City Council Agenda Packet 07-10-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 10, 1989 - 7:00 P.M.
Mayor: Ren Maus
Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 26, 1989.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of resolutions awarding the sale of $260,000 G.O. taxable
tax increment bonds - 1989A, and $245,000 G.O. improvement bonds - 19898.
5. Conditional use permit request to allow expansion of storage and sales
area associated with a landscape center in a B-4 zone. Applicant, Fair's
Garden Center.
6. Review of status report by engineer on water reservoir improvement
project.
7. Consideration of hiring an engineer for recommendations on upgrading
wells fl, 02, and reservoir booster pumps 11-4 to perform at higher
pressures.
8. Consideration of ordinance amendment regulating detached structure
(storage shed) construction standards.
9. Consideration of ordinance amendment designed to expedite removal of
weeds and tall grasses.
10. Adjournment.
C
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
f Monday, June 26, 1989 - 7:00 p.m.
�J
Members Present: Ken Maus, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair
Members Absent: Dan Blonigen
Approval of minutes.
Fran Fair asked for an amendment to the motion approving City payment
of a portion of the repaving cost associated with the paving of Holker
property. It was suggested that the amount of City payment for the
portion of the repaving cost not exceed $1,750 and that the work must
meet the specifications of the quote provided to the City.
Shirley Anderson asked for a clarification of item 64 of the City
policy with regards to distribution and maintenance of water pressure
reducing valves. Item 44 was clarified to read as follows: "That the
City of Monticello recommends that the valve be installed by a
professional plumber. If the homeowner does hire a professional, the
City of Monticello would pay $25 toward the installation frost."
Warren Smith requested that the motion associated with item 110 of the
minutes be amended. It was his suggestion that $3 of his motion be
amended to read as follows: "The City should continue to Seek out
possible purchase of land within the city limits and outside the city
limits for application of sludge material."
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley
Anderson, to approve the Council minutes of 6/12/89 as amended. Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests and complaints.
ifome builder, Paul Becker, informed Council that the resubdivision of
two parcels has created a Situation in which two curb cute now exist on
a property that he is now constructing a home on. Mr. Becker requested
that Council reconsider its policy which would require that he remove
one of the curb cuts prior to occupancy of the structure. Mayor Maus
suggested that Mr. Becker apply for a variance to the ordinance if
occupancy is needed prior to consideration of the variance. Maus
suggested that Becker escrow funds in an amount equal to the cost to
replace the curb cut, which would allow the City to award the occupancy
permit prior to completion of the variance process.
Warren Smith requested that staff obtain a legal opinion on this matter
as to the City's responsibility in this case. It may be that the City
should replace the curb cut because the situation was created by the
City when it allowed the two parcels to be split in the opposite
direction.
Mary Dorf, 331 East Broadway, along with four other Broadway residents,
were in attendance to voice complaints regarding the cruising
problems. They mentioned that the problem See M. to be curfacing
1 9
Council Minutes - 6/26/89
between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on Friday, Saturday, and even Monday
nights. Mayor Maus noted that the Wright County Sheriff has been
encouraged to firmly enforce the new loitering ordinance and that it is
his understanding that the police have made inroads in curbing the
cruising problem. He went on to note that the City will pass on the
complaint to the Sheriff's Department and continue to request firm
enforcement of the cruising related ordinances. The residents in
attendance also requested that the "No U-turn" sign be moved farther
down Broadway. It was the consensus of Council that the "No U-turn"
sign would not be moved any farther down Broadway, as doing so would
not solve the problem.
Consideration of accepting the 1988 Audit Report for the City of,
Monticello.
Rick Borden and Kim Lillehaug of Gruys, Johnson were present at the
meeting to present a brief review of the 1988 audit recently
completed. In his letter to the City and in his comments, Rick Borden
noted that the audit covers five main categories of compliance to be
tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts
of interest, public indebtedness, and claims and disbursements. Borden
reported that the results of the test indicate that for the items
tested, the City of Monticello complied with the material, terms, and
conditions of applicable legal provisions. Further, for the items not
tested based on their examination and procedures referred to above,
nothing came to the attention of the auditor that would indicate that
the City of Monticello had not complied with such legal provisions.
Rick Borden went on to note that, as auditors, they appreciate the
cooperative relationship with City staff but wish to emphasize that the
auditors work for the Council and are charged with the duty of making
sure that the City's financial matters are handled properly.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Fran Fair to accept the 1988 Audit Report. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of bids and award garbage pickup contract.
John Sfmola reported that the City had received one bid for the garbage
pickup contract from Corrow Sanitation. He went on to report that
Corrow's bid for the existing level of service will result in a
53 percent overall jump in coat from that which the City is now paying
for twice per week pickup. For once per week pickup, the increase in
coat will amount to 22 percent over the existing contract, which calls
for twice per week pickup. Simola also reported that Corrow would be
willing to deduct $12,000 from the annual cost to pickup garbage
service if all residents were to purchase the 90 -gallon containers
which can be used to automate the garbage pickup process. Simola noted
that the cost of the 90 -gallon containers amounts to $66,000, or $50
per household. if the City were to purchase these containers, it would
take three years to pay off half the cost of this purchase with the
savings created by the lower pickup costs. Under this scenerio,
residents would be required to pay half the cost of the 90 -gallon
container, or $25.
Council Minutes - 6/26/89
After discussion, it was the general consensus of Council that the
increase in garbage pickup service merits close scrutiny of the
existing garbage pickup program and merits further investigation of
alternatives. It was the consensus of Council to approve the contract
with Corrow Sanitation with the knowledge that the contract can be
rescinded after a 6 -month notice period. Staff was directed to be
examining alternatives such as rebidding the contract or establishment
of a City based service for consideration at some time in the future.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren
Smith, to award the garbage pickup contract to Corrow Sanitation and
that said contract should call for continuing the twice per week
pickup. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of bids and award of annual sealcoating project.
Public Works Director Simla reported that the area considered for
sealcoating this year lies between Elm Street and Highway 25 and Fourth
Street and Seventh Street. The estimated cost of the project was
$28,500. Simla went on to note that the low bid on the project was
submitted by Allied Blacktop with sweeping in the amount of $30,976.
Simola went on to note that due to the work load experienced by public
works employees, it is not possible for the City to provide the
sweeping portion of the sealcoat project. Therefore, he recommends
that Allied Blacktop be awarded the sealcoating project with sweeping
in the sum of $30 , 916.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran
Fair, to award the 1989 sealconting project to Allied Blacktop to
include sweeping in the amount of $30,976. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Review public transportation need study, review copparative data
regarding municipal transportation systems operating in Minnesota.
Consider 'author 121nq MTRAC to develop Transportation Management Plan
and prepare State Transit Assistance application materials.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed recent studies cornpleted by
the Advisory Committee and raviewed information regarding the potential
for state and federal funding of a Monticello transportation system
designed to meat the local need. O'Neill went on to review the two
studies completed, one which projected the estimated amount of trips
generated utilizing input from organizations that provide services to
the elderly and those that are likely to use buo service. The second
study established projected ridership based on ridership history of
communities very similar to Monticello. The second study also
projected the cost to operate the system based on the experiencos of
similar communities. O'Neill reported that according to the studies,
it appears that a mature transportation syatemoperating in the city of
Monticello will generate 61 round trip rides per day if Monticello
residents use the system at a rate equal to the average experienced by
other commmittes that operate a transportation system. O'Neill also
reported that based on Monticello use of transportation at an average
Council Minutes - 6/26/89
rate, it can be expected that the total annual cost of the system will
amount to around $70,000 using 1987 figures. Of that amount, the local
share will amount to 40 percent, or $28,000. Of the $28,000 that makes
up the local share, it is expected that the fare revenue will amount to
$18,000, with ad valorem taxes paying the remaining $10,000. In other
words, City taxes would likely pay about 14 percent of the total price
tag to operate the system. Finally, O'Neill went on to note that the
cost estimates are based on community system history as of 1987, and it
is likely that the costs have gone up since that time, and there may be
other factors on the horizon that we're not aware of that will impact
the cost to operate a transportation system within Monticello. Only
after the management plan is complete, which includes a formal budget,
will we have a clear idea regarding the ultimate cost. Finally,
O'Neill reported the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee
recommendation to Council that the need for a public transportation
system has been sufficiently demonstrated and that heavy participation
in the funding of a local transportation system by state and federal
agencies, combined with the opportunity to collect user fees, provides
the City with an opportunity to service the transportation need in
Monticello in a cost effective manner. Therefore, the Monticello
Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that Council now
authorize staff to work with 11N/DOT and the Advisory Committee in
developing a management plan and materials associated with developing
an application for state funding. Duane Gates was in attendance and
reiterated the position that the studies completed back up the initial
work done by the Transportation Advisory Committee appointed by the
Community Services Board and that the time is right for continued
forward movement on development of a management plan.
Shirley Anderson asked how much the transportation system will cost the
individual homeowner. O'Neill responded by saying that it is estimated
that the taxpayers will pay 14 percent of the cost to operate the
system, which at this time amounts to $10,000. Individual homeowners'
taxes contribute 10 percent of the total revenue required to operate
the Cityt therefore, the 1,300 residential units in the community will
be sharing 10 percent of the $10,000 ad valorem cost, which results in
a net cont to homeowners of less than $1.00 per household per year.
After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran
Fair, to direct staff to work with MN/DOT and MTRAC in developing a
management plan and application for state transportation funding
assistance. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of an ordinance amendment regulating hours of operation
of off-nale liquor store.
Admintatrator Wolfateller reported that over the past two years, the
state legislative bodies have changed the statutes pertaining to when
an off -sale liquor establishment can he open for business. Previously,
off -sale liquor stores were not allowed to be open for business on New
Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, or
Christmas Day, along with Sundays. Last session and again this
0
Council Minutes - 6/26/89
session, changes have been made by the state allowing off -sale liquor
stores to be open any holiday except Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Wolfsteller went on to report that Monticello Ordinances pertaining to
off -sale liquor stores currently restrict our municipal store from
being open on any of the above holidays. As long as the state statutes
allow, it is recommended our ordinance be amended to coincide with only
Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day being restricted. Wolfsteller
recormnended that the City adopt the ordinance amendment to coincide
with state statutes, but not require the City Council to change its
policy regarding days of operation. In other words, Council can, by
approving the ordinance amendment, still decide to remain closed
July 4, Christmas, Thanksgiving, New Year's Day, etc, it gives the
Council the option to have the store open if it desires. Ren Maus
indicated that he would like to see the days of operation continue as
is. However, he does see the benefit in having the flexibility to
change in the future.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren
Smith, to adopt the ordinance amendment to coincide with state statutes
which allow off -sale liquor stores to be open any day except Sunday,
'thanksgiving, and Christmas. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT N0. 177.
It was the consensus of Council then to retain the existing schedule
and not utilize the flexibility to open the liquor store on days that
have traditionally been closed. However, In the future the City
Council wishes to review the pol Icy and leave the door open for
modifying the holiday schedule at some point in the future.
After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran
Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize closing of the liquor store
for the July 4 holidays.
Consideration of type of restroom building - Bridge Park.
After discussion, Council tabled the matter pending development of
additional information by public Works Director, John Simola. It vas
the view of Council that year-round restroom development at West Bridge
Park should be part of an overall facilities development plan for this
park area.
10. Consideration of final payment for Project 88-04A, Well A4.
John Simla reported that after being plagued with problems, it now
appears that well 14 is complete and operational. Most of the problems
we have experienced have aternmed from Fairbanks Pump and Pitless unit
line shaft bearings. During startup on December 12, 1988, a line shaft
bearing seized, causing the main drive to twist and break. Simla also
went on to report that the gallons per minute pumped by this well is at
2, 150 gallons per minute versus the expectod amount of 2,400 gallons
per minute.
Council Minutes - 6/26/89
Ken Maus asked why we are taking the position that we are satisfied
with a lesser volume. John Simola reported that the horsepower
generated by this pump is insufficient to pull 2,400 gallons per
minute. He went on to note that although the capacity is less than
expected, it is sufficient to meet our needs and that from a cost
benefit standpoint, it does not make sense to install a larger motor to
reach the 2,400 gallons per minute level. Warren Smith asked if the 75
horsepower motor now in operation is working beyond its capacity in
generating the 2,150 gallons per minute. Gene Anderson responded by
saying the existing motor is working within its tolerance levels at 71
horsepower. He went on to say that the well is capable of pumping
3 million gallons per day into a system that can hold 1.5 million
gallons.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren
Smith, and carried unanimously to authorize final payment to E.H.
Renner s Sons in the amount of $6,621.54.
11. Consideration of bills for the month of June.
Warren Smith requested an explanation regarding the expenditure of $491
for replacement of curbs and sidewalks. John Simola reported that this
construction was necessitated by damage created when an automobile hit
a fire hydrant and that the City expenses will be reimbursed by the
driver's insurance company.
Motion made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve
bills for the month of June. Motion carried unanimously.
Other Matters.
John Simola presented the recycling artwork submitted by Monticello
students. After review of the artwork, Council selected Morky and Porky as
the recycling duo charged with providing ongoing recycling information,
inspiration, and advocacy to the citizens of Monticello.
Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to award first
prize to the artists that created Morky and Porky and approve the award of
$50 to Marcy Chock, Patti Dziekciowski, and Hope Palmquist for first prize,
$30 to Jennifer walberg for second prize, and $20 to Amber Hendrickson for
third prize.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the recent discussions conducted by
the representatives of the Meadow Oaks development area and presented the
rough draft of the revised restrictive covenants that area residents will be
reviewing in the next few weeks. O'Neill reviewed the modifications made to
the revised restrictive covenants that were necessary as a result of the
restrictive covenants not being in place prior to the sale of individual
parcels. He noted that recreational vehicles will now be allowed in the
front yards of Meadow Oaks properties. However, no portion of the vehicle
may be placed within the City right-of-way. O'Neill also reviewed the slight
modifications to the sodding and seeding requirement, which requires that the
homeowner sod or seed his property within one growing season, or in the event
of drought conditions, the lawn must be established by June 1 of Lhe 042-
Council Minutes - 6/26/89
\ subsequent growing reason. Fran Fair asked if the citizens representing the
Meadow Oaks neighborhood support the newly revised restrictive covenants.
O'Neill reported that at a recent meeting, they did express support.
After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson,
to approve the restrictive covenants pertaining to the Meadow Oaks
development area. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Aro
Jeff
Jeff O' Nei 11
Assistant Administrator
9
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
v_ 4. Consideration of resolutions awarding the sale of $260,000 G.O. taxable
tax increment bonds - 1989A, and $245,000 G.O. improvement bonds -
1989B. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the June 12 Council meeting, the Council adopted a resolution
authorizing Springsted, Inc., to prepare sale documents for the sale of
two separate bond issues, one for $260,000 to cover the cost associated
with the tax increment project for the elderly housing facility, and
another $245,000 bond for the cost associated with the Mississippi Drive
and Oakwood Industrial Park street projects. The bids for these two bond
sales will be opened at the offices of Springsted, Inc., at noon on
Monday, July 10, and Mr. Jerry Shannon of Springsted will be attending
our meeting to present the bids for Council consideration.
It is anticipated that the $245,000 bond issue for the street
improvements will be in the range of 6-1/2 percent interest rate, and the
elderly project tax increment bond should be in the neighborhood of
9-1/4 percent interest.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Award the sale of bonds as recommended by Springsted.
2. Do not award the sale. This does not appear a feasible alternative,
since both projects are underway and the City has incurred the cost
for these projects.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Assuming the bids come in at a reasonable interest rate and a
recommendation is made by Springsted, the staff recommends the bond sale
be awarded to the lowest bidders.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A copy of the resolutions for adoption at Monday night's meeting will be
presented by Mr. Shannon at the meeting.
QC
PF, SPRINGSTED
PUBUC FINANCE AOVISORS
65 East Se enm Place. Suee 100
Sam Paw, Minnesola 55101 2143
6;2.223 3000
Fa. 612 2233002
AWARD:
$260,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1989A
MILLER SECURITIES, INCORPORATED
SALE:
July 10, 1989
Moody's Rating: A
Interest
Net Interest
Bidder
Rates
Price
Cost 8 Rate
MILLER SECURITIES, INCORPORATED
8.40% 1992-1993
$256,360.00
$283,425.00
8.50% 1994.1996
(8.8708%)
8.60% 1997-1999
8.70% 2000.2001
8.75% 2002.2003
8.80% 2004.2005
8.85% 2006.2007
ALLISON-WILLIAMS COMPANY
8.30% 1992.1995
$256,100.00
$286.236.25
8.40% 1998
(8.958881%)
8.50% 1997
8.60% 1998
8.70% 1999
8.75% 2000.2001
8.80% 2002.2003
8.90% 2004.2005
9.00% 2006.2007
PIPER, JAFFRAY 8 HOPWOOD
9.00% 1992.1998
$255.320.00
$298,033.75
INCORPORATED
9.10% 1999.2000
(9.328130%)
9.15% 2001.2002
9.20% 2003.2004
9.25% 2005.2007
These bonds are being reoffered at par,
BBI: 7.00
Average Maturity: 12.29 years
manna On.co 'Mscw$'m 0"ce
251 Nunn nems S0en1 Sune 1310 500 Eim 010.. Pogo swe 101
E,,. :a. :'::.;ysr '3122 0037
317.237 363637 414-:82 8222
Fa. 317.237.3639 F4• +14.782 2904
AWARD:
$245,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 19898
FIRST BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
SALE:
July 10, 1989
,AA
SPRINGSTED
,'A
PUBUC FINANCE ADVISORS
85 Easl Se�enln Place. Suite 100
Bidder
Sam, Paul M—esata 5510, 2143
Price
612.223-3000
FIRST BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Fa. 612223-3002
AWARD:
$245,000
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 19898
FIRST BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
SALE:
July 10, 1989
Moody's Rating: A
Interest
Not Interest
Bidder
Rates
Price
Cost 8 Rate
FIRST BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
6.00% 1991
$242,672.50
$103,971.25
6.20% 1992
(6.6118%)
6.25% 1993
6.30% 1994
6.35% 1995
6.40% 1996
6.45% 1997
6.50% 1998
6.60% 1999-2000
MOORE. JURAN AND COMPANY,
6.20% 1991
$242,427.50
$104,862.50
INCORPORATED
6.25% 1992
(6.6685%)
6.30% 1993-1994
6.40% 1995-1996
6.50% 1997
6.60% 1998-1999
6.65% 2000
MILLER SECURITIES, INCORPORATED
6.25% 1991-1992
$242,305.00
$104,870.00
6.30% 1993
(6.6689%)
6.35% 1994
6.40% 1995
6.45% 1996
6.50% 1997
6.55% 1998
6.60% 1999.2000
(Continued)
111a1ene Once wacansm Once
251 Nonn comas Strom. Suns •510 500 Elm Grove aoaa Sinn 101
inowato,s mamea 46204-19.1: Elm Grove 'Natant, 53,220037
317:3! 3535 4-7e2 °222
Fe. 317.237,3039 F4. 414.1622904
Interest
Net Interest
Bidder
Rates
Price
Cost & Rate
( NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES,
INCORPORATED
6.20%
6.25%
1991
1992
$242.378.50
$105,100.25
(6.6836%)
6.30%
1993
6.35%
1994
6.40%
1995
6.45%
1996
6.50%
1997
6.55%
1998
6.60%
1999
6.70%
2000
ALLISON-WILLIAMS COMPANY
6.20%
1991
$242,305.00
$105,173.75
6.25%
1992
(6.688315%)
6.30%
1993
6.35%
1994
6.40%
1995
6.45%
1996
6.50%
1997
6.55%
1998
6.60%
1999
6.70%
2000
PARK INVESTMENT CORPORATION
6.25%
1991-1993
$242,060.00
$105,578.75
M.H. NOVICK & COMPANY,
6.30%
1994
(6.714%)
INCORPORATED
6.40%
1995
6.45%
1996
6.50%
1997
6.60%
1998
6.65%
1999
6.70%
2000
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK SAINT PAUL
6.25%
1991
$242,207.00
$106,406.75
6.30%
1992
(6.7667%)
8.40%
1993.1994
6.50%
1995-1998
6.60%
1997.1998
6.70%
1999
6.75%
2000
ROBERT W. BAIRD & COMPANY,
6.20%
1991
$242,060.00
$106,617.50
INCORPORATED
6.25%
1992
(6.780127%)
6.30%
1993
6.40%
1994
6.50%
1995
6.55%
1996
6.60%
1997
6.65%
1998
6.70%
1999
6.75%
2000
f
(Continued)
Bidder
PIPER. JAFFRAY i& HOPWOOD
{ INCORPORATED
Interest
Net Interest
Rates
Price Cast & Rate
6.25% 1991
$241,615.00 $106,792.50
6.30% 1992
(6.79125696)
6.35% 1993
6.40% 1994
6.45% 1995
6.50% 1996
6.60% 1997
6.65% 1996
6.70% 1999
6.75% 2000
These bonds are being reoffered at par.
881: 7.00
Average Maturity: 6.42 years
Council Agenda - 7/W89
S. Conditional use permit request to allow expansion of storage and sales
area associated with a landscape center in a 13-4 zone. Applicant, Fair's
Garden Center. W.O.)
Kevin Fair has applied for a conditional use permit which would allow the
expansion of a sales and storage area associated with the operation of
Fair's Garden Center. Fair has asked for a series of variances which he
must obtain prior to obtaining the conditional use permit unless he
redesigns his site plan such that the variances are no longer necessary.
The Planning Commission visited the site and reviewed the site plan in
detail. It appears that the review of the plan and discussion has
culminated in a site plan and list of conditions that are acceptable to
both the Planning Commission and the applicant. of course, the plan mist
also be acceptable to City Council. At the meeting on Monday, you are
asked to review Planning Commission decisions regarding variances
necessary for the conditional use permit and determine whether or not you,
as a group or individually, wish to appeal any variances approved by the
Planning Commnission. You are also asked to review the conditional use
permit application and concurrent conditions.
Before launching into a description of the variance requests, I would like
to make a few comments about the variance appeals process as it pertains
to this case. The Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this
{ matter and has made its recommendations regarding the variance request.
According to City ordinance, the Planning Commission recommendation
regarding each variance request stands unless the Planning Commission
decision is appealed within 6 working daya of the planning Commission
meeting. Normally, if an applicant wishes to appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission, which is usually the case when the application is
denied, the applicant notifies the City the next day so that publication
of the appeal can occur in time for the next meeting of the City Council,
which follows the following Monday. The appeal period, however, is 6
days, which gives the Council the opportunity to appeal Planning
Commission decisions regarding variance requests at the subsequent Council
meeting that follows the Planning Commission meeting. If such an appeal
does occur at the subsequent Council meeting or after the Monticello Times
public notice deadline, the appeal must be considered by Oouncil at the
next Council meeting in order to meet notification requirements. The
upshot of this introduction is that in the event a citizen or
Councilmember wishes to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission
regarding the variance requests, the discussion regarding the conditional
use permit becomes moot. This is because in order for the conditional use
permit to be approved, certain variances must be granted which cannot be
considered until the subsequent meeting of the City Council.
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
This is a challenging memo to write and an equally challenging discussion
for Council. The numerous variances along with numerous conditions
creates the potential for confusion and inefficient discussion. In an
effort to add clarity to the issues and to provide a framework for
decision making, I will review each variance request individually which
will include a description of the variance, Planning Commission finding,
or justification for the variance. At the end of the discussion regarding
each variance, you are asked to indicate if you as a group or individually
wish to appeal Planning Commission decision regarding the variance. After
the review of all proposed variances, I will outline the recommended
conditions associated with the conditional use permit. Again, if any of
the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the variance requests
are appealed, the conditional use permit discussion becomes moot until the
next meeting of the City Council.
VARIANCE REQUESTS
variance requests are organized by letter and color and are noted on the
enclosed map. Council alternatives associated with each variance request
are the same and are as follows.
1. Take no action individually or as a group to appeal decision of the
Planning Commission.
This alternative represents Council approval of the variance request.
2. Take action as a group or individually to appeal decision of the
Planning Commission.
such action would require that this variance be considered formally by
Council at the next meeting after proper public notices are
distributed and published.
A. Parking Requirement
The proposed site plan provides for 17 parking spaces, which is 8
spaces fewer than the spaces normally required for development of a
retail store and service establishment. The ordinance (3-5 H 18.(a))
states that at least eight spaces, or one space for each two hundred
square feet, be devoted to public sales or service plus one space for
each 500 square feet of storage area. The proposed site plan varies
from this requirement by 8 spaces.
In order to create the additional parking spaces along Broadway and
retain a portion of the sales area, the applicant has agreed to
discontinue use of the westerly curb cut on Broadway. Discontinuance
of this driving area has created additional space for parking and
sales area.
As you can see on the enclosed site plan, a major portion of seven of
the spaces that front Cedar are actually located on the boulevard.
Under normal circumstances, this would never be allowed. In fact, the
-3-
Council Agenda - 7/10/B9
ordinance requires a five foot setback between the boulevard line and
the parking area. In this particular situation, Council is asked to
"count" the non -conforming spaces as legitimate parking area stalls.
According to the City Attorney, the City is somewhat compelled to
include the lots fronting cedar as legal non -conforming lots because
they have existed prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance and/or
because the City has allowed the use to occur for many years without a
notice of violation.
Parking demands associated with the operation of Pair's Garden Center
present a unique set of site plan problems. As a retail outlet for
garden materials, plants, equipment, etc., there are certain times of
the year when activity peaks. During mid and early spring, the needs
for space for inventory and the need for parking are at their
highest. The question is, should the City require sufficient parking
for peak demands, or should the parking requirement reflect the
"average" demand?
Another factor influencing the parking requirement discussion is the
method by which parking spaces are calculated relative to the type of
retail activity conducted. The present system defines required
parking stalls based on the square footage of the retail and storage
area. This system of calculating proper parking capacity somewhat
penalizes those retail establishments which, by the nature of their
inventory, need a large amount of retail area. Plants and trees take
up considerable retail space as compared to other types of retail
items, yet the parking space per square foot retail area is the same.
As a footnote, I have found no evidence or testimony from the Public
Works Department indicating that Pair's Garden Center customer parking
has created an off-street parking problem, nor have I received parking
spill-over complaints from adjoining businesses.
Planning Commission Decision Regarding Parking Stall Variance.
Planning Commission acted to approve variance request on a trial basis
only. It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to require
expansion of the parking area to accommodate more stalls if warranted
in the future. The site plan will be designed to easily accommodate
more stalls if necessary.
Variance was granted based on the finding that the proposed action
will not:
A: Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
B: Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within
the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of
this ordinance. Purthertnore, strict application of the terms of
thin ordinance may result in exceptional difficulties when
utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the district in which the parcel is located.
-4-
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
l - Planning Commission agreed that the Garden Center has not
significantly contributed to parking problems in the area. In
addition, parking requirements associated with Garden Center retail
sales may be slightly overstated because of the manner in which the
parking requirement is calculated and because of the limited time
spent per customer at the center.
The Planning Commission was comfortable with the potential for
expanding the parking area if necessary. One could expand the parking
area by three stalls by replacing the sales area next to the storage
bins with additional parking, which would result in a variance of five
stalls. In order to completely eliminate the need for the variance,
the rock bins would need to be removed to make room for the additional
parking.
Applicant has 30 days in which to stripe the four new parking spaces.
B. CURB REQUIREMENT (Extent of Variance outlined in Brown)
The site plan presented requires two curb related variances. The
ordinance states that "all open off-street parking shall have a
perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot, said curb
barrier shall not be closer than five feet to any lot line." This
requirement does not apply to the pre-existing legal non -conforming
parking area that rune parallel to Ceder Street and alongside the main
t structure. This requirement does apply to the four new parking spaces
that will front Broadway.
The other curb requirement states, "All commercial and industrial
off-street parking areae and driveways in commercial areas shall have
a 6 -inch non -surmountable continuous concrete curb around the
perimeter of the parking area and driveways." This requirement
applies to curb locations outlined on the site plan in brown.
B-1 Curb Variance Number one - New Parking Stall Perimeter
This curb variance request pertains to the four new parking spaces
proposed that will front Broadway. The Planning Commission recommends
that the applicant be granted a variance that would eliminate the
requirement that calls for placement of curbing along the "sides" of
the proposed four stall parking area along Broadway. The applicant did
agree, however, to place a curb along the front of the stalls, thereby
defining the parking area. It was also agreed that a green area will
be created in the five foot space between the curb line and the
Broadway right-of-way.
Planning Commission variance pertaining to curbing of the aides of the
parking area relates to the proposal that the parking area may someday
require expansion. Placing curbing on the sales and storage aide of
i the four stall lot would otherwise eliminate the potential of
r expanding the parking into this area. Therefore, the varianco was
granted.
-5-
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
!� B-2 Curb Variance Number Two - Perimeter Curb around Commercial
Drive (Brown)
The Planning Commission action to approve this variance request and
in doing so determined the intent of the zoning ordinance as it
applies to this unique driveway arrangement. Is it appropriate to
require curbing along a drive that passes through a nursery sales and
storage area? Planning Commission approved the variance request
because curb placement in this location will reduce the functionality
of the nursery sales area by reducing the ability to move inventory,
and the presence of the curb will be an obstacle to customers viewing
inventory. Furthermore, the drive area is not designed for use by
customer vehicles (except in front of the bins) and is used sparingly
periodically by Garden Center vehicles.
B-3 Curb variance Number Three - Curb around Former Private Drive
(Brown)
With regards to the curb requirement along the driveway that was
formally the private drive associated with the existing house, the
Planning Commission granted a variance to the curb requirement because
the elevation and drainage pattern would be adversly impacted by the
presence of a curb in this area. In addition, according to Kevin
Pair, it is likely that any curbing installed in this area would be
replaced when the existing home is removed for further expansion.
Finally, curbing is often used to assist in directing storm water. In
this situation, curbing is not necessary to control drainage.
C. DRIVEWAY SURFACING VARIANCE (Yellow areas)
The ordinance states, "all areas intended to be utilized for parking
space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to
control dust and drainage. Except in the case of single family and
two family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six
(6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or
concrete equivalent." The variances approved by the Planning
Commission consist of three basic areas. The first area includes the
nursery sales and storage yard. The second area includes
approximately 20 feet of driveway area between Broadway and the
storage bin service area. The third area includes all other drive area
which primarily involves the pre-existing private drive.
C-1 Hard surface variance - Nursery sales and storage area (solid
yellow)
According to Garden Center employees, placement of a bituminous drive
through the nursery and sales area will create a heating effect that
will have a negative impact on the viability of the nursery stock.
Placement of a blacktop drive in this area will render the adjoining
-6-
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
areas useless as inventory storage and sales area. The existing
surface consists of a material that is relatively dust free and is
exposed to consistent watering which also reduces dust created by
limited traffic and wind. In addition, proper drainage has not been a
problem in this area.
Planning Commission acted to approve this variance request based on
the finding that granting a variance to the hard surfacing requirement
through the nursery and sales area is consistent with the intent of
the zoning ordinance for reasons stated above.
The Planning Commission as a condition required that the surface be
treated with a minimum of 3 -inch to 5 -inch surface of red limestone
and that the applicant is to keep the area in a neat and driveable
condition.
C-2 Hard Surface Variance - Broadway access driveway (horizontal
yellow)
The second area proposed to be surfaced with limestone rather than
bituminous material is that area that serves as the driveway between
the bin loading area and Broadway. This area is identified by
horizontal yellow lines. Planning Commission recommends that a
variance be granted for this area for a period of three years. At the
end of the three year period, if the applicant has not redeveloped the
site, he shall be required to install a hard surface in this area. It
was the view of the Planning Commission that the red limestone
requirement will reduce problems associated with dragging mud, etc.,
onto Broadway as vehicles exit.
C-3 Hard Surface Variance - Former Private Drive (Yellow outline)
It is the intent of the applicant to pave this entire area. The
variance allows the applicant to defer the actual work until
September 1, 1989. As a condition of the conditional use permit, the
applicant will provide funds in escrow or a letter of credit
sufficient to cover the cost of this improvement. with these
assurances, Planning Commission was comfortable in providing this
"short term" variance. It was the view of the Planning Commission
that such a variance would not impair the intent of the ordinance.
D-1. Variance to Screening Requirement (Red Line)
The applicant has agreed to install a 6' fence or planting that will
meet the screening criteria of the zoning ordinance except in the area
indicated in red on the site plan. This particular area is adjacent
to the wall of an existing home. it is possible that this home is
actually located on the Pair property. The Planning Commission
granted the variance baaed on the fact that the boundary is in dispute
and because it may not be feasible to place screening material between
a the wall of the home and the Garden Center drive.
-7-
Counci 1 Agenda - 7/10/89
C— D-2. Variance to Screening Requirement (Red Line)
Planning Commission granted a variance to the screening requirement by
accepting the present level of screening of the existing rock storage
bins. According to the zoning ordinance, the rock storage bins should
be screened with materials that are 901 opaque. The plant materials,
though attractive, do not achieve 90% opacity. Despite not achieving
the required opacity, the Planning Commission acted to grant the
variance, as it was the view of the Commission that the intent of the
ordinance is satisfied with the existing screening. According to the
Commission, even though the screening is not 908 opaque, the materials
screened (wood pilings) do not present a visual blight at the present
level of screening. Furthermore, as the plantings grow, the density
of screening will increase.
The Commission did, however, require additional screening of the sides
of the storage bins which is covered as a condition of the conditional
use permit.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Having heard the variance requests, the Planning Commission acted to
recommend certain conditions associated with the conditional use permit.
Some of the conditions are associated with variances granted above. The
actual action taken by the Planning ODmrnission attaching conditions
occurred during discussion of each variance request above and are
organized in the Planning Commission minutes as conditions of each
variance. For purposes of organization, I have listed those variance
related conditions below among other conditions that are unrelated to
variances.
To repeat, if any of the Planning Commission variance recommendations are
appealed, then Monday's discussion of the conditional use permit is moot
until the next meeting. The remainder of this memo is written under the
assumption that none of the variances will be appealed.
The existing plan meets all of the conditions listed by ordinance.
However, the ordinance does state that "outdoor sales connected with the
principal use is limited to 309 of the gross floor area of the principal
use. This percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional
use permit." If Council desires to approve this permit, a higher
percentage must be identified as allowable. In this case, the percentage
should be increased to approximately 3009 of the gross floor area of the
principal use, as the outside sales area is three times the size of the
inside sales area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant a conditional use permit to Fair's Landscape Center
which would allow expansion of outside sales and storage area.
Conditional use permit subject to the following conditions.
la
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
1. The gross floor area may be increase to approximately 3008 of the
principal use.
2. An escrow account must be established by the City staff and
presented to the City Council and be submitted by the applicant
prior to the City Council consideration and be in an amount equal
to 1.5 times the dollar amount necessary to complete all of the
landscpaing, screening, curbing, and hard surfacing as outlined on
the site plan and agreed to by the applicant.
3. The westerly driveway entrance be closed off with the existing
sales area material (patio blocks) to be located in this area to
block off this driveway entrance. (This area identified in orange
area on site plan.)
4. Applicant has 30 days to stripe the new four stall parking area
that fronts Broadway and must install required curb by
September 1, 1989. (This area identified in green area on site
plan.)
5. Applicant shall remove existing blacktop and create a green area
between the new four stall parking area and the Broadway
right -of- way by September 1, 1989.
6. Applicant shall apply a 3 -inch to 5 -inch surface of red limestone
to that area identified on the site plan as solid yellow. This
area to be maintained in a neat and driveable condition. This
material to be applied within 30 days of July 5, 1989.
7. That area identified with horizontal yellow lines on the site plan
shall receive a minimum of a 2 -inch bituminous hard surface
application within 3 years from the 10th of July, 1989.
B. Applicant to install a minimum of a 2 -inch bituminous hard surface
on the drive area identified on the site plan by the yellow
border. This improvement shall occur no later than September 1,
1989.
9. Applicant shall install screening material along the perimeter of
the site in the form of a combination of 6' fence and/or planting
materials, with the exception of the variance area noted in red on
the site plan. This shall be accomplished by September 1, 1969.
10. Applicant shall install a split rail fence along the southern
boundary of the sales and storage area between the existing owners
house and to the southwest corner of the sales area also
identified in pink on the site plan. The fence material is to be
of a cedar hand split rail fencing material and shall be installed
by September 1, 1989.
-9-
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
11. Applicant shall install screening material along east and west 17
lineal foot ends of the existing rock bins noted in pink on the
site plan. Screening material shall consist of the same materials
as used on the entire southerly portion of the existing rock bins
or consist of cedar lattice material or a cedar opaque fence
material. Height of the screening material shall match the height
of the bins. This improvement to be completed by September 1,
1989.
Council may wish to assign an additional condition which would require
that the landscaping in front of the storage bins be extended westerly
to the new green area proposed under condition number 5. This would
require removal of black top and would act to beautify the area.
2. Motion to deny conditional use permit.
As stated earlier, Kevin Pair has agreed to meet the requirements of
the conditional use permit as outlined above. Council may desire,
however, to add conditions or might later act to deny variance
requests which could add to the site plan development costs. If Pair
reacts negatively to such changes, Council may need to take legal
action to gain compliance with the ordinance.
3. Motion to table consideration of conditional use request pending
outcome of variance appeal (s).
if any of the Planning Commission recommendations regarding variance
requests are appealed, action regarding the conditional use permit
must be tabled.
FINAL CONSIDERATION - CONFLICT OF INTEREST
It is important that it be noted that consideration of this tetter may
create a conflict of interest for Fran Pair. Please review the attached
memo prepared by Tom Hayes on March 2, 1988, which pertained to the
streetscape project. The information prepared by Hayes at that time is
useful in defining conflict of interest in this case. Fran may wish to
abstain from voting, depending on her level of pecuniary interest in the
matter.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Memo from Tom
Hayes describing conflict of interest.
See each individual variance request.
See selected excerpts from the zoning ordinance and copy of color coded
site plan.
-10-
n
U
I
Except in the case of single, two
family and townhouse dwellings, parking
area design which requires backing
into the public street is prohibited.
(d) No curb cut access shall be located
less than forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street
right-of-ways. This distance shall
be measured from the intersection
of lot lines.
(e) Except in the case of single family,
two family and townhouse dwellings,
parking areas and their aisles shall
be developed in compliance with the
following sandards:
WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO
TO INTERLOCX INTERLOCK
A:YLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM
30 48.61 44.51 40.31
45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4'
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel Parking : Twenty-two (22) feet in length.
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty -Pour (24)
fast in width.
(g) Curb cut openingo and driveways shall
be at a minimum three (3) fact from
the side yard property line in residential
districts and five (5) foot from the
aide yard lot line in business or
industrial districts.
(h) Driveway access curb openings on a
public street except for single, two
family and townhouse dwellings shall
not be located loss than forty (40)
foot from one another.
(i) The grade elevation of any parking
area shall not exceed five (5) percent.
(j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per
one hundred twenty-fiva (125) fact
of street frontage. All property
@hall be entitled to at least one (1)
curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited '
n1 o (1) curb cut access per property.
(k) BURPACINO: All areas intended to
be utilized for patwing =pace and
driveways shall be surfaced with materiala
suitable to control dust and drainag@• 0
ORNend
Except in the case of single family
two family dwellings, driveways
and stalls shall besurfaced with
six (6) inch cla se five base and two (2)
inch bituminous topping or concrete
equivalent. Plans for surfacing and
drainage of driveways and stalls for
five (5) or more vehicles shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for
his review and the final drainage
plan shall be subject to his written
approval.
(1)
STRIPING: Except for single, two
family and townhouses, all parking
stalls shall be marked with white
painted lines not less than four (a)
inches wide.
(m)
LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate
an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public right-of-ways
and be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2, [G) and [H) of this Ordinance.
A(n)
SIGNS: No sign shall be so located
as to restrict the sight lines and
orderloparation and traffic movement
within anv oar inq ioc
(o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for \
single, two family and townhouses,
Call open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb barrier around
the entire parking lot, said curb
barrier shall not be closer than five (5)
feet to any lot line Grass, plantings
or surfacing material shall be provided
inrall aroas bordering the parking
(p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-residantlal,
off-street parking areas of five (5)
or more spaces shall be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding
residential districts in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 of this
Ordinance.
@11
J
Initial development is, however, required
ofonly one-half (y) space per unit and
said number of spaces can continue until
much time as the City Council considers
....
a need for additional parking spaces has
been demonstrated.
13.
DRIVE -III ESTABLISHMENT ANO CONVENIENCE
FOOD: At least one (1) parking space for
each fifteen (15) square feet of gross
floor area, but not less than fifteen (15)
spaces.
14.
OFFICE BUILDINGS, ANIMAL HOSPITALS. AND
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES: Three (3) spaces
plus at least one (1) space for each two
hundred (200) square feet of floor area.
15.
BOWLING ALLEY: At least five (5) parking
spaces for each alley, plus additional spaces
as may be required herein for related uses
contained within the principal structure.
16.
MOTOR FUEL STATION: At least four (41
off-street parking spaces plus two (2)
Cstall.
off-street parking spaces for each service
Those facilities designed for solo
of other Stems than strictly automotive
products, parts or service shall be required
to provide ,additional parking in compliance
with other -applicable sections of thin
Ordinance.
17.
RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE ES�qu.f..EIIT:
At least ono t11 off-street syaca
foroachcwo hundred (2 01 t.
i8.
RETAIL STORE AttD SERVICE BUSIaESS WITH
FIFTY (50) PERCENT OR MORE OF GROSS FLOOR
'
AREA DEVOTED TO STORAGE. WAREHOUSES AND/OR
INDUSTRY: The number of spaces shall be
required by either (a) or (b).
(a) At least eight (8) spaces, or one (t)
apace for each two hundred (200) square
foot devoted to public sales or service
plus one (1) apace for each 500 square
foot of storage area.
(b) At least eight (8) spaces or one spaco
r
for each employee on the maximum shift.
J
(q) ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall
require a culvert unless the lot is
served by storm sewer or is determined
unnecessary by Building Inspector.
Size of culvert shall be determined
by Building Inspector but shall be
a minimum of twelve (12) inches in
(r) CURBjco=ercial
i. rcial and industrial
t parking areas and
in commercial areas
a a six (6) inch nonsurmountableus
concrete curb around
meter of the parking
d I. —
ii. All off-street parking in the
1-1 and I-2 districts shall
have an insurmountable curb
barrier which, if not constructed
of six (6) inch continuous concrete
curbing, shall require prior
approval from the Planning Commission
1
and City Council. Driveways
in the I-1 and I-2 districts
shall have a six (6) inch insurmountable
'continuous concrete curb along
-its perimator.
iii. All curb disigna and materials
shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
(E) MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and several
responsibility of the lessee and owner of the
principal use, uses, or building to maintain
'
in anoat and adequate manner, the parking apace,
accesswaya striping, landscaping, and required
fences.
)F) LOCATION: All accessory off-street parking
facilities required by this ordinance shall
be located and restricted as follows:
1. Required accasaory off-street parking shall
be on the same lot under the same ownership
as the principal use being served, except
under the provisions of Chapter I, Section 5 [i)-
•
y
2. Except for single, two family and townhouse
dwellings, head -in parking, directly off
of and adjacent to a public street, with
each stall having its own direct access
to the public streat, shall be prohibited.
•��
2. Storage is screened from view from -the public
right-of-way in compliance with Chapter
3, Section 2, [G] of this Ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to
control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed
that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 (H] of this Ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
k
(B) Open or outdoor service, sale and ran talae
a principal and accessory use and including
sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailors
or wagons, provided that:
1. Outside service, solos and equipment rantal
- connected with the principal use is limltod
to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor
area of the principal use. This percentage
/1
{
may be increased as a condition of the,
_
conditional use permit.
- 2. Outside sales arose are fenced or acre,oned
from view of the neighboring reeidontial
uses or an abutting residential district
in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G]
of thin Ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed
- that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with
•
Chapter 3, Section 2 (H] of this Ordinance.
4. Sales area in grassed or surfaced to control
dust.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
(Cl Custom manufac icted production
and repair limited to the following. Art,
needlework jewelry from precious metals, watches,
dentures, optical lenses provided that:
.�
1. Such use is accessory as defined in Chapter 2,
Section 2 of this Ordinance to the principal
use of the property.
SMITH & HAYES
MOnsICiLL0 Ovx1Cfl ATTORNEYS AT LAW [LA RrvLR OrPIC�
207 SOUTH WALNUT STREET CINEMA PROFESSIONAL SLOG.
P,O. Box 668 GREGORY V. SMITH. J.O. 637 MAIN ST_ SUITE 1021
MONTIC LLO, MINNESOTA 59362.0668 GARY L, PRINGLE. J.D, 11$40.16871 ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA 83330
THOMAS D. HAYES. J.O.
o—C. MON[ 141I12fl6—m .—e. PHONfl ILIb AA1.]Vp0
RICHARD D. CLOUGH, J.O.
July 7, 1989
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Jeff:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of a letter to Mr. Rick Wolfsteller dated
March 2, 1988 regarding conflict of interest.
Yours truly,
J117 (wl aia�; D. 41 tj� .41)
ThoHayes
TD b
File No. 7e-1115
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
March 2, 1988
Page Two
Lenz vs. Coon Creek Watershed District, 278.Minn. 1, 153 N.M. 2d 209 (1967).
While there are no reported cases in Minnesota which deal with the exact facts
posed by "Strestscape", I believed it instructive to review cases involving
street establishment and improvement and assessment proceedings. A public offi-
cial is not disqualified from voting on the establishment of a road even if the
road may adjoin the officials own land. Webster vs. Board of Countv
Cmmmiastoners of Washington Countv, 26 Minn. 220, 2 N.W. 697 (1897). A dif-
ferent result is probable if the road goes through the officials land and dama-
ges or compensation to the official. may be an issue. Ownership of land benefited
by loe-al improvements, by itself, is probably insufficient to disqualify a
public official from voting on the improvement. In the Lenz case cited above
managers of a watershed district were held not to be disqualified by owning land
benefited by an improvement requiring the vote of the manager. The Supreme
Court %pecifically compared such a vote by the benefited managers to municipal
council members assessing lands owned by the members for municipal improvements.
It would seem that only if a council member's land is specially benefited or the
member otherwise soecially benefited would a conflict of interest exist.
I hope this brief mumornndum on conflict of interest is useful to both the
Council And staff of the City. If you or the Council have any questions do not
hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Thoman D. Hayes
TDH:kg .
e
v�
March 2, 1988
Mr. Rick Folfateller
City of Monticello
250 E. Eroadwav
Monticello, Minnesota 55?62
RE: Conflict of Interest
Dear Mr. wolfsteller:
4 number or co -ceras have been raised by members of the Citv "ouncil, City staff
qnd and the citizens of Monticello regarding potential conflicts of interest
relatinq to the ^Streetscaoe" project. From the information on the project made
available to mN and my review of relevant Minnesota law, I am of the opinion
that no conflict of interest currently exl.9ts among the members of the Council.
The general rule with regard to conflicts of interest can be stated as follows:
anv Official who has a personal pecuniary interest that may conflirt with the
public interest in considerina an official action is disqualified from par-
ti.^ipatinq in the action. Disqualification is especially aporopriRte where a
Cooncil member's own personal pecunlary interest is so immediate, oarticular and
distinct from the nubile interest that the member cannot be expected to repre-
sent the public interest fairiv in deciding the matter at issue.
When the Council or a particular member considers the issue of conflict of
interest, five factors should be addressed:
1. The nature of the decision being made.
2. The nature of the pecuniary interest.
3. The number of interested officials.
4. The need for the interested official to make the decision.
5. Other means available in making or reviewing the decision surh an
district court reviswal.
(1)
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
6. Review of status report by engineer on water reservoir improvement
project. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Since the beginning of the water reservoir project, the Public Works
Director and Water Superintendent have been reviewing the plans and
specifications. On November 17, 1988, John Simola prepared a list of
concerns he had found or questions relating to the plans and
specifications which were submitted to OSM for their comments. I'm not
exactly sure how many of these 11 items were addressed in the final plans
and specifications, but this leads to a number of additional
correspondence that has taken place with OSM expressing our concerns over
design or modifications and the construction time table.
John has requested on three occasions, in April and June of this year,
comments from Mr. Gene Anderson, Project Manager at OSM, for this water
reservoir project. As of yet, no correspondence has been received from
OSM other than the one letter that was copied to the City to Caldwell
Tanks asking if there was a problem with the completion date. On
June 21, I requested that OSM provide a written report addressing the
concerns of the City dating back to November 17 and a status report on
the project to date. The main reason for this is that the staff is
getting somewhat concerned over whether this project, which is now
several months behind schedule, will still be completed by September 15
of this year. The subcontractor hired by Caldwell Tanks, the prime
contractor for the reservoir, has taken several months to complete a
three-week project regarding the footings; and the City has experienced a
large inspection cost overrun because of the time delays. There
certainly may not be a problem in the project being completed by
September 15, but it has been very difficult to get any written
correspondence from OSM in this regard. This is the reason I have asked
a status report to be submitted and reviewed by the City Council at this
Council meeting.
At the time this item has been prepared, I have not received the status
report from 094 but assume it will be available and included with your
agenda package. If it is not, I strongly suggest that an OSM
representative be requested by the Council to provide this report as soon
as possible addressing our concerns.
At this point, without the report in hand, the staff does not have any
recommendation on any action that is necessary other than a review of the
project status.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
copy of correspondence between City and OSM regarding our concerns;
Status report from OSM (if available).
-10-
A10NTICELLO
Office of the City Administrator
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Ntetro: (612) 333.5739
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron S Associates
2021 East Hennepin Ave., Suite 238
Minneapolis, MN 55413
June 21, 1989
Attn: Mr. Gene Anderson, P.E.
Re: City of Monticello Improvement Project 88-05
800,000 gallon standpipe
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The City of Monticello is concerned that your firm may not be making
best efforts to properly manage our new water reservoir improvement
project. The project appears to be several months behind schedule,
and thus, the amount of inspection time required of the job has
increased significantly. The City staff currently has serious doubts
as to whether the tower can be completed and put in operation by
September 15 of this year. In addition, numerous concerns of the
City staff addressed to you in writing over the past many months
appear to have gone unanswered by your firm. The only correspondence
we have received from your firm regarding the completion of this
project was a letter written to Caldwell Tanks on May 23 letting them
know they were behind schedule. We, therefore, request that you
prepare a written report for the City of Monticello to be discussed
at an upcoming Council meeting regarding Project 88-05. We ask that
you respond to the following:
1. Please respond to the written concerns of the City staff as
outlined in the enclosed memos and letters dating back as
far as November 37, 1988.
2. Please provide documentation as to the research your firm
did prior to recommending award in regard to the
capabilities of both Caldwell Tank and later the prime
subcontractor, A.C. Carr.
OSM
June 21, 1989
Page 2
3. We ask that you provide the City with information regarding
the final scheduling for this project and estimates of the fi 6
total number of hours from your staff as well as
subcontractors of your firm needed to complete the project.
Please respond in writing no later than July 7, 1989. If you have
any questions, or if we may be of any additional assistance, please
contact us.
Respectfully,
OF MONTICELLO
Rick Wolfstrzez
City Administrator
RW/kd
Enclosure
cc: John Simola, Public Works Director
B.A. Mittelsteadt, OSM
File
�t1tt uhf t`'f
iiiiisasas�
MON"IICELLO
June 1, 1989
250 Eau $road•+av
Monticello, MN 53362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Orr-Schelen-"yetcn 6 Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Ave., Suite 238
Minneapolis, tet 55413
Attn: Mr. Gene Anderson, P.E.
Re: City of.,Monticello Improvement project 88-05
800,000 gallon standpipe
Dear Gene:
After our April 11 meeting regarding the new water reservoir tank
construction, I wrote you a letter on April 18 summarizing our
concerns. Since we have received no correspondence regarding these
items from either you or Cald:ell, nor have we received any revised
shop drawings, we would like you to respond as to the status of
items 1-6. I have included a copy of the April 18 letter for your
review.
In addition, approximately one month ago, we responded to the
electrical shop dras.ings for the project and asked for corrents from
Dean Sharp. We havo yet to receive Dean's or your response.
P' --ease respond at your earliest convenience. If you have any
questions, or if we may to of any additional assistance, please
contact us.
Respectfully,
C --V. OF MONTICELLO
;John E. Simola
Public Works Director
JES/kd
Enclosure
cc: John Dadalich, City Engineer
Matt Theisen, Water Supt.
JS v
Pile
OTT
SChelm
QSVL
I021 East Hennepin Avenue
M,nneapolis. MN 55413
612-331.8660
FAX 331-3806
Engineers
Surveyors
Planners
May 23, 1989
Caldwell Tanks, Inc.
Box 35770
Louisville, KY 40232
Attn: Fred Cook
Re: 800,000 Gallon Standpipe
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 4216
Dear Fred:
Half of the ringwall has been poured, yet your construction schedule called for the
oundation work to be done during the month of March. Also, no shipment of steel
nas arrived. The load limits are now off of the roads so legal loads are
acceptable. Our concern is that we do have a completion date of the first of
September and are concerned with the progress.
If you have any questions or comments, please give me.a call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
A ASSOCIATES
C�<. La-
E.H. Anderson, P.E.
Project Manager
EHA/tja
cc: John Simola, City of Monticello
W-1 Oppanunw Empbn, V
' F
r�rrti'rrrr
hi0`1TICELLO
April 18, 1984
250 Fasr Broad -ay
Mondcello, MN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.3 111
Mc:ro: (612) 333-5139
n•.
Orr-Scheien-Mayeron S, Associates, inc.
Kr"nrrh urn'
2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 2118
C." C --A
Minneapolis, P:4 55413
0.rn O1 -,Cm
F— Feu
S�uiry .�n'1e+u"
Attn: Hr. Gene Anderson, P.E.
IX;snrn Smirn
Re: City of Monticello Improvement 2ro4ject 88-05
Et:4u:dJua4r
800,000 gallon standpipe .
pear Gene:
ir;t O..ded
We recently received the request frcm Caldwell Tanks, Inc., to
J �nStm'I
modify the painting system to allow for a beige color shop
primer. ae have no problems with the system as proposed in
Gam.. �.rw.•ram
their letter. You should have, by this time, received a taoy
r..�M..a..:�
of our letter to Caldwell indicating the color scheme for the
new tank.
,lust as a reminder, Gene, I would like to summarize the
comments we made during our April 11 meeting with you
regarding the tank construction.
1. inlet to tank.
We discussed the fact that the inlet was protruding
'
above the tank floor and was located off to one side.
f
We basically agreed that the tank inlet should be flush
l
with the floor and that it could be left off to the
{.
7 side. we also discussed the need for a large diameter
removable ring to be placed around the inlet to keep
settlement away from the drain.
2. Floor slope.
'We talked about the floor slope and that it was felt
�'
; that the floor should have come slight slope to the
ts.
Y drain so that it was unnecessary to squeegee deep
pockets of water long distances to the drain.
Mr. Gene Anderson
April 18, 1989
Page 2
3. Ladder.
.E
t,3 We talked about the ladder construction and that the specifications
indicated it would be galvanized. We did note that the
Y specifications call for the platform, ladder, and handrails to be
installed with bolts rather than welded to the tank. In addition,
because of the ladder on the roof, it was felt that the skid
resistant surface on the tank in that area was not needed.
4. Handrail.
We discussed the fact that the specifications call for the safety
rail to be hot -dipped galvanized.
S. Lights.
�•we discussed the location of the two red lights on the top of the
/-tank be within easy reach of the safety rail in that location. We
also discussed the need for an additional light in the pylaster
n� l mid -way up the ladder.
6 Ladder configuration.
We discussed the possibility of running the ladder straight up
through the pylaster rather than coming of.- to a landing and having
to enclosed the top of the pylaster. it was suggested that some
type of opening in the top of the pylaster to allow a person to
climb through might be safer than having to go through a doorway to
a platform. In addition, some type of drain opening in the bottom
( or grading would be necessary to get the water to run out. Gene, it
may be best to look into the safety aspects of the entire ladder
configuration and its construction. we certainly want the ladder
�• and fall restraint devices to meet with all aspects of the OSHA
1+ requirements and insurance codes. It would be best, at this time,
' to check whatever available sources you have to see if this
construction will be in compliance with those regulations.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of any additional assistance
regarding this matter, please contact us.
Respectfully,
;JqohE.
.'^l KtIGELLO
Simola
Public Works Director
JES/kd
cc: Matt Thoicen, water Supt.
John Dadalich, City Engineer
JS
File
April 24, 1989
t"z. Dean Sharp
f
o? Orr-Schelen-layeron & Associates, Inc.
f � s-' �;.... -"
�•,i. �� 2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Suite 238
Minneapolis, tel 55413
�tOYittEttt3 Re: Electrical submittals for 800,000 gallon standpirZ
City of Monticello Project 88-05
250 E----. Broa.d%vw
Monriceflo, MN 55362.9245
Phone. (612) 295-2711
More: (6(2) 3.33.5739
U.,
^"arh \to"a
Dear Dean:
D". B1.
I just reviewed the electrical submittals from $attcher s Aero
Rm F.—
A,&,-.
Electrical Construction for the new standpipe. The only
Snnl�,
tr;,,,,.,,^,,,;
questions I have, Dean, are in regard to security for the
outside enclosures. The main disconnect, as we discussed
e,,.;:,:;ct•.
during the County Road 39 lift station project, should ideally
I, ,,^^,„,,.
be located in a locked weather-proof control box. Short of
that, the disconnect should be weather-proof and be able to be
hru'.v"t
locked in the on or off position. Additionally, Dean, any
cabinets requiring a screwed tight fixture should be equipped
^S-4,
with thumb type of screws for easy access in addition to a
Gay+ A.a.l:rwm
locking handle.
raLr y1K,r„p�,�,
The last comments we have aro in retard to the exterior
outlets. During the design process, Gene Anderson brought up
the concern of someone having access to one of these outlets
for vandalism. We decided at that time to padlock or secure
any outside outlets that may be accessible to the general
public. I don't readily see from the submittals how this is
being handled.
Please comment on our concerns. If you have any questions, or
if we may be of any additional assistance, please contact us.
Respectfully,
C177 Oe,'MONTICELLO
/John E. Simola
Public Works Director
JESAd
cc: 'Matt Theisen, Water Supt.
Gene Anderson, Project Engineer
JS
Pile
U747
orr
Schdrn
ntayeron A
i21 ASSOMMS Inc
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
- M,nnea P0115. MN 55413
612.331.8660
FAX 3313806
Engineers
surveyors
Planners
February 13, 1989
Caldwell Tanks, Inc.
4000 Tower Road
Louisville, KY 40219
Attn: Mr. Fred L. Cook
Contract Manager
Re: 800,000 Gallon Standpipe
Improvement No. 88.05
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 4216
Dear Mr. Cook:
In response to your February 6, 1989 letter
requesting contractor approval for work
in accordance with the Project Specifications for the referenced project, I hereby
approve the following:
Foundations and Related Work Including
A. C. Carr Construction, Inc.
Landscaping and Painting
Box 553, Highway 34 East
Barnesville, Minnesota 56514
It has been noted that the Certificate of Insurance covering A. C. Carr will be
forwarded at a later date.
If you have any questions, please feel free
to call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
L7VCtfmLz
E. H. Anderson, P.
Project Manager
EHA:mIj
cc: John Simola, City of Monticello
we41 Opponunuy EM00 n (&
PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS Reliud
FCR
4N PROJECT 88-05 - 800,000 GALLON STANDPIPE
November 17, 1988
C ((1. The plans and specifications were to make note that the Monticello
lettering on the tank could be a third color. This is na4here to be
found in the specifications.
2. It
is noted that the lettering only need be one coat. Should not this be
chanced to indicate complete covering of the parent paint color with the
lettering or two coats if necessary as determined by the engineer?
jj
3� There is a little bit of discrepancy in the warranty sections, numbers
13105 and 01740. Maybe both of these area should spell out that the
warranty is one year from date of final payment and final acceptance,
whichever is later, and the electrical warranties or electronic
warranties are two years from that date. There also is the possibility
of maybe the warranties should be extended slightly, as the tank won't
even be filled up the first six months. in addition, maybe the cathodic
protection should have the same two year warranty as the electronics, as
this it new to the City, and we are not familiar with this setup.
4. Section 01050 states that if same of the construction stakes are knocked
out that the contractor will pay for reinstalling the stakes. But it
says that the owner supplies all the stakes. Is this an error, or is
this typical?
5. There is no note that we can find that a field office is required.
Should not one be required on this job?
(6.7 The drain line for the valve manhole which leads to the rock pit appears
to come off the side of the valve manhole, not the bottom. Should not
this be relocated to the bottom? The dehumidifier will have to drain
into this pipe and it may do a better job of keeping the area free of
moisture if this line was located on the very bottom rather than over on
the aide.
7) The splash block located underneath the overflow may not be adequate in rV
size. What is the amount of water that could ccme out of this overflow
if the pumps were all running, and what problems could It cause in the
area of the splash block?
8. -,here appears to be a little discrepancy in the location of the
electrical meter and disconnect switch. I believe in the specifications
Item lla is incorrect. It is not located near the valve manhole.
9., Is there a safety regulation requiring a railing on the raised 20 -inch
.1 platform leading to the ladder going to the top of the tank?
k' -
a
Plan and Specifications Review
Project 88-05
Page 2
10. The main supply line located in the tank appears to be one foot off the
floor. The main porthole leading into the tank from the outside is two
feet off the floor. As we discussed at an earlier meeting, both of these
features do not allow us to properly clean the floor of the tank. We
discussed the possibility of flushing and washing towards a drain line
and possibly squeegeeing off the last amount of debris. With one foot of
water still in the tank, one can see how difficult this would be. Some
change should be made to correct this.
11. A discussion with Dean Sharp a few weeks ago indicated that Dean was
thinking about reproving part of the control panel from the standpipe and
including it with the pumphouse. As of yet, we have no report as to
whether this was being done. In addition, I discussed a recent problem
with Dean regarding telephone line severing at the reservoir. I asked.
him to look into the cost and possibility of installing a radio backup
transmitter at the tank to transmit levels back to the main control
panel.
.Igen Simoia
Public Works Director
cc: Gene Anderson
Matt Theisen
is
off
schelen
QSX
MaAssoaatea, IPC
2011sl Henn Pin A�'C -
MinneaPUli), NN 55413
612.331-8en0
rA\ 331.380n
Enylnrrls
sun evm s
Plannc5
July 10, 1989
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
Attn: Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
RE: Status Report - Watar Reservoir Improvement Project
Dear Rick:
Please include this status and update report in the Cuuwlcil packets this week. I
plan on being at the meeting and can answer specific questions. However, i think
the packet will speak for itself.
In reviewing the file, I do see numerous items which John Simola, Director of
Public Works, submitted in writing to OSM which were not answered in writing.
However, with review of the project, all of John's comments have been addressed
and/or added to the contract for this project. Director of Public Works Simola
made a number of very legitimate requests back in his letter of November 17. These
items were important enough to add an addendum to the bidding package, a copy of
which 1 have included with this packet. OSM is very cognizant of the excellent
points which were brought up by City staff on this project. The project for the
City of Monticello is better because of the inclusions of these items from City
staff.
OSM always intends to build the best project for a community, and one way of doing
this is to utilize all input from City staff. On this specific item however,
evidently the information was utilized but Mr. Simola was not made specifically
aware of it. Mr. Simola is now on vacation, and as soon as John gets back, I'll
make a specific appointment with him to sit down and goe over each of these items.
The items which he brought up were very important to OSM and this type of input
allows a much better project to be built for each community.
I specifically contacted Caldwell Tanks last Friday to get an updated construction
schedule. Caldwell Tanks indicated that they were on their initial schedule of
attempting to have the construction crews and materials on site on July 10. This
would allow them to complete the project by September 15. The question of the
subcontractor hired by Caldwell Tanks being late with the preliminary work and
creating an inspection cost overrun will be reviewed in detail with Director of
Public Works Simola. The intent is nnt- t.n spend an inordinate amount of inspection
time on this project. Our intention is to get a quality project for the City with
a minimum of inspection.
The actual tank inspection will be handled by AEC - Engineer and Designers of
Minneapolis, Minnesota. This firm is a specialty inspection firm. AEC estimates
that their total inspection fee for the Monticello Tank project will not exceed
$12,000. This fee is at a time and material rate, and with the help of the
Director of Public Works and our staff, we will attempt to maintain this inspection
fee at a minimal rate. Actual additional inspection from OSM should be minimal as
the only major items outstanding at this time would be completion of a punchlist
and final follow-up of the project.
In the absence of John Badalich, I will be working closely with Rick Wolfsteller,
City Administrator, and John Simola, Director of Public Works, to maintain this
project on a timely schedule, with anticipated completion by the completion date of
September 15. If there are any questions from staff or from the Council, please
direct them to my attention and I will answer these questions in a timely manner,
followed by a correspondence memo.
It's a pleasure to work with the community of Monticello for all of us here at OSM.
We sincerely believe that the water reservoir improvement project will be completed
in a timely manner and will be a quality project due to the input of both OSM and
City staff. If you have any questions or we may be of additional assistance,
please contact me.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
, O
Dan ing, P.E
/lmt
Attachments
L
oR
schekn
Wye=A
A550[idte5. uK.
2021 East Hcnnepm A, enue
'Irnneapvhs, \I\ 55413
e12-331�8-0
F A % 331.360o
July 10, 1989
Caldwell Tanks, Inc.
Box 35770
Louisville, KY 40232
Attn: Fred Cook
RE: 800,000 Gallon Standpipe
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. 14216
Dear Fred:
Et's. rs
sumc� ars
ptannet-
As discussed on the phone July 7, we anticipate construction shipment of steel and
personnel to arrive at the Monticello site on July 10, 1989. As we discussed, the
project will go to completion and it is anticipated that no problems will be
experienced to meet the September 15 completion date. All subcontractors hired by
Caldwell Tanks will be expected to complete their projects in a timely manner.
Please be aware of the liquidated damages clause which will be initiated. Our
concern is that we do have a completion date of the first of September and are
concerned that the progress on-site has not be proceeding as fast as possible.
If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-'INC.RON
8 SOCIAT I
Dan . K i g, E.
Project Manage
cc: John Simbla, City of Monticello
/lmt
Y(���� L�C-
TANK BUILDERS SINCE fide?
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
DATE:
u
TO:
ATTN:
FROM: MZ
FAX NO. (o 107.331 - S 806
NO. PAGES TO FOLLOW: /-
If you do not receive all pages, or If pages are illegible,
please call 302/964-3361. Our Fax Number is: (502) 988-8732.
FACS
MESSAGE:
4000 Tewel Road, Loulsvft KY 40210 / P.O. On 35770. lawaGs. KY WSJ 1 (50) 0644MI
U�w�i2: G+n of Mo+sroctuo,,*tN
topvrrw�ro::
•-�.
fN4o2lErt: 4t[-Scaaa-m4y000%Asuc.,Nt.
ow�.� ...........
9-6 8S pDO,D00 446. RESC�tVe.i '
I ft4t#Cftmt N0. It •05
.iArE 04wsMOMW SC*VCW4 C
46,t Joa Wo. F •27S70
Ani FF8
/fiaR
40ji MAY vw JUL ,ova
Sep ocr
PWA * VALVES
s,Zp:ss re ;- /3-8f
,FAaPat�ats'e A7ar�s.at
�
S--oK+y .+� S-�lr�J►
� R
� PIT" ra y-�ssy
'xe
9•ir-8s►
I
,
Orr bchelen i�r���-l�
Orr
`, � , MayeronA
/ RssOciaus, ur.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
minneap.1lls h115sA,3
June 30, 1484
e12-331.6eb0
FAA 331.36ue
Engineer s
Surceyors
planners
Pat Nicholson
Design Draftsman
Caldwell Tanks, Inc.
4000 Tower Road
Louisville, KY 40232-5770
Re: 800,000 Standpipe
Monticello, Minnesota
Your Project No. E2750
OSM Comm. No. 4216.00
Dear Pat:
In response to your letter of March 28, 1989, your following comments:
1. Your request for the name plate in lieu of the one specified is acceptable.
2. The use of the roof vent and hatch at the center of the tank is acceptable.
3. The roof handrail being terminated 6 feet from the center of the tank is
acceptable as long as the lights are mounted on the end of the railing. The
railing must go as far as the lights.
4. The interior dry rail is required in this project and we will not accept
deletion.
5. The colors are being selected, but as i understand it from further
correspondence, you are looking at using a basic prime and extra coats at no
cost to the City.
7. A credit of 5624.00 for a 51'6" sidewell in lieu of the 52' as specified is
acceptable to the Owner with the amount to be credited at the conclusion of
the job.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
b ASSOCIATES
E.M. Anderson, P.E.
Associate
ENA/tja
cc: John Simola
Wunl.tip wlu nn. l��� „�
on
2021 East Henncp,n Avenue
Mmneapo4s, MN 55413
512-)31.�.,
-"n
FAX 331-380e
Ens—cls
sunrrn"
pu-ets
June 30, 1989
Caldwell Tank Inc.
P.O. Box 35770
Louisville, KY 40232
Attn: David G. Cull, P.E.
Y.P. Engineering
RE: 800 M Gallon Standpipe
Monticello, Minnesota
Monticello 88-05
Your Job No. E-2750
OSM Comm. No. 4 216. 00
Gentlemen:
Enclosed are shop drawing with "note markings".
In addition to the drawings.
1. The inlet pipe shall be cut off flush with the floor and a large
diameter sleeve one (1) foot long placed around the inlet pipe, kept
in place by gravity.
i ,
1 ,f2. We had talked of modifing the floor slope to drain to the inlet pipe.
` Please provide your thoughts on this.
�i
3. The ladder shall be galvanized and attached to the tank by welding.
The skid resistant surface on the top is not required under the roof
ladder.
4. The handrail shall be hot dip galvanized.
S. Please add a light in the middle of the ladder pylaster.
David G. Cull
�- June 30, 1989
Page 2
Please submit a revised construction schedule for this project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
E. H. Anderson, P.E.
Associate
EHA/cmw
6/89 -01
cc: John Simola - Monticello
15J East Broadw•av
Monricello. Vit\ 55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295.2 711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Mr. John Badalich
Orr-Shelen-Mayeron 6 Associates Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 238
Minneapolis, MN 55413
June 1, 1989
Re: Contract 88-05 (800,000 gallon reservoii)
Authorization to subcontract AEC Engineering Consulting
Services
Dear John:
RECEIVED
Orr-Schden-Mayeron d Aux
COMM. A ¢�'y
JUN 02 1989
(Carnebr Name kroCrri
r."f' I I I tfj
In response to your letter of April 12, I concur with the proposal to
retain AEC Engineers 6 Designers to perform the construction
inspection services necessary for the construction of the 4.0 MO
reservoir under the above -referenced contract. I would prefer that
they be retained by your firm as necessary to supplement your
construction inspection services as you reel necessary rather than to
have them contract directly with the City of Monticello for these
services. This way, they will be under your jurisdiction and
responsibility for performance, scheduling, and coordination.
if you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Cl OF MONTIC LLA
Rick Wolfst ller
City Administrator
RN/k d
cc: Pile
Ory
QSXSdidw
rrc
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612.331.8660
FAX 331-3806 Engineers
June b, 1984 surveyors
Planners
AEC - Engineers d Designers
511 11th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Attn: John R. Buzek, P.E.
President
Re: 800,000 Gallon Reservoir
Project No. 88-05
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 4216
Dear Mr. Buzek:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, City
of Monticello, accepting your revised proposal dated April 11, 1989, to do the
//erection and painting inspection on the referenced project.
\_ you can see by Mr. Wolfsteller's letter, the work will be done through OSM,
rather than directly through the City of Monticello. All billings should be to OSM
and we will then bill the City of Monticello.
When a pre -construction conference for steel erection is scheduled, we will notify
you so you can have a representative present. Steel delivery to the site is
expected on or about July 10, 1989.
We look forward to working with you again to complete an excellent facility for the
City of Monticello.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
John 6/PJ.jBadaUch, I/P.Ej.
City Engineer
JP8:tj4
Enclosure
.c: Rick Wolfsteiler
John S+mole
Gene Anderson
May 23, 1989
Caldwell Tanks, Inc.
Box 35770
Louisville, KY 40232
Attn: Fred Cook
Re: 800,000 Gallon Standpipe
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 4216
Dear Fred
Half of the ringwall has been poured, yet your construction schedule called for the
foundation work to be done during the month of March. Also, no shipment of steel
has arrived. The load limits are now off of the roads so legal loads are
acceptable. Our concern is that we do have a completion date of the first of
September and are concerned with the progress.
If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHEL EN-MAYERON
(I ASSOCIATES
E.H. Anderson, P.E.
Project Manager
EHA/tja
cc: John Simola, City of Monticello
0_�
on
Sdiden
CM10X 1. G-'K /l
2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis. MN 55413
:12 "1-66b0
FAx331-3606 Eng�neen
Surveyors
Planners
May 23, 1989
Caldwell Tanks, Inc.
Box 35770
Louisville, KY 40232
Attn: Fred Cook
Re: 800,000 Gallon Standpipe
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 4216
Dear Fred
Half of the ringwall has been poured, yet your construction schedule called for the
foundation work to be done during the month of March. Also, no shipment of steel
has arrived. The load limits are now off of the roads so legal loads are
acceptable. Our concern is that we do have a completion date of the first of
September and are concerned with the progress.
If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHEL EN-MAYERON
(I ASSOCIATES
E.H. Anderson, P.E.
Project Manager
EHA/tja
cc: John Simola, City of Monticello
QNS)OLOff fsilielm
May.
AisOClal6. '.
;j 2071 Easl Hennepin Avenue
�l Minneapolis, MN 55413
612-331-8660
FAX 331-3806
Engmccrs
5u'eV0'5
Planners
January 17, 1989 �as
Tanks, inc.
4000 To 1 ' wf
4000 Tower Road � e C•r
Louisville, KY 40219
Attn: Mr. Fred Cook
Re: 800,000 Gallon Standpipe
improvement No. 88-05
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 4216.00
Dear Mr. Cook:
( This letter is your official notice to proceed on the referenced project.
` The total contract price on this project is $324,000. The completion date for the
tower is September 15, 1989, with the planting and landscaping completed by October
31, 1989.
As discussed in a previous letter, our pre -construction meeting will be held on
January 24, 1989 at the Monticello City Hall.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
(.-�. �/. .,.,,Z
E. H. Anderson, D.E.
Project Manager
EHA:mlj
cc: John Simola, Monticello Public Yorks Director
ADDENDUM NO. 2
800,000 GALLON STANDPIPE
AND APPURTENANT WORK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 88-05
FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
Contract Documents Dated: October 24, 1988
This Addendum Dated: November 18. 1988
This addendum shall be attached to the Contract Documents and shall be included
as part of said Contract Documents. Items herein shall take precedence over any
clauses which they modify in the Contract Documents or portions of drawings which
they modify or supplement.
A. DRAWINGS
DRAWING No. 4:
(1) Add the following note:
{
The word "MONTICELLO' may be a third color.—If in the opinion of the
Engineer a second coat of lettering paint is required, the Contractor
will be required to re -coat the lettering at no additional cost.'
(2) To the stair access, add the following note:
"This Contractor shall furnish and install a galvanized steel hand
railing on one side of the stairway.'
(3) Change the note reading 'The high water... the base plate" to read "The
high water level shall be at elevation 1105 or 50' above the base plate."
DRAWING NO. 5:
(1) Change the tank inlet pipe as follows:
'Delete the 1' projection of the 16' pipe into the standpipe. Replace
with a I' piece of 42" diameter painted steel pipe to set on the floor
loosely. Lugs shall be welded on the floor plate to keep the pipe piece
centered but removable for flushing of the standpipe. "
(2) To the splash block detail add the following:
`Provide one (1) cubic yard of rip rap around the spl ash block to prevent
feros Ion. "
Q (3) To the valve pit detail add the following note:
"Slope the floor to the drain pipe to ensure drainage."
4216/88-05 Addendum No. 2
o",..,..%
B. SPECIFICATIONS
(1) To the SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAI. CONDITIONS - Add the following:
�C-57 - GUARANTE€
Change the item to read 'Two (2) years from final payment on this
project.'
(2) To DIVISION 1, SECTION 01740 - WARRANTY, Change the item to read "Two (2)
years from date of final payment to cover everything included in the
project."
�r I hereby certify that this plan, specification or
report was prepared by me or under my direct super-
vision and that I am a duly Registered Professional
Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
C.�
E. H. Anderson, P.E.
Date: November 18, 1988 Reg. No. 6275
4216/88-05 Addendum No. 2
Page 2 of 2
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
7. Consideration of hiring an engineer for recommendations on upgrading
wells 11, $2, and reservoir booster pumps t1-4 to perform at higher
pressures. W .S.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City staff has contracted with E. H. Renner of Elk River to remove
pump !1 and inspect the well with closed circuit t.v. We will need the
assistance of an engineer to evaluate the condition of the well and
calculate pumping rates, discharge heads and pressures, and make
recommendations for refurbishing the well to pump at the higher pressures
expected when our new reservoir is completed. After completing well f1,
we will need to look at well 12 and the four booster pumps at the
reservoir, as the new pressures will greatly diminish their pumping
capacity.
The Mayor and City staff have been approached by representatives of the
firm of Rieke, Carroll, Muller and Associates. RCM's main office is in
Minnetonka. They do, however, have a branch office in St. Cloud out of
which they do much of the municipal work in our area. Work done out of
the St. Cloud office is at a lower rate than the metropolitan office due
primarily to the low overhead in the St. Cloud area.
RCM was recently hired by the City of Buffalo in similar capacity to
their current engineer, Meyer-Rohlin. Meyer-Rohlin still does the
majority of the work in Buffalo, while RCM has been doing some of the
smaller projects and those where a conflict of interest exists when
Meyer-Rohlin is the developer's engineer.
The City staff would like to explore the possibility of having a second
consulting engineer to work on some of the smaller projects; and we would
like to have RCM do some of the calculations and recommendations for our
well and pump improvements. We give the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
The size of the project.
RCM's rates appear to be lower than OSM's, which could result in an
overall lower cost to the City of Monticello.
RCM has indicated they would not bill us for the time necessary to
get up to speed with the City's water system.
4. OSM has had some problems in the past with accurate determination of
pump expected discharge pressures and pumping rates in both the water
and sewer systems.
5. The City staff would like to compare the communication, reporting,
thoroughness, and follow up capabilities of another firm.
it should be pointed out that the City staff is not recommending that we
switch engineers, just that we consider using an additional firm when
conditions warrant such as in this case.
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. AuLhoriZe the eagager�ent of Ru•i to perform engineering work
associated with evaluating the condition of the well and
recommendations for refurbishing.
2. Engage the services of our present engineering firm to do these
calculations.
C. STAFF RE0OKMENDATION: Y
With E. B. Renner contracted to perform the pump removal and inspection
of the well during the week of July 12, the staff would like approval to
have an engineer evaluate the condition and calculate the proper
discharge heads and pressures to correspond with our new reservoir when
it is completed. The staff has discussed previously the concept of a
second engineering firm associated with the City in addition to the
services provided by OSM. As indicated above, many communities have more
than one consulting engineer) and it certainly is not the staff's
recommendation that RCM be hired to replace our present engineer but to
utilize their services on some of our smaller projects and to evaluate
service provided. Since OSM has had some problems in the past with
accurate determination of pump discharge pressures and pumping rates in
both water and sewer systems, the staff would like to give RCM an
opportunity to work on this smaller project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Background information on RQq.
-12-
i
MUNICIPALITIES SERVED BY RCM
Aitkin
Hill City
Albany
Holdingford
Ames, Iowa
Hopkins
Atwater
Hutchinson
Austin
International Falls
Barrett
Ironton
Belle Plaine
Kimball
Bemidji
Lester Prairie
Bertha
Mankato
Bovey
Marshall
Blooming Prairie
Montgomery
Brainerd Municipal Utilities
Mora
Brooten
New Auburn
Browerville
New Brighton
Buffalo
New Germany
Chanhassen
Norwood
Claremont
Owatonna
Cold Spring
Plato
Coleraine
Randall
Echo
Rochester
Eden Prairie
Rockville
Eden Valley
Saint Anthony
Edina
Saint Cloud
Faribault
Sauk Rapids
Freeport
Silver Lake
Gaylord
Slayton
Gibbon
Vernon Center
Glencoe
Waite Park
Good Thunder
Waseca
Grand Rapids
Winsted
Green Isle
Winthrop
Hamburg
Worthington
Henderson .
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
RCM has the organization, staff, and qualifications to provide the services
required by the City of Buffalo in the development of your municipal
improvement projects. The sections below relate to our qualifications in each of
our department areas.
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYIIK�
RCM's Municipal Engineering and Surveying Department is managed by Robert C.
Robertson, chairman of our firm, and includes nine professional engineers, 16
engineering technicians, three registered land surveyors, 17 draftsperson/survey
crew personnel and five clerical personnel. The principal activities of this
department include the design of municipal streets and other transportation
systems including airports, sanitary sewer, stormwater management systems, site
grading, and parks. The department performs as a consulting engineer to various
communities throughout the State of Minnesota.
Municipal Streets
The design and construction supervision of municipal streets has been a major
portion of RCM's experience since 1955. Our firm has completed hundreds of
street projects in communities from 200 to over 24,000 in population, including
Belle Plaine, Jordan, Glencoe. Norwood, Winthrop, Gaylord, Eden Prairie,
Hastings, Faribault, and Hutchinson, to mention a few. Many of these projects
were successfully constructed in difficult soil conditions including high
ground water tables, heavy clay soils, and unstable sub soils that required the
use of engineered backfill, herringbone drain pipe systems, perforated drains
with aggregate backfill and/or geotcxtile fabrics. Our transportation
experience has also included overlays, seaicoating, signalization, ring roads,
county roads, and state highways. Because of proper design, strict
construction supervision and routine maintenance, many of the RCM designed
streets are still in excellent condition after 20 years.
Sanitary Sewer
Because RCM is organized principally to serve both rural and suburban
Minnesota cities, our firm has had considerable experience in all areas of
municipal services. We have designed sewer and water projects in numerous
communities and know the financial, environmental, engineering, and public
relations considerations that must be addressed. Our experience has included
the design of many mites of sanitary sewer, trunk sewer, and several
interceptor sewers for more than 70 communities throughout Minnesota. The
experience of our design engineers, coupled with intensive services during
construction, can yield significant life cycle cost savings to the City of
Buffalo on future municipal projects.
Stormwnter Minaaement
Drainage and stormwater management projects are also included in RCM's
experience. Drainage studies and facilities design have been completed for
twenty Minnesota counties in addition to many municipalities.
RCM has conducted studies and designed drainage facilities for areas ranging
in size from more than 100 square miles down to subdivisions of a few acres.
These projects have included features such as storm sewers, open channels,
culverts, stormwater detention and retention ponds, erosion control structures,
pumping stations, sediment basins, and low head dams.
Page 115
RCM engineers have the capability and experience in performing computer
simulation of hydrologic events and the associated hydraulic analysis
necessary to develop effective solutions to stormwater management problems.
Parks
RCM has considerable park experience dating back to our first park in 1960.
Working closely with city staffs, our firm has been involved in over 25 park
projects in the past 25 years. This experience has included ball field layouts
and design, multi -use fields, children play areas, park buildings, skating rinks,
and picnic areas. Planning, layouts, design, grading, drainage, walkways and
parking have also been incorporated in our park projects.
WATER RESOURCES
RCM has an enviable record in water resources, and offers specialists in this
discipline with broad experiences through Minnesota and Iowa. The expertise and
experience of RCA's Water Resource Department was one of the reasons the MPCA
selected RCM to study treatment alternatives for the removal of volatile organic
compounds from the municipal water supply in Waite Park, Minnesota. RCM
serves municipalities in the following areas of water resources:
Well design
Water supply, storage, distribution, and treatment
Watershed planning and groundwater modeling
Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling
Water and groundwater quality evaluations
Study of hazardous chemicals in municipal groundwater systems
Water Sunnly
RCM has designed over 100 municipal wells with capacities ranging from 200
Spm to 2,000 gpm in numerous Minnesota communities such as Albany,
Gaylord, Glencoe. Waite Park, Winsted, Winthrop, Hopkins, Eden Prairie,
Brainerd, and Bemidji. Our experience has included deep well design, shallow
drift wells in Brainerd. Bemidji, and Waite Park, and surface supply facilities
in Fairmont and Mitchell, South Dakota. Our electrical engineers have had
extensive experience in energy conservation and most recently have worked
with the cities of New Brighton and Bemidji to control electrical demands in
their water facilities.
Water Distribution
From watermnins in numerous rural communities to transmission lines to 30 -
inch trunk lines in communities such as Eden Prairie, RCM has had a
significant role in the development of municipal water systems for 68
municipal clients. This has often included the design of water distribution
systems in difficult soil conditions such as peat and has required varied
designs including piling, engineered backfill and soil stabilization through
surcharging. Design of water distribution systems is usually preceded by
system studies which involve system inventories, developing water demand
characteristics, determining storage and pumping requirements, and
computerized modeling and analysis of the hydraulic capabilities of existing
and proposed system elements.
Page 2/5
Water Storag£
RCM has designed 43 water storage facilities including elevated towers, in -
ground reservoirs, ground storage, and associated pumping stations. These
facilities have ranged in size from 50,000 gallon elevated storage in smaller
communities to a 1.7 million gallon storage tank in Hopkins and an in -ground
reservoir of 1.5 million gallon capacity in Mankato.
Water Treatment
Water treatment has been a significant portion of RCM's water resources
experience. We have conducted feasibility studies and designs for a wide
variety of water quality problems relating to surface water and ground water.
Some of these concerns included iron and manganese removal, softening,
corrosion control, VOCs. THM's and radium. Water treatment facilities have
been completed in 35 communities including Norwood, Winthrop, Waite Park,
New Brighton, Hopkins, Glencoe, Hutchinson, and Mason City, Iowa to
mention a few.
V
Our Environmental Engineering staff offers the educational background, years of
experience, and innovative engineering design to individually meet the needs of
each community. RCM's cost-effective design of municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities has been a priority at RCM since the design in 1963
of the first of our more than 60 wastewater treatment plants. All of those
facilities which arc operating today, continue to meet the effluent standards for
which they were designed. Many of these facilities were completed under the
EPA/MPCA Construction Grants Program providing our clients, in some instances,
greater than 9096 funding for their projects. RCM continues to hold the distinction
of having completed more approved Step I Facilities Plans for Minnesota
communities under this program than any other engineering firm.
Complimentary to RCM's wastewater treatment plant experience have been studies
and designs for over 30 wastewater sludge disposal/utilization systems. These
projects have involved processes such as sludge thickening, stabilization,
dewatering, PSRP (processes to significantly reduce pathogens), landsprcading,
landfilling and incineration. Specific processes considered and/or designed have
included gravity settling, dissolved air flotation, centrifuges, belt filter presses,
plate and frame filter presses, chemical treatment and aerobic and anaerobic
digestion. RCM designed the first full-scale belt filter press system to be used in
Minnesotn. This system was installed at Hutchinson and utilized to dewater
aerobically digested sludge.
In addition to wastewater/sludge projects, RCM's Environmental Engineering
Department has completed a significant number of municipal solid waste studies
and designs. Our engineers have completed 19 Solid Waste Management Plans
(SWMP's) for Counties and groups of Counties in Minnesota. RCh1 completed the
first MPCA approved SWMP in Minnesota in February, 1992 for Beltromi.
Clearwater and Iiubbard Counties. These Plans hove considered a number of
different alternatives including recycling, composting, incineration, energy
recovery and landfilling.
Page 3/S 1
RCM has designed several solid waste landfills, and has recently designed and
placed into operation the first municipal solid waste landfill in Minnesota that
meets current MPCA regulations. This landfill was designed for Steele County and
includes the latest technology in Icachate containment, collection and treatment.
Collected Icachate is uischargcd and treated at the City of Owatonna's new
wastewater treatment plant.
In addition to several registered engineers with advanced degrees, our
Environmental Engineering Department also has two certified wastewater
treatment plant operators on its staff.
ARCHITECTURE
RCM's Architectural staff has varied experience including governmental buildings
(city halls - fire/police stations - correctional facilities - maintenance garages -
courthouses), community activity centers and recreational facilities, plus many
rehabilitation and renovation projects.
Municipal design has included city halls in Eden Prairie, Cold Spring, and
Clearwater; city hall additions or remodeling in Fairbault, Worthington, and
Aitkin; maintenance garages in Sartell, Chisago County, St. Cloud, and Goodhue
County; and numerous other municipal buildings.
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
RCM offers both diagnostic and design electrical engineering services. We
maintain a wide array of test instrumentation for analysis before design and to
provide assistance to clients once the project is operating. Part of our design
services include power distribution, street, area and ramp lighting, peak shaving
and fully -automated stand-by power generation systems.
Capabilities related to street lighting include design, specification and construction
services for standard or decorative lighting. Other systems such as traffic signal
systems are just a part of the varied capability of this department.
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
RCM's Mechanical Engineering department provides cost-effective design
considerations for heating, air-conditioning, stand-by fuel, and environmental
conditioning for all types of municipal facilities.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
For almost all construction projects, RCM structural engineers are responsible for
the analysis, design and specification of materials, and when required, for services
during construction. They interface with soils engineers to develop foundation
concepts that consider a structure's reaction to different soils characteristics, with
architects to design framing systems to safely support all, applicable loads, and
with the technical staff providing mechanical and electrical systema.
Through education, training, research and the use of the most current
computational techniques available. RCM structural engineers will continually meet
client needs, as attested to by their involvement in a wide range of project types.
Page a/S 6)
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
RCM's construction services responsibilities begin after a project is designed and
the bidding process is completed. It is during this phase that clients have
appreciated the experience and knuwledge of RCM in the areas of soils, concrete,
buried utilities, site restoration, and numerous other elements of construction.
RCM provides many essential services during this phase of a project including
observation of contractor performance, evaluating and preparing payment requests,
maintaining project records and preparing progress reports, and coordinating start-
up procedures.
The goal of RCM's construction services is to transpose a set of drawings and
specifications from concept into reality. Considering the complexity of the project
and the diversity of interest of the participants, this phase of a project is
sometimes the most difficult. The owner paying the bills wants the best
improvement for the least amount of money in the least amount of time. The
general public wants the project completed as soon as possible with as little
inconvenience as possible. The contractor wants to make a reasonable profit in
fulfilling his contract. His operations are streamlined for maximum daily
production. Delays on the job cost time, and in the contracting business, time is
money.
RCM's construction inspectors are trained to plan, organize and keep projects
under control; addressing the wants and needs of all participants while at the same
time, transforming the drawings and specifications into reality. Our emphasis on
communication with owner, contractor and the general public provides n
significant contribution to a successful project.
Page S/3 6)
L
Sauk Rapids
Mr. Robert Haarman
City Administrator -Clerk
(612) 251.1103
Mr. Dennis Henkemeyer
Councilmember
(612) 251.342 I
Waite Park
Mr. Herman Bartz
Utilities Superintendent
(612) 252.6402
Albany
Mr. Clyde Weivoda
Chairman, Economic Development Commission
(612) 845.2060
Cold Spring
Ms. Verna Weber
City Clerk -Treasurer
(612) 685.3653
Buffalo
Mr. Merton Auger
City Administrator
(612)682.118 1
Owatoano
Mr. Arnold Putnam
City Engineer
(507) 451.4540
Marthall
Mr. Richard Victor
City Engineer
(507) 537.6763
Hutchinson
Mr. RandyDeVries
Director of Water and Wastewoter Operations
(6 12) 587.5151
Eden Prairie
Mr. Carl Jull ie
City Manager
(612) 937.2262
New Brighton
Mr. Leslie Proper
City Engineer
(6 12) 6)3.1533
Glencoe
Mr. Gregory F. Troska, Jr.
City Octk
(612) 864.5586
REFERENCES
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
6. Consideration of ordinance amendment regulating detached structure
(storage shed) construction standards. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to review the proposed ordinance amendment which
would regulate the storage shed construction standards. This is one of
the six or so issues brought forward by the Meadow Oaks neighborhood.
The proposed restrictive covenants pertaining to the Meadow Oaks area has
but one requirement, and that is that no storage sheds should be allowed
in the front yard area. It was the desire of the representatives of the
Meadow Oaks neighborhood that the City ordinance be amended to regulate
detached structures in lieu of regulation via the restrictive covenants.
Following is a brief review of the ordinance amendment which is based on
input provided by Council at the special meeting conducted Friday,
May 19, 1989.
Enforcement
Public complaints regarding storage sheds is not an every day problem.
Although there are problems, it appears that such problems can be handled
on a complaint basis and that it is unnecessary to establish a permitting
process. If storage shed related complaints do increase in the future,
there is always the option of establishing a permit process which could
head off complaints. At this time, however, it is probably more
efficient for the City to respond to this issue as complaints are
presented by the public.
Amendment Summary
According to this ordinance amendment, all storage sheds erected before
the date of adoption of the ordinance that do not comply with the
ordinance are grandfathered in unless they present a public safety
hazard.
The construction standards outlined in the ordinance speak for
themselves. The standards outlined are general statements and do not
attempt to define an aesthetic standard for storage sheds. The goal of
this ordinance is to encourage construction of sheds that are of sound
construction consisting of building grade material. The ordinance also
requires that the structures be stained, sealed, or painted, but does not
attempt to define what colors storage sheds should be painted. Storage
sheds with metal surfaces are allowed, however, such surfaces shall be
treated with materials designed to resist corrosion.
Under this ordinance, storage shed placement must be in compliance with
the district setback requirements and must be erected in either the side
or rear yard of the residential lot in which it is located.
Finally, additional language was inserted into the ordinance amendment
which requires placement of a rodent barrier around the perimeter of the
-13-
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
storage shed which will discourage furry creatures from establishing
housekeeping underneath storage sheds. This, apparently, has been a
problem in the Meauw uaica neighiJULinxxi.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to modify and adopt proposed ordinance amendment.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the ordinance amendment.
3. Motion to call a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
C. STAYF REC011MEMATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment with any
changes that might surface at the Council meeting. Staff would like to
reiterate the fact that this particular ordinance will be enforced on a
complaint basis which, to some degree, creates the potential for
inconsistency in our enforcement measures.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment for adoption] Copy of Council
minutes of 5/19/89.
-14-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEEfINC - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL '
Friday, May 19, 1989 - 1:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ren Maus, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen, Shirley Anderson
Members Absent: Fran Fair
1. Review purpose of meeting.
Mayor Maus and Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed discussion
conducted by Meadow Oak area residents regarding public nuisance related
issues. Council was informed that the residents supported rewriting of
the restrictive covenants and that representatives had been appointed to
work with the City and the developer in establishing new restrictive
covenants.
After discussion, it was the general consensus of Council to participate
in the development of the new restrictive covenants and that the City
should act to facilitate this process. Following are the public nuisance
related issues that Council addressed at the meeting and also provided is
a proposed plan of action designed to address each issue.
2. Review and discuss public nuisance related issues.
It was the general consensus of Council that the City should not act to
establish an ordinance which would severely restrict outside storage of
boats and RV equipment in the front yard of city residential lots. It
c was suggested, however, that the City should develop an ordinance which
1 4 would limit the parking of recreation vehicles at locations relative to
the curb. It was the view of Council that an ordinance should be adopted
' ) which would eliminate the potential of vehicles parking in areas that
would obstruct traffic site lines. It was also suggested that an
II ordinance amendment be adopted which would prohibit vehicles from parking
for extended periods of time on the green area between curb line and
private property line.
Council discussed establishing a sodding and seeding requirement for all
new homes constructed in the city of Monticello. After discussion, it
was the consensus of Council to develop an ordinance amendment which
would require that all lawns be sodded and seeded at the time that an
occupancy permit is issued. It was further suggested that a process be
established which •could require that funds be escrowed for the purpose of
lawn installation for those occasions when, because of weather or season
it is impossible to establish a lawn at time of occupancy. If a
homeowner fails to install a lawn within a reasonable time period, then
the City would act to utilize the escrowed funds to install the lawn for
the property owner. Council discussed the tree and shrub ordinance which
requires that two trees be planted on each property that is barren of
trees. It was the consensus of Council to include tree installation in
the sodding and seeding escrow requirement for those situations that
apply. Furthermore, it was the suggestion of Council that the minimum
tree diameter requirement be reduced from 2 inches to 1-1/2 !.nches.
Special Council Minutes - 5/19/89
Council discussed establishing an ordinance amendment that would regulate
design and placement of storage sheds. After discussion, it was the
dd'-,nsensus of Council that storage sheds should meet a minimum standard
f h` and that staff should submit an ordinance amendment which regulates rhe
�jO Z type of materials used in storage sheds. The ordinanceshould also
require painting and staining of storage sheds and also require that
storage sheds be tied down. Finally, it was agreed that this ordinance
moo. X46 should be enforced as problems arise and that a permitting process for
F storage sheds should not be enacted.
Council discussed enacting an ordinance amendment that would streamline
the process of cutting weeds and tall grasses on vacant lots. Dan
Blonigen was concerned that in cutting tall weeds, the City might damage
seedlings and be forced to pay damages to property owners that had
seedlings growing amongst tall weeds. Ren Maus suggested that the notice
to residents should include a request that the property owner identify
seedlings on the property prior to City removal of weeds. After
discussion, it was the general consensus of Council to streamline the
weed removal process by requiring a single notification to property
owners per growing season. Under this seenerio, once a property owner
has been notified of violation of the weed ordinance, the City would have
the option to cut the weeds without further notification each time the
weed or grass length exceeds the 6 -inch minimum. The frost to conduct the
work would then be billed to the property owner; and if the bill is not
paid, the cost to remove the weeds and tall grasses would be assessed and
paid as taxes.
Council discussed the problems created when excavated material is removed
from one property and piled onto another property. It was the consensus
of Council that this particular problem is a public nuisance related
problem that can be rectified utilizing the existing City Ordinances. It
was the consensus that no new ordinance would be created to address this
issuo. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that he would summarize the
group ideas and work with the City Attorney in drafting the appropriate
ordinance amendments. Mayor Maus requested that City staff share the
results of the special meeting of the City Council with the Meadow Oak
area residents representatives at their meeting next Wednesday.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Jeft.rO' Neill
Assintant Administrator
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
�. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 7, CHAPTER 1, OF THE
CITY ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC NUISANCES BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
7-1-1:
(I) All detached structures not requiring a building permit aw __3 -&er
-1 t".3 'a, 91., ::__ dTfFn-M TM that do not conform to the following
requirements shall be deemed a public nuisance.
1. All such detached structures shall be constructed of uniform building
grade material.
2. All sides, roof, and floor shall be securely fastened to the interior
frame of said detached structure.
3. All surfaces of such detached structures shall be stained, sealed, or
painted.
0. Exterior metal surfaces shall be treated with materials designed to
resist corrosion.
5. Structures that do not have slab floors shall have a rodent barrier that
extends 8 inches under the surface of the ground along the perimeter of the
outside wall of the structure.
6. All such detached structures shall be permanently anchored to the ground.
7. Storage sheds erected after the adoption of the zoning ordinance shall
meet district setback requirements. [�
8. Detached structures shall be ected in the side or rear yard of any
residence.
Adopted this 10th day of July, 1989.
Hen Maus, Mayor
Rick woitateiier
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 7/10/89
9. Consideration of ordinance amendment designed to expedite removal of
weeds and tall grasses. W .O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Council is asked to consider adopting an ordinance amendment which would
expedite the notice process associated with removal of tall grasses and
weeds from private property. This item stems from complaints emanating
from the Meadow Oaks neighborhood. Language included in this proposed
amendment stems from previous Council discussion on this matter at the
special meeting of the Monticello City Council held Friday, May 19,
1989. Minutes of that meeting are included with item $9.
The proposed ordinance would alter the level of notice provided to
violators as follows. Currently, for each time that a land owner is in
violation of the ordinance, the City provides a 14 -day notice of
violation. if at the end of the 14 -day period the problem is not
corrected, the Zoning Administrator may order the removal at theexpense
of the owner or occupant, which expense shall become a lien upon the
property to be collected as a special assessment. The proposed amendment
would change this process by requiring that a single notification be
provided to a property owner in violation annually, and it reduces the
period of notice from 14 days to 7 days. These two changes allow the
City to remove the tall weeds and grasses 7 days sooner than could
otherwise have occurred. The ordinance also adds efficiency to the
removal process by eliminating costly administrative time in preparing
and sending notices to repeat offenders.
The ordinance also includes a provision by which the property owner may
appeal the notice of violation to the City Council. This process will be
useful if there are extenuating circumstances that prohibit the land
owner from removing weeds and grasses. Such an appeal process can
contribute toward protecting the City from liability if the property is
somehow damaged when the City acts to remove the weeds and grasses.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to modify and adopt the proposed ordinance amendment.
2. Deny adoption of the ordinance amendment.
3. Table the matter pending public hearing on the proposed ordinance
amendment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendment.
The new process will improve the appearance of neighborhoods byreducing
the duration of the weed and tall grass violations. In addition, staff
time necessary for repeat notices will be eliminated, thus iaproving the
efficion_y of the weeds and tall grasses removal process.
-15-
L
council Agenda - 7/10/89
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment= See May 19 Council minutes in
agenda item /9.
-16-
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 7, CHAPTER 1,
SECTION 4, PERTAINING TO PUBLIC NUISANCES BE ADDED AS FOLLOWS:
7-1-4: ENFORCEMENT. Any person owning property within the City where
activities in violation of this ordinance are occurring shall be so
notified in writing by the City of the violation and given seven days to either
correct the violation or appeal to the City Council for a determination that
the complained of activity does not violate the ordinance. An appeal to the
City Council is perfected within the seven day period if the person in
violation files with the City Administrator a written request to be placed on
the next City Council agenda for purposes of the Council hearing the appeal.
No further action shall then be taken by the City until such time as the City
Council shall determine that a violation does exist. Any party aggrieved by a
decision hereunder by the City Council may appeal the decision to the District
Court, Wright County, Minnesota within 30 days of the Council's decision. If
after seven days of the notice of violation the person in violation of this
ordinance fails to correct the violation or appeal to the City Council, the
City shall either:
a) petition the District Court for civil relief from the violationm or
b) remove and dispose of the material creating the violation and assess
the cost of clean up, removal, and disposal against the property
where such activity in violation of this ordinance occurred.
For purposes of 7-1-1 (D), the City need only provide the person in violation
thereof one notice in any one 12 -month period. If after a notice and within 12
months of such notice repeated violations occur, the City without additional
notice may correct the conditions creating such violations and assess the cost
therefor against the property where such activity in violation of 7-1-1 (D)
occurred.
Adopted this 10th day of July, 1989.
Ren Maus, Mayor
Rick Wolfeteller
City Adminietratwr
J�
CITY or MOWICELLO
Monthly Building oeparte•nt Report
Month of JANE
. 19j%
PFJ1I1115 NIO USES
Leat
Thle
Beme Mon [h Leet Yeer
Thin Yeer
PERMITS ISSUED
Ibnth MAY
Month ,nnrr
Leet Year To
net.
T. Ont.
RESIDENTIAL
NWber
17
11
17
58
19
Veluetlon
8290,200.00
5]97,500.00
8 571,600.00 8 1,686.900.00
51,575,800.00
Fees
2,199.11
2,825.58
6.570.10
1],278.52
11,]1].69
Surchergee
111.10
198.00
28].90
8]9.70
761.15
COMMERCIAL
NWber
1
44
11
13
Veluetlon
207,000.00
79,000.00
257.600.00
561,200.00
1,118,!00.00
Fee•
1,673.10
762.50
1,577.90
],162.80
9,222.00
Su[ehergee
107.50
79.50
128.90
280.60
727.70
INDUSTRIAL
":1
1
Veluetlon
1,600.00
tees
16.00
Surcharge•
7.70
PLUMB INS
Number
5
7
B
20
27
r•••
111.00
117.00
193.00
658.00
651.00
8urenargu
2.50
3.50
1.00
10.00
11.50
/ OTHERS
Number
Valu.tlon
1
.00
1
.00
5
.00
I•••
10.00
10.00
50.00
eurcn. rpe•
.50
.50
2.50
TOTAL NO. PERNITS
20
23
29
90
90
TOTAL VALUATION
197.200.00
176,500.00
829,200.00 2,252,700.00
2,981,200.00
' TOTAL rEEe
],99].21
3,715.08
0,337.30
21,115.32
21,239.69
TOTAL SURCHARGED
250.60
211.50
116.70
1.132.20
1,501.80
CURRENT MONTH
FEED
Nu-=
to Uets
'
PERMIT NATURE
Nund- PERMIT GDRC'11ARCR Veluetlon
Thl• Yee[
Leet yen[
Bingle F.mlly
5 0 2,570.58 8 186.75
8 ]7],500.00
IS
12
Mplem
0
1
Multi-Ieslly
1
1
eos.ml.l
0
2
IIIdW [rl.l
0
1
R••. 0•r•ps•
7
1
Blpn•
0
0
Publle Building.
0
1
ALTERATION UR REPAIR
Dwll Inge
5
210.00 10.75
22.500.00
27
21
Cow rc l•1
1
762.50 29.50
79,000.00
I]
0
IndWlrl.l
0
0
PLUS, IMa
All Typo
7
117.00 3.50
.00
27
20
ACCESSORY STRUCTURED
BMlm.ing Pool.
0
0
M.A.
1
15.00 .50
1.500.00
1
5
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0
0
DEMOLITION
1
10.00 .SO
.00
1
0
TOTALS
23
3,715.00 211.50
176,500.00
90
90
(IA
PERMIT
PUN REV I EII
MIHHLR
DESCRIPTZON
(TYPE
89-1353
Storage building
AD
89-1]f4
Deck
AD
89-1355Baaeounct
",'an 4 attached 9*rage
AD
69-1]56
No— 6a2,01lahed
AD
09.1357
Nindova 6 door* replocOokot
AC
00-1350
3 *uaon porch eddl tion
AD
09.1359
Dock addition
At
69-1360
69.1360
Bullding ad
AC
89.1361
Nouse And $arege
By
89-1362
Open porch, ettachOd ganga G deck
AD
89-1363
Do uAa And g*rag6
Sr
89-3364
SOUP *M garage
or
69-1365
NO.: 0005 tion
A0
89-1366
Sousa and garage
ST
89.1367
NO-: and gare9•
or
09-1368
Building remodel
AC
_J
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month Or JUNE , 1909
NAME/LOCATIOP
Hobart b ROA* KnWItOn/29 Tairvay Dr.
Ralph Me ISln9ar/355 Prairie Road
Ivan vaitara/100 Marvin CivoOd Rd.
James Ziac 10/401 H. 6th St.
Peteraon/Griaama run*ral Chapel/
530 Wool broa0aey
Donald RAhl/K)ellborg Gat Trailer Pk 0206
Ttrat WoLIm41 Rank/407 Pine St.
The Pllmbery/220 Sandberg Road
LAM Coatoa SOOar/108 Kenneth Lana
We Raola/205 PKAltl• ROW
Yvonne Bmf th/104 Cra 1p Lana
Sul RU126err/2761 Oakvl*v Lane
An- Meib/253 Ml Aslaatppl Dr.
Dayie V*oh*a Conk/206 Msrvla EirOod Ad.
Doyle Vecn• Con*t/227 Crocus Lane
P099Y WonrOlt/1300 W. broadvay
TOTALS
VALUASION
PUN REV I EII
69-1161
Moors
and pan9e
ST
Lamar. CUOtoa Roaoe/108 Kenneth Lan*
69-1)63
NOW*
A1)d Qara9R
Br
Yvonne asitlll109 Craig Lane
d9-1184
Mous*
and ganga
or
bill bulldrrs/2761 Oakvlov Lan
B9-t)b8
IlouOe
aM paraga
ST
Dayia Vrch: Caut/706 Marvin E3voo0 Rd.
69-1]67
Heart
and 0*repa
8F
Deyl• vaen• ConAt/277 Croce* unr
111.00
6.50
MAL Putty REVIEW
VALUASION
Tom
PlR7I?
SURCHARGE
IPLuKBItx
SURCkAAG€
1 1,$00.00
s )5.00 s
.50
5
5
1, 500.00
15.00.50
12,000.00
135.00
6.00
.Do
16.00
.50
13000.00
111.00
6.50
1:5 00.00
15.00
.50
28.000.00.
771. SO
14.00
35,000.00
311.00
17.50
1]1,300.00
b7t.1 d
65.65
25.00
.50
5,000.00
50.00
2.50
90,000.00
535.05
45.00
24.00
.50
52.{00.00
302.77
26.20
23,00
.50
2, 500. D0
25.00
1, 25
14.00
.50
49,900.00
1372.46
24.95
23.00
.50
09,900.00
372.46
24.95
23.00
.50
3,000.00
30.00
7.50
15.00
.50
Sa76, 500.00
N.364.36 5238.00
1147.00
13.50
067.41
53.51
30.28
37.2}
37.25
6255:'53
TOTAL R6v01U0 03,006.56