussed current markets with Dave Foster of
Polka Dot Recycling, and he has assured me that although the newspaper
market is soft in the Twin City area, Polka Dot's markets are steady, as
they haul various materials to several states. They, at times, may have
to store some quantities of materials before moving them, but no
significant problems are expected in the immediate future, and Dave is
looking forward to working with the City of Monticello.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the enclosed contract with Polka
Dot Recycling for an initial period of 36 months.
2. The second alternative would be to make changes in the contract.
3. The third alternative would be to not enter into a contract with
Polka Dot Recycling. This does not appear to be appropriate, as we
are still mandated by Wright County to begin some type of recycling
program by July 1: and it would be difficult to turn directions and
get something else going by that date.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director, City
Administrator, and the recycling committee that the Council approve the
contract as drafted with Polka Dot Recycling as outlined in
alternative 11.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Vi Copy of contract with Polka Dot Recycling.
-23-
AGREEMEITT FOR NRB -SIDE RECYCLING
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
THIS AGREEMENT is made on this 8th day of May, 1989, between the CITY OF
MONTICELLO, hereinafter referred to as CITY, whose address is 250 East
Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245, and POLKA DOT RECYCLING, whose
address is 705 Second Avenue Northeast, Buffalo, MN 55313.
CITY and POLKA DOT agree:
I. GENERAL
1.1 This agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
1.2 This agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of
each of the parties, but neither party will assign this agreement
without the prior written consent of the other party. Consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
1.3 All notices shall be in writing and transmitted by certified mail
to the respective addresses as noted above.
1.4. This agreement, including appendices, is the entire agreement
between the parties. This agreement may be modified only by
written agreements signed by both parties. Wherever used, the
terms "POLKA DOT" and "CTTY" shall inrinde the rospective nffirors,
agents, directors, elected or appointed officials, and employees.
1.5 If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this agreement is
held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or
unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full
force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or
invalidated.
1.6 It is understood that the relationship of POLKA DOT to CITY is that
of independent contractor.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
POLKA DOT SIIALL:
1. Provide curb -aide pickup and marketing of three recyclable
materials consisting of a) newrpaperf b) aluminum and bi-metal
beverage and tin food cans; and c) glans on every other Thursday in
the city of Monticello beginning July 6, 1989. The hours of pickup
shall he no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m.
4
Curb -side Recycling Agreement
Page 2
Should Thursday be a holiday or should inclement weather exist
prohibiting pickup, Friday shall become recycling day for that
pickup only.
Contract services shall include, but not be limited to, the
provision for all wages, benefits, salaries, fuel, consumables,
materials, and supplies.
Provide a sufficient number of qualified personnel, vehicles, and
storage facilities as necessary to accomplish curb -side recycling
and marketing in an acceptable manner. The contractor will utilize
hand scanners to read bar codes located on each of the recycling
containers. The City will furnish three hand scanners (and provide
normal maintenance of same) to the contractor and will provide
residents with three plastic recycling containers per individual
pickup, three 90 -gallon roll -around containers for apartment
buildings above a 4-plex but less than a 24 -unit, and six
roll -around 90 -gallon containers for apartment buildings over 24
units. Should any of the hand scanners or containers be damaged
when in the use of the contractor and not considered normal wear
and tear, the contractor shall be liable for the repair and/or
replacement of the scanners or recycling containers.
it a cuntrdcLUE ivyuices additional scanners, he may purchase them
through the City of Monticello at cost. Should the hand scanning
system fail temporarily, the contractor shall provide documentation
of those individuals recycling and
c5' g the products they recycle until
the necessary repairs can be made. The contractor will not be
asked to do more than three consecutive city wide pickups using the
hand written docum^ntation method without additional compensation.
The contractor shall return the scanners to City (fall within 96
hours after each complete pickup cycle for unloading.
In addition to providing information regarding recycling pickups as
listed above, the contractor shall provide accurate and verifiable
records of tons of individual materials picked up along with
marketing reports on a monthly basis to be submitted with request
for payment. If a market for a particular material is unavailable
and a market develops for an alternate material, the City shall
have the option of switching materials.
All of the contractor's equipment, including vehicles, shall oe
clearly marked with the contractor's name and phone number. The
contractor shall maintain the cleanliness and appearance of his
equipment to "the standards of City equipment and the City's
contract refuse hauler."
6. The contractor shall provide certificates of insurance for worker's
compensation, general liability, and auto in the following amounts:
4
Curb -side Recycling Agreement
Page 3
General Liability - aggregate $1,000,000
- personal injury $1,000,000
- each occurrence $1,000,000
Auto Liability - $1,000,000
Workmen's Compensation - $ 100,000
The contractor shall hold the City harmless for responsibility for
any recycled materials once they come into the possession of the
contractor.
7. The contract shall provide for a monthly rate per unit for
individual pickups and a separate monthly rate for multiple units
above a 4-plex. The contract shall provide payment for all
households within the city of Monticello whether they are recycling
or not. The base rate will be determined by 1,332 individual
pickups and 505 multiple unit pickups. Once the actual numbers of
individual and multiples is known by setting up an account list,
the base units shall be adjusted. The prices for the life of the
contract shall be $0.65/month/unit for individual pickups and
$0.58/month/unit for multiple pickups. The pickup of recyclable
materials at five (5) City buildings every two weeks shall be
incidental and included in the base bid. The contractor shall keep
all monies from the sale of recyclable materials picked up at curb
aide.
The City will track all new construction through a building permit
process; and as occupancy is granted, the City will tally the new
units and make additions to the contract sum on a quarterly basis.
The contractor shall request payment on a monthly basis, and his
requests for payment shall include all the necessary documentation
requested. Payment will be made no sooner than 15 days and no
later than 30 days after acceptance of the request for payment by
the City of Monticello.
B. Appendix A is a detailed set of specifications regarding the
preparation and condition of the recycled materials to be picked up
at curb -aide. Materials not properly prepared or not listed will
not be picked up. in such cases, the contractor shall leave a note
or sticker for the property owner giving the reason for rejection.
9. The contractor shall pick up office paper once a mnnth at three
City buildings at a cost of $5 per site per month.
10. The contractor, at the time for the execution of the contract,
shall furnish and at all times maintain a satisfactory and
sufficient bond in full amount of the annual contract as required
by law with a corporate mirety satisfactory to the Owner. The Form
Of Bond is that required by Statute. Personal sureties will not be
approved. A new yearly contract bond shall he posted no later than
120 days prior to expiration of the current contract bond.
Tj
Curb -side Recycling Agreement
Page 4
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO SHALL:
1. The City of Monticello shall provide individual homeowners with
three baskets for recycled materials. The City of Monticello and
the resident together will pay for these containers. Each
container shall be labeled as to its permitted contents and will be
color coded yellow for newspaper, red for glass, blue for cans.
For the multiple pickup locations (above 4-plexes), the City of
Monticello will provide three 90 -gallon roll -around containers for
each apartment building up to 74 units, and six 90 -gallon
roll -around containers for apartment buildings above 24 units.
These containers shall be color coded and marked as to the
appropriate materials.
2. The City of Monticello shall provide three hand scanning devices
for reading bar codes, along with leather carrying cases,
batteries, and chargers. The City will provide maintenance and
batteries for normal wear and tear of these devices. The City of
Monticello will also provide the unloading of these devices when
delivered to the City Hall.
3. The City shall provide promotional material and material indicating
rules and regulations for material recycling and preparation to
each res'.decity .,.... :,..cc:.o.
4. The City will make payment to the contractor on a monthly basis
within 15-30 days after acceptance of a formal payment request,
including all the necessary documentation as required.
5. The City will update the accounting of Individual pickups and
multiple unit pickups through the building permit process and
certificate of occupancy. Adjustment to the contract price will
then be made on a quarterly basis.
III. COMPENSATION
1. The City shall pay to Polka pot Recycling as compensation for
services performed for 36 months under this agreement a monthly fee
based upon the available number of individual residential pickups
and the number of multiple units for multiple pickup. For the
purpose of the initial bond and first year estimates, I: to assumed
that there are 1,332 individual pickups and 505 multiple unit
pickups. Compensation will be based upon $0.65 for individual
pickup and $0.58 per multiple unit multiple pickup per month. The
actual number of possible pickups shall be determined by the City's
accounting system. Adjuntme.nta will he mide on a quarterly basis
through the building permit statement of occupancy system.
Monthly payment will be made no sooner than 15 days and no later
than 30 days after acceptance of the request for payment by the
City of Monticello. A request for payment shall be made at the
coffpletion of each month'a recycling and shall include all the
necessary documentation as specified.
Curb -side Recycling Agreement
Page 5
CPayment for office paper pickup shall be $5.00 per month per site
with a minimum of three sites.
2. In the event that a change in the scope of services provided by
Polka pot Recycling occurs, the City and Polka pot will negotiate a
commensurate adjustment in fees. A change in scope of services
shall be determined to be the deleting of newspaper, glass,
aluminimum or metal cans from recycling, or the addition of
additional materials as requested and approved by the City.
IV. TERM AND TERMINATION
The initial term of this agreement shall be 36 months commencing on
July 1, 1989. Thereafter, this agreement shall be automatically
renewed for successive terms of three (3) years unless cancelled in
writing by either party no less than one hundred twenty (120) days
prior to expiration.
2. Either party may terminate this agreement for a material breach of
the agreement by the other party after giving written notice of
breach and allowing the other party thirty (30) days to correct the
breach. Excepting breaches by City for non-payment of Polka Dot's
invoices, neither party shAll terminFrq this ngree"nt withcut
giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice of intent to
terminate after failure of the other party to correct the breach.
3. Either party to this agreement may terminate services under this
agreement for no cause by providing the other party one hundred
twenty (120) days written notice of the intent to terminate the
contract.
V. DISPUTES fORCE MAJEURE
Neither party shall be liable for its failure to perform its
obligations under thin agreement if performance is made
impractical, abnormally difficult, or abnormally costly due to any
unforeseen occurrence beyond its reasonable control. However, this
article, V 1., may not be used by either party to avoid, delay, or
otherwise affect any payments due to the other party.
3
curb -side Recycling Agreement
Page 6
Both parties indicate their approval 'of this agreement by their signatures
below.
POLKA DOT RECYCLING CITY OF MONTICELLO
Daveost fKen Maus, Mayor
Wythess Witness
/SAY S" IiS�
Date Date
m
CITY OF 14ONTICELLO
NRB -SIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM
APPENDIX A
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
I. Material 1: Newspaper
A. Description of types of paper accepted:
Newsprint and inserts.
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Clean of food particles and other foreign substances.
II. Material 2: Glass
A. Description of types of glass accepted:
Any glass that is used as a food container, no plate glass.
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Glass must be rinsed out and clean of food particles, labels may be
left on.
III. Material 3: Aluminum and bi-metal cans
A. Description of types of cans accepted:
All aluminum and bi-metal cans are accepted.
B. Conditions of acceptance:
Any condition is acceptable.
N . Office paper pickup, (3 City buildings only).
A. Description of types of office paper accepted:
Computer and ledger paper, white only.
B. ConditiDna of acceptance:
Free of foreign substances (e.g. carbon or staples).
V. Other materials with available markets included in proposal:
A. Description of materials:
Corrugated cardboard, tin food cans, and used motor vehicle
batteries.
B. Conditions of acceptance:
(t Corrugated cardboard: less than three foot lengths and bundled.
V� Tin food cans: Labels removed and free of food particles.
Motor vehicle batteries: Caps on and free of cracks.
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
15. Consideration of change order A2 for Project 88-01C, Pumphouse +3. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On July 25, 1988, upon reviewing the plana for pumphouse 43, the
Minnesota Department of Health requested specific changes in the design
of the building and equipment. On September 14, 1988, OSM drafted a
letter to Richmar Construction, Inc., requesting proposals for a change
order including the work outlined by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Richmar Construction responded on September 30, 1988, with a proposal for
five changes and a more economical type of fan for the chlorine room.
The net effect of all the changes is a credit of $111 for these items.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve change order 42 for a credit of
$111.
2. The second alternative is not to approve the change order as
outlined. This does not appear to be applicable, as these changes
are necessary to meet the Minnesota Department of Health
requirements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Water
Superintendent that the Council approve change order #2 as outlined in
alternative 41.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of correspondence from the Minnesota Department of Health, OSM,
and Richmar Construction.
41 -24-
- rninnesota department of health
717 s.e. delaware st. p.o. boa 9441 minneapolls 55W
16. ZI 627.5000
l ' July 25, 1988
N
Mr. Charles Lepak. P.E.
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates. Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
Dear Mr. Lepak:
RECEIVED
ORR•SCHELEN-MAYEROM i ASSOL
COMM r IS °S• r{Q
JUL 2 811
aR'
Subject: Pumphouse No. 3. Monticello. Minnesota, Plan #90090
We have reviewed the plans and specifications covering the water supply
system for the above -designated project and offer the following comments
as to additional information and changes that are necessary before
the plans and specifications will indicate that the system is to be
installed in accordance with the standards of this Department:
—1. A raw water sampling tap shall be installed prior to any chemical
feed injection.
✓1. The phosphate injection point shall be relocated after the check
valve and as far ahead of the chlorine as practical.
�3. The casing vent shall be downturned and screened and shall terminate
at least 24 inches above floor drain.
4. The air -release valve shall be installed prior to the check valve
and the open end shall be downturned and screened and Shall terminate
at least 18 inches above floor drain.
5. The chlorine room exhaust fan shall have a cepa--ctity of one air
change per minute. a•33'. e..33'. - toy% WO —765 cf» Petr d� o
6. The chlorine room door shall be equipped with panic hardware.
7. Revised plans shall be submitted to this Department.
Copies of submittals covering the above items will give us the information
we need to complete our plan review. When submitting additional information,
please refer to Plan #90090.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612/623-5327.
Sincerely yours,
Wa3Glllr+� H' E��
Bassam H. Banat
Public Health Engineer
Section of Water Supply
and Engineering
BHB:kbm
an equal opponumlw employor f
11
Off
Schelen
-, UIL
2021 Ea l Hennepin Avenue
/ Minneapolis, MN 55413
September 14. 1988 b12-331-86.0
FAX 331.360b
ENlnccrs
5umeyun
Planncn
Richmar Construction. Inc.
7776 Alden Way
Fridley. Minnesota 55432
Attn: Richard H. Netz
Re: Change Order No. 1
Pump and Pumphouse No. 3
Monticello, MN
OSM Comm. No. 3595.30. DOH #90090
Gentlemen:
As per the requirements of the attached letter from the Minnesota Department of
Health, please incorporate the following changes in the pumphouse:
1. Add two (2) smooth sample spigots before the 8" check valves.
2. Relocate the phosphate infection points to immediately follow the 8"
butterfly valves.
3. The well vent as described in Section 15200.14 shall have a 180 degree
bend.
4. The air release valves as described in Section 15492 shall have 180
degree bends and shall terminate 18" above the floor.
5. The chlorine room door shall be equipped with quick -release "panic"
hardware.
Please submit a proposal for this change in work for our consideration.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Eugefie H. P.E.
Project Manager
EHA:IIr
cc: Bassen H. Banat. D.O.H.
John Simola. City of Monticello
t_. John P. Badalich. OSM
0
104
MELLEMA CO.
A6nY�KN�I i aW......./ I
5001 CEDAR LAKE ROAD • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 • PHONE 612-377.7480 • TELEX 29-06-6
September 22, 1988
Richlnar Construction
7776 Northeast Alden Way
Fridley, MN 55432
Attention: Dick Matz
Subject: Hartzell Fiberglass Fan Proposal
Reference: 59-88-063
Dear Sir:
in follow up to our recent telephone conversation, we are pleased to
provide pricing and specifications on the two (2) Hartzell Fans that we
discussed.
You mentioned that your specifications called for a Fiberglass Fan that
could produce at least 700 CFM at 1/4" of static pressure. Furthermore, your
specifications for this Fan called out an In-line Centrifugal Type Fiberglass
Fan. While Hartzell makes one of, the best In-line Fiberglass Centrifugal's
in the industry, we do not feel that this is the best Fan for this applica-
tion. Generally, In-line Centrifugal's and regular Centrifugal Fans are
desired for applications that require high static pressures. In your
application 1/4" of static pressure is hardly sufficient to justify the
expense of a Centrifugal type Fiberglass Fan, Consequently, our proposal
includes an axial type Fan that would easily meet your specifications and,
in turn, would be more cost effective.
For your convenience, with this proposal, we have included copies of
Hartzell Bulletin kA -139-F which describes the Series 34 Axial Fan on page
10 and, Hartzell Bulletin NA -131-F which describes the in-line Centrifugal
Fan Series 40 on page 6.
We hope the attached information is of interest to you and we would
certainly appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project or
any future ventilation projects. Should you have any comments and/or
questions or desire additional information, please feel free to give us a
call here in our Minneapolis office on 612/377-7480.
Very truly yours,
Hartzell Fan, Inc.
Represented by:
MelleCO
Patrick G. I pi
naft
At
Attachments difClAl/SFD PROBLEM SOLVERS r0 INOV3rNY SINCE /9.1J /J
•Aook du •f,uleerlee •[e,.ni,.... .d... ,.
0
RICHMAR CONSTRUCTION INC.
i
Sept. 30. 1988
0
7776 Alden Way. Fridley, MN 56432 Phone: (61 2) 574-1189
O. S. M.
2021 E. Hennepin Ave.
Mpls.. NIIN 55413
Attn: E. H. Anderson
Re: Monticello Pumphouse A3- Change order #1
Gentlemen:
We have received your letter of Sept. 14, 1988 regarding the changes
required on the Monticello project. A proposal for the changes is as
follows.
Item 111 ----Add $60.00
Item ---`Io Cha--^
'b
!tern N3 ----No Change
Item #4 ----Add 65. 00
Item N5 ----Add $524.00
In addition to the above, we wish to propose changing the Chlorine room
exhaust fan per our submittal dated 9/30/88. The proposed change from
a centrifugal type fan to a axial flow type fan will result in a net Deduct
of $760. 00,
I trust that this proposal will provide you with the information you need
to prepare the Change Order documents.
Sincerely,
Richmar Construction Inc.
Richard H. Netz
President
0
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. - SUITE 238
MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55413
CHANGE ORDER NO. ....2
............
1.= 111.00 .......... RE:... 88791C.......
Rlchmar Construction, Inc, ..Contractor
...7776. Alden. Way .............................
Fridley. MN 55432
....................... I ........... .............
Dear Sir (a)
Under your contract doted ...,August 10 .................................. 19.88. wltb
Ci.ty.of.MOn.ticel.Io, Minnesota.. .................... Owner for .............
Pump and Pumphouse No. 3 and Appurtenant Work
............................................................................................
we are authorized by the owner to hereby direct you to .make .the..inodi.f.ications.........
re9uired.by the Minnesota Department of .Health. . . ...and....substi.....tute.....a .fan ...fr-tm
............
that specified inaccordance with the attached letter.
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
........................................... ..................... I...........................
and ta)diY> 0 (deduct from) the contract, in accordance with contract and speelllcatlon, the num at
.0neAutldred.Ejeven..410. no ....................... I...................... loo Dollars
There will be an extension of .... ........ days for completion.
The date of completion of contract was 6'.1... 1989.. and now w1U be .k' 1...... 19
Amount of original contract I TeU1 Addltlom Tobl Daducilam Canvact .Oat.
5227,630.00 11,448.00 5111.00 1228,967.00
Approved .......................... 19.... Respectfully Submitted.
..........................................
Ownar ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
ApprovedI9.... A ASSOCIATES, INC.
..........................
C
........................................... Per ....... ...... ...........
Contractor
�L
I
1. Add two (2) smooth sample spigot before the 8" Add S 60.00
check valves.
2. Relocate the phosphate injection points to immediately No change S 0.00
follow the 8" butterfly valves.
3. The well vent as described in Section 15200.14 shall No change S 0.00
have a 180 degree bend.
4. The air release valves as described in Section 15492 Add $ 65.00
shall have 180 degree bends and shall terminate 18"
above the floor.
5. The chlorine room door shall be equipped with Add S 524.00
quick -release "panic" hardware.
SUB -TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Add S 649.00
6. Substitute fan. Deduct S 760.00
NET CHANGE Deduct S 111.00
Fl
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
16. Consideration of Council support requesting the Department of Revenue
hold a public hearing on a proposed rule change concerning valuation and
assessments of electric utility companies. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Recently, Shelly Johnson became aware of a Department of Revenue proposed
rule adoption that will affect the valuation and assessment of electric,
gas distribution and pipeline companies, including our NSP plant in
Monticello. Although none of the governing bodies such as school
districts, local government units, or county governments were notified by
the Department of Revenue of this proposed change in their rules, these
modifications proposed by the Department of Revenue could affect the
valuation of the power plants and the resulting tax revenues from them.
The proposed rules would automatically go into effect without a public
hearing unless at least 25 people submit a written request for a public
hearing.
In my conversations with Mr. .Johnson, along with Doug Gruber, the County
Assessor, and Bill McPhail, the County Attorney, none of us at this point
really understand the effect the rule change may have on valuation and
taxes; but we feel that it will be extremely important to require the
Department of Revenue to hold a public hearing so we can determine the
full effect of this proposed change. Other counties throughout Minnesota
and otner government jurisdictiuns are nuw .1sv a.aie cr Lhi' r.: c"a :go
and will be submitting a request for a public hearing to get this out in
the open. Our main concern at this point is that it may be a minor
change in the way power plants are valued, but it also could be another
attempt to distribute local tax revenue from NSP to areas such as
Hennepin County that utilize a lot of electricity consumption. During
the past 10-15 years, the subject of gross earnings and taxes for NSP has
been on and off a topic at the legislature. This would, in effect,
distribute some or a lot of NSP's taxes they pay in Monticello and
distribute it throughout the state based on where the electricity is
consumed. We have vigorously fought this in the past, and we are not
sure at this point whether the proposed rule change is not another
attest to accomplish the same goal.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Council should go on record requesting that the Department of Revenue
hold a public hearing on any rule change that would affect the
valuation and assessment of NSP and authorize the Mayor and the City
Administrator to request the same in writing.
2. Do not request the public hearing and hope the rule change does not
materially affect Monticello.
-25-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
l_
The recommendation is simple, the Council should request the Department
of Revenue to hold a public hearing; and once it has determined what
effect this rule change may have, the Council may want to consider even
appropriating some funds for supporting a lobbyist to fight any change
that would materially affect Monticello's tax base. It is my
understanding that the Wright County Board will be requesting a public
hearing and may support the allocation of some funds to hire a lobbyist
or attorney familiar with fighting any changes. If our financial support
is requested in the future, I would bring this information to the Council
before any commitment on the City's part.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of notice from Department of Revenue on rule change; Letter from
Shelly Johnson.
1 -26-
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 882
Sheldon D. Johnson. Superintendent
Telephone (612) 295.5t64
P. O. 80X 997
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362
a
BOARD OF EtwcAnoN
d
Donald Doren
chairman Apr i l0 27 . 1989 d .
Jernes HetOai -
Cork
Kathleen Sariearrt
Treasurer
wlmameeuaen Mr, Rick Wolfsteiler, City Administrator
Director City of Monticello
Monticello, MN 55362
Nancy caannlo
Director Dear Rick:
Edward Haloray • .
Director Enclosed please find a notice from the Department of
Revenue pertaining to proposed adoption of a rule that
affects valuation and assessment of utility companies,
ADMINiSTRATNtN includ_-ng our NSP Plant. -
11111wwteemdeew In this document you will notice that these rule
Asst. SuptAftstruction changes will automatically go into effect without a
295-5184 public hcaring unless at 2ehst 25 people submit a
Richard welm written request for a public hearing.
(�9u31neas Manaost
1295.51ea From what I can determine, I fool that all affected
Lynda" Bantu governmental unite around the state should go an record
High school Principe requesting a public hearing so that these changes do
295.2919 not automatically take place.
Roam weaclu
High SClrod Pnncioal If you want to discuss this matter with your board, I
295.2913 would recommend that you do so immediately oro that you
Kedah Denson can submit your letter within the time period 90 stated
Middle school Prindoa in this notice.
29}61&1.
KeyDougtne If you have any questions, please give moa call.
Elememary Pnncioa ,
295.5184 S i nc o r
gnus Norsk
Elementary Principal
295-29N
Richard PKa S. D. Jo e o n
kDanctor
295-291 3 Superintendent of Schools
2932
Paul Unlike SDJIia
Spector Education Duasor .. .
2936taS
ouane Qatar
Community Educatim Da. .
2932916
Candace GOWN
Asa. Ccmmunsy Eduo, Dir-
0
2932916
0/6
Department of Revenue
In the Matter of the Proposed Adoption of the Rule of the State
Department of Revenue Governing the Valuation and Assessment of t_2 7;i,•.
Electric, Gas Distribution and Pipeline Companies oti"
q�
Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules without a Public Nearing rg89 Op
;, RfCErvfp
Notice is hereby given that the State Department of Revenue s N'18%tt„
(Agency), Local Government Services Division intends to adopt ASS
the above -entitled rule without a public hearing following the '��i1;y; .� g
procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act for
adopting rules without a public hearing in Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 14.22 to 14.28. The Agency's authority to adopt the
rule is set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 270.06(14)
(1988).
All persons have until May 31, 1989 to submit comments on
support or in opposition to the proposed rule or any part or
subpart of the rule. Comment is encouraged. Each comment
should identify the portion of the proposed rule addressed, the
reason for the comment, and any change proposed.
Any person may make a written request for a public hearing on
the rule within the 30 -day comment period. If 25 or more
persons submit a written request for a public hearing within the
30- day,._,- ,_.. :icd public Meering will be held unless a
sufficientnumber withdraw their request in writing. Any person
requesting a public hearing should state his or her name and
address, and is encouraged to identify the portion of the
proposed rule addressed, the reason for the request, and any
change proposed. If a public hearing is required, the agency
will proceed pursuant to Minnesota statutes, sections 14.131 to
14.20.
Comments or written requests for a public hearing must be
submitted to:
Ronald Cook
Minnesota Department of Revenue
Mail Station 3340
St. Paul, P.n. 55146-3340
(612) 296-0392
The proposed rule may be modified if the modifications are
supported by data and views submitted to the agency and do not
result in a substantial change in the proposed rule as noticed.
The proposed rules if adopted will effectively amend the current
rules of the Department of Revenue relating to ad valorem
(property) taxes imposed on utilities. The present rules deal
generally with the valuation, allocation and apportionment of
property of electric, gas distribution, pipelines and
cooperative electric companies. The proposed rules would modify
�j the language of the income approach to delete old unnecessary
`�► references and clarify that capitalization rates will be
computed for electric companies, gas distribution companies and
pipelines; modify the cost approach by allowing an additional
10% of the excess depreciation over the base amount; repeal the
"Average Cost per Kilowatt of Installed Capacity" added value
calculation; and clarify what is taxable and what is exempt
construction work in progress. A free copy of the rule is
available upon request from Ronald Cook, at the above listed
address.
A Statement of Need and Reasonableness that describes the need
for and reasonableness of each provision of the proposed rule
and identifies the data and information relied upon to support
the proposed rule has been prepared and is available from Ronald
Cook upon request.
If no hearing is required, upon adoption of the rule, the rule
and the required supporting documents will be submitted to the
.ttorney General for review as to legality and form to the
extent the form relates to legality. Any person may request
notification of the date of submission to the Attorney General.
Persons who wish to be advised of the submission of this
material to the Attorney General, or who wish to receive a copy
of the adopted rule, must submit the written request to Ronald
Cook.
April 12, 1898 John P. James
Date Commissioner of Revenue
M
CI
(D.
May 4, 1989
Dear Taxing District/Citizen
Office of
WRIGHT COUNTY ATTORNEY
WILLIAM S. N12CPHAIL
Wright County Courthouse - Buffalo. ,Minnesota 55313
Phone: 612.682.3900
334.6581
1.800.362.3667
RE: In the Matter of the Proposed Adoption of the Rule of the State Department of
Revenue Governing the Valuation and Assessment of Electric, Gas Distribution and
Pipeline Companies.
Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules Without a Public Hearing dated April 12, 1898
(sic).
Wright County is host to five electric, gas distribution, and pipeline companies.
Together they generated in excess of $43,000,000 in tax revenues over the last four
yens E+ci iuu. On the cthc :^:.^.d, thL re—q-,ire g^verr!-ent service -q am immse certain
liabilities upon county citizens.
The authority to set tax rates and assess valuations has for the most part been
delegated to the Commissioner of Revenue by the State Legislature. Over the last five
years the Commissioner of Revenue has increased allowable depreciation thereby
lowering taxes payable.
The Commissioner of Revenue is currently proposing rule changes which I believe will
have a significant and adverse impact upon most, if not all, taxing districts within
the County.
The Co nissioner of Revenue proposes to make these sweeping rule changes which will
affect tax revenues and possibly tax revenue allocation without even holding a public
hearing! I believe it is imperative that these rule changes be explained and
discussed in a public forum where we may all come to understand their impact and have
an opportunity to comment.
If you share my concern, please join Wright County in requesting a public hearing on
behalf of both your taxing district and in your individual capacity. Twenty five
petitions must be received by May 30, 1989 in order to require the Commissioner to.
hold a hearing. A sample request for hearing is enclosed herewith which you may use
or modify to fit your purposes. The purpose of this request is only to require a
public hearing. It imposes no obligations. Hopefully I will be able to develop
further information prior to the date of the hearing. Any questions may be directed
to the undersigned.
Very sincerely yours,
William S. MacPhail
Wright Canty Attorney Equal nppo„unhri AJQ.mmm. Anion Employ"
Enc-
Mr. Ronald Cook
Minnesota Department of Revenue
Mail Station 3340
St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
RE: In the Matter of the Proposed Adoption of the Rule of the State Department
of Revenue Governing the Valuation and Assessment of Electric, Cas Distribution
and Pipeline Canpanies.
Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules Without a Public Hearing dated April 12, 1898
(sic).
Dear Mr. Cook:
The undersigned, resident of the Canty of Wright, State of Minnesota, respectfully
submits that rule changes of the magnitude here proposed should be made only after a
full and complete public hearing. Therefore, pursuant to said notice and Minnesota
law, written request for a public hearing of the proposed rule changes to Minnesota
Rules Chapter 8100.0100 et seq. is hereby made.
The portion of the rule addressed are all parts which in any way change the current
valuation methods, increase allowable depreciation or otherwise reduce in any way
taxes payable, or which in any way affect the alluwtluu of taus adverse to the
interests of citizens of Wright County.
The reason for the comment is that the undersigned believes that the effect of the
proposed rule changes will be adverse to the interests of Wright Canty citizens, are
unreasonable, and not supported by public need.
Changes proposed by the undersigned to the rules as proposed by the Ccamissioner are
to leave the rules as they currently exist excepting that the allowance for
depreciation be reduced to the 1985 level. .. 1.
The undersigned [ J does [ j does not request name registration pursuant to M.S.
§14.14, Subd. la.
Dated: May _, 1989.
Name
5 treet Address
U3.ty, btate Zip Code
4.
A
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
17. Consideration of one -day gambling license application - Monticello Lions
Club - July 2 celebration. (R.W.)
-r,Vid KS ,
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello Lions Club has applied to the Charitable Gambling Control
Board for approval of a one -day gambling license for the July 2
celebration to be held in Ellison Park. If the City Council does not
oppose the issuance, the Control Board will approve the application
within 60 days.
In regards to the gambling license application, the City of Monticello
may be required to approve of the Lions Club utilizing a city park for
their gambling activities, as the Club is normally required to submit a
lease agreement to conduct gambling off-site from their own location.
Assuming the Council has no problem with this license, I will forward a
letter waiving the 60 -day notice requirement and informing the Gambling
Board that the City agrees to the use of Ellison Park for this activity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of gambling license application.
-27-
MINNESOTA OEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ONE DAY OFF-SITE
GAMING O I V C i I O N LALTM GAMBLING APPLICATION
Mail Station 3315 '
St, Paul MN 55146-3315
A licensed organization may, upon approval of this application, conduct gambling on a
premises other than a licensed site one day per calendar year for not more than 12 hours.
• If there are fever than 60 days between the date that the city/county signs the
application and the date of the off-site gambling, include a waiver from the city/county
waiving its 60 -day disapproval period.
• Print clearly or type. Attach a copy of the lease for the off-site premises.
• After review, the application will be returned to the organization with approval or
denial indicated below.
Organization license No.
Lions Club - Monticello I B - 01825 - 001
Address (street or P.O. box number) - - I -
1017 West Broadway
City• State Zip Code _ Phone No. _
Monticello MN I 55362 I ( 612 •295-4800
OFF-SITE INFORMATION
I. Name o! premises -era off-site lawful gambling "111 be conducted
Ellison Park
2. Address of off-site premises City or township State Ifo -Code - I
City of Monticello I MN ( 55362 I
3. Date of one -day event
July 2. 1989
a, xas your organization conducted off-site gambling this year. [D YES ® NO I If YES, give date of event
N/A
Attach a lease for the one day off-site lawful gaebling.
No lease - park owned by City of Mgnri-"11
6. Name of chief executive officer (please print) I Signature
Roger E. Belsaae
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
I hereby acknowledge having been served with notice that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable
Gambling Control Board and, If approved, will became effedtire 60 days from the data of receipt
(notal below) unless a resolution of the local governing body Is passed that specifically disallows such
a ctivlty and ecpy of The
recolutlon Is received by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within 60 days of
the be l aw noted dace. The city or county may choose to valve the 60 -day acknowledgement period by resolution.
Attach the written waiver to this reeuest.
7. Name of city or county (local governing body)
City of Monticello
4turj of grf so r�f�el vIng application Titlp Dete re awed
u& (C/ �i.�. CX�v ?e. X, y�G�PS
if site Is loco tic .Rhin a township, items 9 and 10 must be completed In addition to tffe county slgnature. 1I
9. Name of township 1
I10. Signature of person receiving application ITitle
LBOAFD USE ONLY
Approved Denied O
Executive Secretary Date
ChaI
CM riUblDle Ca-bli-p Control Board
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
18. Consideration of authorizing purchase of replacement motive water pump
�- for equalization basin - WWTP. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The motive water pump in the "EO" basin mixes the waste water in that
tank to get a homogenous mass in the case of pH and high BOD loads, as
well as assisting in odor control in some aspects. Normally, the EQ
basin is not used 1008 of the time, and the pump should last a long
time. When the City operated the plant, however, our operators used the
EQ basin as an activated sludge aeration tank, and the pump was used
extensively. This may have caused its premature failure.
PSG has obtained estimates from Waldor Pump of Minneapolis for repair
versus replacement, and it appears more practical to replace at this
time. The cost difference is only $72.30, and warranties are much better
on a new pump.
Although there is money in the PSG repair and maintenance budget, this
item requires Council action, as it is over $2,000.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize replacement of the motive water
pump from waldor Pump of Minneapolis for a coat of $2,534.00.
2. The second alternative would be to authorize repair of our old motive
water pump at a cost of $2,461.70. This does not appear to be
practical, as the old pump repair costs are similar to replacement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Kelsie McGuire
of PSG that the Oouncil authorize replacement of the motive water pump at
a cost of $2,534.00.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from PSG.
-28-
43PROFESSIONALSERVICES GROUP, INC.
L
5/5/89
Mr. John Simola
Director of Public Works
City of Monticello, MN
Re r E.G. Motive Water Pump
Dear John;
On 5/1/89 we took the E.O. tank down for cleaning, and service of
its components. The motive water pump was pulled for inspection
and service. The pump hoe been non -operational for at least 3
years and it was suspected to be plugged up with debris.
External inspection of the pump showed a worn impeller and the
bearings needing replacement. We called Woldor for, prices and
availability of a rebuild kit and as it turned out they hao a man
coming to Monticello for some work for the water department, they
affw,•wJ Lu etuy Ly for a look. Tney recommended sending it in
for further inspection to which we agreed, and called back with a
quote. Repair of the unit will coat s2, 461. 70, replacement will
l� coat 92,534.00. The pump is not aeeential to the operation of
the plant, but its proper operation would enhance treatment. The
pumps function may become more critical in the suture and with
the tank down, now would be the preferred time to reinstall the
pump.
We are recommending replacement. Pleose instruct us as to how
you wish to proceed.
Very truly yours,
Kdlsie McGuire
cc J. Micketto
Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1401 Mart Blvd. • Monticello, MN 55362 • (612) 2952225
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
j 19. Consideration of awarding Project 89-1 to Channel Construction for the
�L Improvement of Marvin Elwood Road extension and discussion of potential
assessment method. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Project 89-1 consists of street construction associated with the
extension of Marvin Elwood Road. The City received one bid on this small
project from Channel Construction, the same contractor who is believed to
be scheduled to complete the private work within the Meadows Second
Addition plat. The bid submitted amounted to $11,004.25, which is $300
over the expected bid amount. As you know, it is intended that the
project cost be assessed to benefiting property owners.
Although this is not an official public hearing on adoption of an
assessment roll, it may be an appropriate time to discuss the proposed
allocation of cost for this project, as the developers need to know the
expected cost to prepare their financing. Assuming the Council has
previously adopted the proposed assessment roll concerning the 81-1
improvement project, the Edgar Klucas property and the corner lot within
the new Meadows Second Addition has been assessed for street
improvements. Typically, the City has in its assessment policy that a
corner lot has not been assessed for street improvements on both sides.
Under the 81-1 assessment roll, the newly created lot abutting River
Street and this Marvin Elwood Road extension would have already been
assessed the equivalent of $3,759.50. The same would be true for the
corner portion of Mr. Klucas's property, which also abuts this Marvin
Elwood Road. Thus, it may not be consistent with our assessment policy
to also assess the entire cost of Marvin Elwood Road to each property
owner. One method used in the past is to give credit for a previous
assessment.
If the entire project cost was assessed equally to the benefiting
property owners, each parcel would receive approximately $6,000 in
additional assessments. In the case of the corner lot, the $6,000 plus
the previously adopted $8,000 assessment would total $14,000 for one lot,
which may be excessive in thio situation. By giving a credit for a
previous street assessment, this would lower the example to a little over
$10,000. Another option to consider is that the Klucas property has
290 feet of frontage on Marvin Elwood Road, which could result in three
or more building lots fronting on this street. Under any allocation, the
result is if a credit is granted for a previous street assessment to
avoid double assessments, the result will be the City picking up half or
more of this cost on ad valorem taxes. Although I think everyone agrees
the road will have a benefit to more than just the abutting property
owners, I believe some indication of the potential assessment to the
Meadows Second Addition would be appropriate so they can complete their
financial commitments.
1 -29-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
DECISION A:
1. Motion to award Project 89-1 to Channel Construction contingent upon
execution of the Meadows and Meadows Second Addition developer
agreement.
2. Motion to deny awarding said contract.
DECISION B:
1. If desired, Council may indicate to the developers the assessment
policy that may be used regarding this improvement project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council award the project to Channel
Construction contingent on the execution of the developer agreement. In
order for the street extension to be constructed, a large amount of fill
material must be moved from another area within the construction zone.
In other words, Project 89-1 is directly connected with private
construction activities associated with phase I of the Meadows Second
Addition. It is, therefore, mandatory that this project be ordered to
proceed only if the private development proceeds.
' In addition, Channel Construction, though not a firm familiar to
Monticello, has successful) completed mp leted
projects in other communities, and
therefore appears to be a responsible bidder.
If the Council can come to a consensus on an approximate assessment
method they would like to use for this project, I think it would be
beneficial to indicate this to the developers. If the Council feels this
road extension is beneficial not only to the property owners directly
benefiting but also the entire neighborhood and the city in general, the
developers may be more comfortable with proceeding knowing what their
coat may be in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
-30-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
20. Consideration of adopting Meadows and Meadows Second Addition Developer
Agreement. (J.O.
A. REPERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the time of this writing, the developer agreement is not complete.
However, it will be available by meeting time. The agreement is modeled
closely after the Evergreens developer agreement. At the meeting on
Monday, I plan on reviewing those sections of the agreement that vary
from the Kjellberg agreement.
Council may wish to table this item to allow more time to review the
document in detail prior to decision making.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Meadows and Meadows Second Addition Developer
Agreement.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Meadows and Meadows Second Addition
Developer Agreement.
•
3. Motion to table decision pending further Council review.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
y Staff recommends alternative /1 or 03. Staff has developed preliminary
agreements with the developer that are essentially consistent with
agreements outlined in the Evergreens Development Agreement. If Council
is comfortable with the Evergreens Development Agreement, it is likely
that this particular agreement will also be acceptable. However, there
are a few differences that will be reviewed at the meeting of May 8,
1989.
If a final document can be prepared by meeting time on Monday, staff to
comfortable with a Council decision at that time. However, it is also
very understandable if Council desires to table the matter pending
further Council review.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
M
5ID
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
j 21. Consideration of granting final plat approval - The Meadows Second
�L Addition. Applicant, value Plus Homes. W .O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The developers of this property, Value Plus Homes, owned by Tom Holthaus,
Matt Holker, and Steve Holker, request final plat approval of the Meadows
Second Addition. Staff recommends that Council grant final plat approval
as requested, as the developer has made minor changes to the preliminary
plat as requested by Council.
Two significant positive developments result from this project, which
include the extension of Marvin Elwood Road and the rezoning of the
Meadows from R-3 to R-2 zoning. The extension of Marvin Elwood Road
provides a needed outlet for traffic in the area and improves the
efficiency of snow removal on Marvin Elwood Road. The rezoning of the
property from R-3 (multi -family) to R-2 is positive in that R-2 district
regulation more accurately reflects the existing land use in the area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant final plat approval of the Meadows Second Addition.
2. Motion to deny final plat approval of the Meadows Second Addition.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 41.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of final plat of the Meadows Second Addition.
Q -32-
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
22. Public Hearing - Consideration of vacating streets, utility, and drainage
easements. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This public hearing was continued to allow time for the development
package to be completed. Now that the developer agreement and final plat
have been prepared, it is time to act to vacate the streets, utility, and
drainage easements associated with the original plat of the Meadows. If
Council acts to adopt the final plat of the replatted Meadows, then it is
appropriate to vacate said areas.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to vacate streets, utility, and drainage easements associated
with original plat of the Meadows.
2. Motion to deny vacation of streets, utility, and drainage easements
associated with original plat of the Meadows.
C. STAPF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative Al if Council approves final plat of the
replatted Meadows subdivision.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Description of areas to be vacated! Map showing areas to be vacated.
4 -33-
L IEYER-ROHLIN, INC a O
ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Phone 612.682.1781
STREETS TO BE VACATED
That part of Hedman Lane and that part of Meadow Lane, being
platted streets in the plat of The Meadows, according to plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of Block 2, The Meadows;
thence N 0° 40' 38" W, plat bearing, along the east line of said
Block 2, a distance of 229.00 feet; thence northerly along a
tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of
1027.96 feet and a central angle of 11° 26' 3911, a distance of
205.33 feet; thence S 79° 13' 59" E. not tangent to said curve,
a distance of 60.00 feet; thence southerly along a nontangential
curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 967.98 feet
and a central angle of 3° 15' 48 a distance of 55.13 feet, the
chord of said curve bears S 9° 08' 07" W, distant 55.12 feet;
thence southeasterly and easterly along a compound curve,
concave to the northeast, having a radius of 20.00 and a central
angle of 98° 10' 5111, a distance of 34.27 feet; thence N 89° 19'
22" E, tangent to said curve, a distance of 20.31 feet; thence S
0° 40' 38" E, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence S 89° 19' 22" W,
a distance of 29.32 feet; thence southwesterly and southerly
along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a
radius of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 870 53' 25", a
distance of 30.68 feet; thence southerly along a compound curve,
concave to the southeast, having a radius of 967.98 feet and a
central angle of 20 06' 35", a distance of 35.64 feet; thence S
00 40' 38" E, tangent to said curve, a distance of 229.00 feet
to the southwest corner of Block 4, The Meadows; thence S 89°
19' 22" W. a distance of 60.00 feet to the point of beginning.
CS-88339
Thofe P. Meyer, Professional Engiriber Robert Rohlln, Licensed Land Surveyor
�. AEYER-ROHLIN, INC. O O
ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo. Minn. 55313 Phone 612.682-1781
Utility and Drainage Easements to be Vacated
The Utility and Drainage Easements lying within the perimeter
of, parallel with, and adjoining the lot lines_ of Lots 7
thru 11, inclusive, Block 2; Lot 5, Block 3; and Lots 1
and 24, Block 4; being dedicated easements in the plat of
The Meadows, according to plat thereof on file and of record
in the office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota.
I
S-88339
R
Thore A Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlln, Licensed Lend Surveyor
4:-))-
v \
THE MEADOWS
� �t1•. Ei 577 �Ei \ � T
\ • ` � Denotes Streets to be vacated
1 �` '° \\♦ \'... �•� Denotes Utility and Drainage
�,
t \ \ \ Easements to be vacated
H.a •�^ •4 � 1 � moi. .] O tl ) ;°4 \ \ \ \ \ ,
in
o . }�., �r �J/ 1 /• r s.�,%f 1 °�4fi;,u .O d�tr�> \ • \ \
a
�_t- t'� ■ .."'�
FIS -
JS -j 5''\,� • %�.
T w l •n r_ 1 +•1 Y t r
i 1, n'� n'Cn '.■�i1: i�i' iti. f tt I ' ■ /y
11 � �•li 91� l�j 1` ?\ D 1� n i� 0 1 r r 1 t 7
ROAD
., 1 1 1 1 1. :. ;1 1• ,. Jt i. .1 rlr fir' w..
■ fas a P. ■ • __swn'arw WI]]-- ( J408f
1 HIT LIB n U t. E s t• 7 r ] IYf EA:1
II 1 I I J J I 1 Q.
Council Agenda - 5/8/89
23. Consideration of townhouse association to own and maintain sanitary sewer
main. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jay Miller recently received approval to replat Lot 1, Block 5, Par West
Addition, into two lots of which the northerly lot when subdivided will
accommodate six townhouse units. As part of the original platting of the
Par West development, Lot 1, Block 5, was to receive eight total
townhouse units on it. As you will note on the enclosed certificate of
survey, the northerly portion of the subdivided lot only has four water
and sewer services which run into this newly subdivided northerly portion
of this lot. The other four services that are stubbed into the property
will serve the southerly portion of this lot. To install two additional
services to the northerly portion of this lot and extend them in with the
other four existing services to this 6 -unit townhouse project will
require a spaghetti -like maze of services running into each of the
townhouse lots, as they do not line up directly in front of the services
which were installed for them or the new services which are proposed to
go in. The developer, Mr. Jay Miller, and the Public Works Director,
John Simola, have come up with a proposed design which would be a short
extension of the sewer main only into this lot to service the six
townhouse units. This short sewer main would be owned and maintained by
the townhouse association for the six units. By ordinance, we require
each individual unit to have its own water and its own sewer service to
its unit. As proposed on the enclosed site plan, each of the six units
^1' `:;:t Wu
wc,uid have e t ird.... . cc to -..
have a shared 8 -inch sewer main with a connection to the 8 -inch sewer
main to each of their individual units. Covenants would be recorded
�- within the townhouse association making them fully responsible for the
maintenance of this 8 -inch sewer main.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve a townhouse association to own and maintain a sanitary sewer
main.
2. Deny a townhouse association to own and maintain a sanitary sewer
main.
C. STAFF RECOMKF.NDATION:
To avoid a spaghetti -like maze of water and sewer utilities running to
each of these townhouse units, City staff recommends approval, subject to
City Attorney's review and approval, of an extension of the existing
sanitary sewer main to the northerly portion of this lot to serve the six
townhouse units. This would be an extension of a sewer main only. The
water lines would be six individual water lines run to each of the six
townhouse units.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the request, ropy of the site plans Copy of the
ordinance section regarding requirements for individual sewer and water
linea to each of the units.
-34-
y do
` Q�� �r•` � � ' �� ='`� ~`�"'•s-moo, '�`.
.e 7 .•.� • `' , �,,ry t :�/� ,V. 't�.r ii �7 iY { �.,, � •' a ..4.= `-.. t4!�,�,.. �..."w
:., .. T T.jNw, ��.\ �.. Q '../T.f. / ... a/1?J•.`.%�-.,.,.�,., "ter ._ •'r...'` -"r.- � �\
..TT "'f,••�iys.t,��... -" ..S-•' of \�,D � � ` / "� / ,�':q .►y -
' �^,�.+.+'ay Na !.� •, yf !1 �..- ��� � � �� .0 � ..•• �. i� I t iq e I : \\ ^ �~t' �'•
�^"Y /.r
t, ems'. � w � it , C �,� �� .��•��! , fa s c /a , �"+ t
It
a i � w� 'tr ^• �- �l f'
po
aI6
_-�� A✓� ?tom`'. w.�•... thy•
At
ND
pc.
E c/,fr :arf.�n JYo �NTIGEtwi)295'33RE
"-" t'a
!ice .i ��' •a �.
'Ay
CIA
7-2-5 7-2-4
(C) In the event a water or sewer bill, whether incurred prior or
subsequent to the passage of this Chapter, is unpaid at the
end of the calendar quarter or the billing period under which
the billing is sent out, the bill shall be considered delinquent
and the service may be discontinued as provided in (B) above
and the Council may cause the charges noted in such billing
to become a lien against the property served by certifying to
the County Auditor the amount of said delinquent bill in accordance
with the Statutes of the State of Minnesota.
7-2-6. BILLING REGULATIONS: The Council shall have the authority
to prescribe by resolution the rates to be charged
for water and sewer service to the customer from time to time
and may prescribe the date of billing, a discount for payment
within a prescribed period and/or penalty for failure to pay
within such period and such further rules and regulations relative
to the use and operation of such system as it may deem necessary
from time to time.
7-2-7: FAULTY METERS: If a motor fails to register or accurately
measure the water, the charge for water consumed shall
shall be paid for at the established rate based upon past average
billings an determined by the City.
7-2-8: LEAK IN SERVICE LIVE: Any owner, occupant or uoer
or a promises who shall discover a leak in a service
line to the promises shall notify the City within twenty -Lour
(24) hours. Anv water wastel tm a ?s411»rc ._ ;crvc:
to comply with this regulation shall be estimated by the City
and be charged for against the owner at such prem.00s at the
l established rate.
f 7-2-9: CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS: Each now building, or part
4thereof, constructed in the City which is required
by code to have sewer and avatar and whose ownership can be legally
transferred separately within the City shall have its own individual
sewer and water connection= to the City mains. Any shared existing
services for adjacent unit= of separate ownership which fail
and require replacement or substantial repairs shall at that
time be separated. There shall be installed in every connection
r to the City water mains ono curb otop located on the City right-of-way
and ons atop and waste valve which shall be inatailed ata point
` between the curb scop and the meter am that the vator may be
turned off and the rotor and houa� plumbing entirely drained.
There shall be installed another stop and waste cock and check
r valvein the pipe on the house side of the motor. Thera shall
be installed a me tar yoke of the typo epprovad by the City for
convenient installation and removal of the motor. All water
service pipes connected to the motor valves and the City mains
shall be of Typo K copper and a minimum 1 -inch (ill) inside diameter j
or its approved equal and =hall be laid at a depth of not lose ,
than 6.9 foot below the oatablishod grade or as low as the street
mains. ( 7/23/84 #139)
4 ,v q"..,�) rt... (I�Ij • tib./ � � h�a j;%�
tt.y-wiro.ry ai..rr rrwf� � • �..--r'�a,a U `..�-'�� ��.,�
arc'• ravrx✓srrr✓ sr✓r. ! � ��riry :�.%'.� _ �a �,,, ^ � •ra
N/�F.QI• KfNs it✓. Vi I t .y�� i0.��d'Jr� ..•��J y //,�� �,,
evt qr✓ • ' («a�+'IX a' `qt 1`••. E=ra
wvtK.:o C • �
Ic
t;-c•r=w 's.narr' .4i/d ��'?�.; �,._;BGO GIS' _
J11: #.
ra,rwwn.✓ /'I� i, L
'� irKoo•=
�a SdB'2G'od 'u.'
o W4
-1'Jo ,- E-',� ' , }-- 7.._....�_.�,,._.._ . 3«_.+...: #1 ......_- +r�
� f!o . _
...., . s,rrarw:.+ few,• : vr�_ ,. _.m.., ,
��i (.n/rar�vs � }
.�:Iflr i I.^�r S li1.q ._ 5 ".•7M,y�liir/
i - -
� .•��'ri�rw: r.'M+'[f.I/O rJQ`,r
i� {
I
�Iv .,. - ' .__..�... _ � ..s ... , � �,:. '�!et��
.,119.._._
.._ _ ._ .L . _ . � _.. .
•.
� � � •� y tNf � Jlti.ar
,
�
wiarV 2'lsr" _
'
PTAYLDR LAND SUIS
219 WEST BROADWAY. PC
AIOM10EUO. MWIVE WrA•
PHONE(612) M -338E
ar.+ w wcRm n 1 '
CITY OP MONTICELI.O
Monthly Building WPartaint Report
.
Month of APRIL
, 19 89
`>•-_-
PERMITS NID WES
'
'This
'
P01MIT8 18906D
lent
Month
This
Month APRIL
Saw Month last Year Y.a[
Lest Yee[ To Data To Data
MMC.
REBID IAL
N,sab.r
5
IO
17
25
7
Valuat len
S 9,500.00
36]0,700.00
9 619,600.00 9
971,400.00 S
848,100.0
Paas
95.00
4,3%.09
9,010.97
6,542.69
6,289.00
Surcharge.
4.00
310.65
]D9.]0
464.95
422.05
C)OMMERCIAL
"..bar
1
5
7
3
9
Veluatlon
1,097,100.00
22,000.00
47,500.00
282,500.00
1,162,400.00
ra..
6,118.40
7]6.00
47].00
1,667.00
6,786.10
Surcharge.
346.70
10.50
27.75
141.25
580.70
INDUSIAL
th®bor
1
Valuation
4,600.00
reea
46.00
Surcharge.
7.70
PWMDIRG
Number
1
7
4
10
11
F.
59.00
266.00
206.00
417.00
]96.00
Surcharge.
.50
6.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
OTHER.
lluabac
2
1
7
Valuation
.00
.00
.O0
Pae■
20.00
10.00
]0.00
Surcharge.
1.00
.50
1.30
TOTAL NO. PERMITS
9
23
70
41
47
Ii
TOTAL VALUATION
1,107,900.00
660,700.00
667,IDO.00
1,716,500.00
7,010,240.00
TOTAL rus -
6,772.40
5,106.09
5,799.97
10,672.69
17,301.40
TOTAL SEMCHARC99
557.20
375.65
379.05
613.30
1,012.73
CURRENT MONTH
lT YB
NuaU.0 to
Wta '
PERMIT
PERMIT NATURE
number 6URCIIARGR Valuation
Thi■ Va.,
last v-
►wily
! 6 1,5]4.00 9 109.00
1710,000.00
6
4
IfuPLOa
1 2,699.09 192.40
784,600.00
0
1
Multi-Tsally
II
Coemmercla l
0
1
Industrial
0
t
Garages
1
50.00 2.50
5,000.00
1
2
M.
w
0
0
Public Building.
0
1
ALTERATION ON REPAIR
B..11ingq
5
]17.00 14.75
!0,500.00
17
16
Co�erclal
6
2]P. 00 10.30
!7,000.00
a
3
Industrial
O
0
PLUMBING
All Types
7
266.00 6.00
.00
11
10
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
S.lasing Pools
0
0
Woks
0
2
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
1
10.00 .50
]
0
y
TOTALS
23 5.093.89
]]3.65
660,700.00
47
41
"TAL RCV0IU2 85.444.54
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of APRIL 1989
PERMIT I
I• NUMBERPLRMIT
OEBCAIPSIOM
TYPLI
-T.-
VALUATION
PLL:
SURCHARGE
PLUMBING 16wCHARGE
89-1]22
Attached garage
RG
Michael Oison/1808 West River St.
8 5.000.00
3 30.00
6 2.50
8 -3
09-77:2
Leai116L v1J Nwtl T -k Rebar
'
building
AC
Montleello MRA/247 M. Broadway
.00
10.00
.SO
90-1]24
Interior remodel
AC
Victor 6 Karen Dwt/112 W. Broadway
],000.00
]0.00
1.50
]1.00 .SO
89-1723
Roofing replacement
AC
Mowtaln Top Book Store/113 W. Broadway
5,000.00
50.00
2.50
89-1]26
Root shingle replacement
AD
Prederlek HICkmn/742 E. Broadway
1,500.00
15.00
.50
88-1327
tlowa i garage
8P
JOM Millar/109 Kevin Longley Dr.
74,400.00
471.87
37.20
27.00 .50
89-1]2B
Howe addition i attached garage
AD
Patrick i Bobble Townsend/440 M. Broadway
19,000.00
188.00
9.50
13.00 .30
69-1]28
Howe and 90- rage residing
AD
Olenn Schiller/123 Redman Lane
2,500.00
23.00
1.25
89-1330
Howe addition
AD
William Jamison/224 M. 4th St.
6,000.00
60.00
3.00
11.00 .50
88-1331
Ambulance garage addition
AC
Monticello-O.L. HO.P. Dist./1003 Hart Clvd.
11,000.00
128.00
5.50
09-1332
Mobile Mme entry
AD
Tammy Lambsrt/P0 Dor 981 K3allberg Cast
Trai lar Park
1,500.00
18.00
.50
09-1333
Ho a and gare0e
8P
John Mli1.r/117 Jerry L16l6tt pr.
73,100.00
466.60
]6.55
26.00 .50
89-1334
Roe[ing material ..Iiacemant
AC
Lee x0- tI.. d/10" W, Broa0vay
1,300.00
15.00
.50
09-1]35
Howe and garage
8►
Paul Decker Const./506 Minnesota 8t.
70,500.00
.56.07
]3.23
22.00 .50
89-1]36
6 -Unit Tovnhowe
MP
Jay Miller/06,98.100,10],104,106
Jerry Liefert Drive
3".500.00
1,636.]0
192.40
144.00 3.00
89-1337
Interior remodel
AC
MontlCello Athletlo Ciuh/141 Sandberg Rd.
15.00
.SO
TOTALS
�1,.5500�.00
8660,700.00
83,839.8.
8329.65
5366.00,8. U0
PLAM REVIEW
89-1327
Howe and garage
8►
John Miller/109 Kevin Longley Ot.
47.19
09-1]33
Howe and garage
B►
JOM Miller/117 Jerry L1alart Dr.
46.66
89-1]33
Howe and 9arag•
SP
Paul Osaker Const./506 Mionssota St.
45.61
89-1]36
6 -Unit Town-
M►
Jsy M111"/96,98,100,102,104, 106
'
Jerry Llatert Orlvs
163
0.59
TOTAL PLAR RCVIZW
81. 0 .
"TAL RCV0IU2 85.444.54