City Council Agenda Packet 11-12-1991AGENDA FOR TRE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 12, 1991 - 7:00 o.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle, Dan
alarlycn
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 28,
1991.
3. Citizens comments /petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a request to rezone the easterly 9.7 acres of
Auditor's Subdivi slon, Lot 17, from 8-3 (highway business) to
a combination of PZM (performance zone mixed) and B-2 ( limited
business). Applicant, Evangelical Covenant Church.
5. Consideration of recommending approval of preliminary plat and
final plat of the East View residential subdivision.
Applicant, "Investors Together," Dean Hoglund and Ken '
Schwartz.
L_ 6. Consideration of a request to rezone a 7 -acre parcel described
as part of Lot 2, Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright
County, Minnesota, from AO (agricultural) zoning to R-1
(single family) and R-2 (single and two-family) zoning.
Applicants, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz.
7. Consideration of approving Chamber Reimbursement Agreement for
Information Center improvements.
B. Consideration of amending provisions within the Cardinal Hills
and Briar Oakes development agreements.
9. Consideration of approving partial payment and accepting
performance bond for fire hall painting contract --Lindberg b
Associates.
10. Consideration of bids for traffic signal at the intersection
of CSAH 75, CSAH 39, and County Road 118, and consideration of
award. r
11. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 28, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad
Pyle, Dan Blonigen
Members Absent: None
2. Approval of minutes.
After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded
by Brad Pyle to modify item #4 of the meeting minutes to show
that Clint Herbst abstained from the vote, and to adopt the
meeting minutes of the regular meeting held October 15, 1991,
as modified. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
None forthcoming.
S. Information Center/Chamber Office uodate.
John Simola reviewed the Information Center Chamber building
remodeling project budget and informed Council that the total
cost of the project will amount to $16,182. He noted that the
cost could be reduced to an amount closer to $15,000 if
ceramic the is not used in the bathroom of the facility. He
noted that it may make sense to pay more for the ceramic the
because it is easier to maintain than other types of less
expensive floor coverings. Council reviewed the budget and
discussed the matter with Chamber President, Bob Dawson, and
Executive Director, Cindy Johnson.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and
seconded by Brad Pyle to order completion of the remodeling
project subject to development of a lease agreement
guaranteeing payback over ten years of City expenses
associated with the remodeling. Motion carried unanimously.
Rick Wolfstellor also noted that it his understanding that the
Chamber of Commerce will be paying all utility costa
associated with operating the building. Bob Dawson concurred
that it was his understanding that the Chamber would be paying
utility costs.
Page 1
0
Council Minutes - 10/2e(91
Public hearing on proposed assessment roll for delinquent
charges, and consideration of adopting an assessment roll for
certification with the Countv Auditor covering delinouent
charges.
Mayor Ken Maus opened the public `oaring, on the Proposed
assessment roll for delinquent charges.
Steve Anderson of 1809 West River Street voiced his concern
regarding the City's plan to place a delinquent utility bill
on his taxes. He noted that the bill stems from use of the
city water and sewer by a previous property owner. The
previous property owner did not pay the bill prior to moving.
Anderson, as the new owner, indicated that he did not feel
that he should be required to pay this bill of $90.
Dan Blonigen noted that our ordinance says that we must
collect this from the property owner, and it is not the
taxpayers' responsibility to pay this bill. He went on to
note, however, that the City should be willing to work with
the homeowner to assist in recouping the money from the
individual that moved from the house without paying. Finally,
Blonigen noted that the roaltor should have the responsibility
of making sure that all costs are accounted for prior to each
sale. He also noted that he feels bad that this has happened,
but the City cannot set a precedent here. If the City were to
pay this bill, then people might not feel compelled to pay
their final utility bill prior to moving.
Ken Maus then closed the public hearing.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Pyle and seconded
by Shirley Anderson to adopt the assessment roll with
Anderson's delinquent charges to be modified to Include
elimination of penalty and interest charges. City staff Is to
provide whatever assistance it can to Anderson in collecting
from the previous property owner. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 91-17.
Council also discussed problems in getting homeowners to pay
utility bilis on time. it was the consensus of Council to be
more aggressive on collecting utility bills through the normal
City collection process rather than through the County
Auditor. It was determined that the City should soviously
consider turning individual water supplies off if the utility
bills are not paid within an acceptable time frame.
Pago Z
cam---�
Council Minutes - 10/28/91
Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment amendinq
certification dates for delinquent accounts.
Rick Wolfsteller noted that this item is a housekeeping item.
Wolfsteller informed Council that state legislators amended
Chaper 429.u61, Subdivisivi 3, Of tha ztatc statutee that
extended the date for certification of delinquent accounts by
municipalities until November 30 of each year. As a result of
this change, the City now has additional time to certify
delinquent accounts, and it is now recommended that we amend
our ordinance sections to correspond with the amended state
statutes. Wolfsteller noted that he could see no reason why
the amendment should not be adopted. The additional time
provided by the state statutes will allow the City to have an
up-to-date list of delinquent accounts for certification
annually. The amendment calls for changing the certification
date from October 10 to November 30.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to approve the proposed ordinance
amendment as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 214.
6. Review of bids and proposals for new snowplow truck and
equipment and consideration of award.
John Simola reviewed the bid tabulation and noted that the
City received bids for the truck chassis from Boyer Ford,
Hoglund Bus, and Lakeland Ford; and the City received bids on
the hydraulic accessories and other snowplow accessories from
Crysteel, MacQueen Equipment, and Schuster. Simola wont on to
recommend that the City purchase the single axle truck cab
chassis and accessories from the low bidder, Lakeland Ford, in
the amount of $40,342. The 12 -foot dump body with hydraulic
accessories should be purchased from the low bidder, Crystool,
in the amount of $9,583, the snowplow should be purchased from
the low bidder, MacQueen, in the amount of $5,920, the wing
and hitches from the lower bidder, Schuster, in the amount of
$4,750, and the sander should be purchased from the low
bidder, MacQueen, in the amount of $2,209. Total cost of the
truck and all of the accessories amounts to $62,804.
Council then discussed whether or not to go ahead with
purchasing the vehicle and associated equipment.
Kon Maus noted that due to the long delivery time, it appears
that the City may have already missed the entire snow season.
Does it make sense to buy the equipment now? Perhaps we
should wait until the spring and take delivery in the fall.
Pago 3
Council Minutes - 10/28/91
Dan Blonigen noted that there are other uses for the vehicle
during the summer months, and the City is intent on buying it.
It does not necessarily hurt to have the equipment early. It
was also mentioned that the vehicle may arrive much sooner
than the guaranteed 150 -day delivery time noted by the
Lakeland Fund bid.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded
by Dan Blonigen to purchase the snow removal equipment from
the following vendors.
Lakeland
Ford, cab chassis
$40,342.00
Crysteel,
dump body
9,583.00
MacQueen
Equipment, snowplow
5,920.00 -
Schuster,
wing 6 hitches
4,750.00
MacQueen
Equipment, sander
2,209.00
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Consideration of final pavment on annual sealcoatino oroiect,
SC91-1.
John Simola reviewed the project and noted that problems were
encountered with the sealcoatingon the north side of Broadway
between Cedar Street and Dayton Street. A thunderstorm
occurred within one to two hours after application of the
sealcoat and rock. Since the oil is an asphalt emulsion and
is somewhat water soluble during the first one to two hours
after application, we experienced a darkening of the street
surface and a staining of Bono of the curbs in the area.
Simola noted that he contacted Gene Capistrant of Allied
Blacktopping and suggested that we blot the areas with a c loan
fine sand. Capistrant indicated that by doing so, this would
result in an extra charge on the project but that it would bo
minimal. Simola advised him to do what was needed to be done
to control the leachinq of the oil. He immediately dispatched
several trucks with this material to Monticello, and It was
effective in controlling any further leaching of oil.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Dan Blonigen to pay Allied Blacktopping the 108
remaining from the original contract of $3,804.33 but withhold
payment of the $470 cost associated with the extra sand that
was needed. Motion carried unanimously.
Council elected to withhold payment of the $470 associated
with the extra sand because the $470 expense should not be
considered an added expense. Rather, it is a cost that the
soalcoating company incurred to do the job right.
Pago 4
0
Council Minutes - 10/28191
9. Consideration of bills for the month of October.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to pay the bills as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Other matters.
Shirley Anderson suggested the idea of developing a City
newsletter that could be distributed to all residents on a
periodic basis describing City programs, services, policies,
etc. She noted that many communities provide information to
its citizens on a regular basis through a newsletter, and it's
something that the City should seriously consider.
Ken Maus concurred that he has been behind putting a
newsletter together for some time.
It was the consensus of the Council to direct City staff to
begin work on development of a newsletter. Assistant
Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, was directed to lead the project.
Coucil discussed philosophies toward advertising goods sold by
the municipal liquor store. It was the consensus of Council
that the municipal liquor store should advertise; however, all
advertisements should focus on the importance of moderation.
Council reviewed the preliminary budget prepared by City
Administrator, Rick Wolfsteiler. In his budget statement,
wolfstelier noted that the proposed tax levy needed to support
the budget is $2,558,554, which represents a 1.48 increase
over the previous year's budget. This amounts to a $38,495
increase over last year's budget. Most of the increase is due
to inflationary pressures such as the increase in the law
enforcement contract and an increase in the garbage and refuse
department.
The proposed budget includes major expenditures out of the
capital outlay fund for the following: West Bridge Park
rostrooms and parking lot, $60,000; lighting of two softball
fields at the NSP complex, $80,000; replacement for the 1981
Chevrolet truck, $62,000; one -ton truck with flatbod, $24,000;
continuation of sidewalk improvement program, $28,500; and
additional funds needed for County Road 75, County Road 118,
and County Road 39 traffic signals, $12,500. Wolfsteller
noted that the capital expenditures proposed in the fund do
not leave us with any unallocated amount for unforeseen
page 5
WE
Council Minutes - 10/28/91
expenditures, as the budget is actually proposing a transfer
of $53,600 from the liquor fund to accommodate the capital
outlay items.
Dan Blonigen noted that the City should not dip into its
reserve funds for nonpRsenttAl purchases, as there will likely
be necessary purchases in the future such as expansion of the
maintenance building, and we will need as much of our reserves
as possible to finance such purchases. He noted that the
softball and baseball complex users should be supporting the
cost of the installation of lights.
Roger Mack noted that the existing fields are heavily used and
installation of lights would enable these fields to be used
more. This could result in a savings by eliminating the need
to develop additional ballfields.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to take no
action on the budget as submitted and defer action until the
formal hearing scheduled for November 25, 1991.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
l
Pago 6
City Council Agenda - 11112191
Consideration of a request to rezone the easterly 9.7 acres of
Auditors Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 jhighwav business) to
a combination of PZM Soerformance zone mixed) and B-2 (limited
business). Aoolicant. Evanaelical Covenant Church. (J.0.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the October meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Evangelical Covenant Church, hereinafter referred to as the
church, requested that the City rezone a parcel of land
approximately 9.7 acres in size located at the northwest
quadrant of the intersection of County Road 118 and Chelsea
Road. The church requested that the site be rezoned from B-3
(highway commercial) to PZM (performance zone mixed). The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter and
made the recommendation that the rezoning request be denied.
The denial was based on the finding that although the proposed
site would be an excellent location for a church, the need for
the rezoning was not demonstrated, as there are other areas
nearby where a church could be developed in accordance with
the present zoning map. In addition, the commercial uses
displaced by the church use could not be relocated without
encroaching on residential areas. This Item never went before
the City Council because the church withdrew the request after
Planning Commission denial.
In response to the Planning Commission's decision, the church
withdrew the original request and has submitted a now,
modified rezoning request. The now proposal calls for
development of the church on a 5 -acro parcel to be located
approximately 450 feet oast of the original corner site.
Under this scenario, a parcel of land approximately 4.7 acres
in size would remain zoned for commercial use at the corner of
County Road 118 and Chelsea Road. The 5 -acre parcel to the
west of the corner commercial land would be zoned PZM and
developed for church use. The B-3 land west of the church
site would then be rezoned to business campus use. The
business campus rezoning would occur in the future as part of
the mass rezoning that is planned to occur in conjunction with
the Chelsea corridor planning study. Please see the attached
proposed zoning map for more details regarding the proposed
zoning configuration.
The church has indicated the other sites have boon examined,
and some are desirable; however, the land cost at these sitos
is excessive. The proposed rezoning site is the boat site
within their budget.
In response to the now compromise proposal submitted by the
church, the Planning Commission again recommended denial based
on the finding that:
City Council Agenda - 11/12/91
1. Commercial uses displaced by the church cannot be
relocated without encroachment on residential
areas.
2. Development of a church imbedded between commercial
and industrial uses is not desirable.
3. The best use for the property is for commercial use
because of proximity to the freeway and due to its
long distance from residential uses.
4. The B-3 property remaining after the rezoning is
Insufficient to satisfy long-term demand.
5. The need for rezoning has not been sufficiently
demonstrated, as other land is available for this
type of use.
Impact of Proposal
1. Reduction in size of commercial service area.
The church proposal calls for splitting a 16.7 -acre
commercial area into a 4.7 -acro area for commercial use,
5 acres for church use, and the remaining 6.7 acres
converted to business campus uses.
The City Planner has indicated that the original area
designated for commercial use in the Chelsea corridor
planning study (16.7 acres) is proper given the size of
the residential and industrial areas that will be served
by this commercial district.
The proposal calls for extending the business campus
zoning district to the 6.7 -acre parcel west of the
church. It is proposed that this be rezoned to business
campus use because the ability to develop it for
commercial use will be limited due to the position of the
church. It just does not make sense to have a commercial
area split by the church.
In summary, although this proposal maintains a 4.7 -acro
parcel at the prime commercial location, the total
commercial area is reduced by more than two-thirds.
According to the planner, this reduction is not proper
given the potential need for commercial property in the
area .
2
City Council Agenda - 11/12/91
2. Church site zoned PZM.
The proposal to rezone the church site to PZM prior to
the actual church development opens the door slightly for
unwanted development of residential uses. This is
because under the PZM zoning district designation, multi-
family residential development is allowed as a
conditional use. This potentiality can be eliminated
when the concept plan for the area is adopted by making
sure that the concept plan notes a church or
"institutional" use at this PZM site. This would provide
the authority that the City would need to deny
residential development at the site.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed zoning map amendment based on the finding that
the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan
and compatible with the adjoining land uses.
Under this alternative, the Council is satisfied that the
4.7 -acre parcel of land on the corner is sufficient to
serve the long-term need for commercial land in the area
or there are other areas available to satisfy commercial
land demand, most notably, the PZM district in the area
of the intersection of CSAM 75 and 117; therefore, the
commorcial area displaced by tho church and industrial
land use is not determined to be a problem. In addition,
the Council could view the church use as being compatible
with adjoining school, commercial, and industrial uses.
According to the planner, there will be a demand for
commercial land in the aroa that will not be satisfied
with the remaining 4.67 acres of commorcial land.
Please note that the problem that the church is having in
finding affordable land that is properly zoned, although
unfortunate, should not be a factor in docision making.
2. Motion to recommend denial of proposed rezoning request
based on the finding that:
1. Commorcial uses displaced by the church cannot bo
rolocatod without encroachment on reaidontial
areas.
2. Development of a church imboddod between commercial
and industrial uses is not desirable.
3
City Council Agenda - 11/12/91
3. The best use for the property is for commercial use
because of proximity to the freeway and due to its
long distance from residential uses.
4. The B-3 property remaining after the rezoning is
Insufficient to satisfy long-term demand.
5. The need for rezoning has not been sufficiently
demonstrated, as other land is available for this
type of use.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council select alternative 12 for the
reasons noted in the Planning Commission finding.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map showing proposed rezoning; Application materials;
Preliminary Chelsea Corridor Concept Plan prepared by planner;
Staff report to Planning Commission on original rezoning
request reviewed by Planning Commission in October. ,
4
\\ I
Consideration of a request to rezone the easterly 9.7 acres
of Auditors Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway business)
zoning district to a combination of PZM (performance zone mixed)
and B-2 (limited business) zoning districts. Specifically, -
the 9.7 -acre rezone area to be rezoned as follows: The easterly =
6.7 acres of the 9.7 -acre rezone area to be rezoned to the
\ 8-2 zoning district, and the remaining westerly 5 -acre portion -_
of the 9.7 -acre rezone area to be rezoned to the PZM district.
The proposed rezoning would allow development of a church facility
in the PZM zone.
- \ APPLICANT: Evangelical Covenant Church
—•-- ---•------- -- — cos... �Qf1,�,... ,,•i'
IF, 11
•,PZM
I• 9-2 t
10
posed
CP V
1 y�e R , � b �LIU
'(7o
arae l (j
7. K
(3-C pcR Pare C POD 'Zone
PICL^
M;�Ake
/A r
._ .f CRs r
BC. once P
'Plan
`Ur1oA)
��ric�a�
r
O AGR E S
C. r AtsS IRA.
ljC�noo� VSf 5
o
3
Zo. "--6 PA
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
City of Monticello
TYPE OF HEARING:
[; CONDITIONAL USE - fee $125.00 + expenses
REZONING - fee 5250.00 + all necessary consulting expenses(Resubmissic
[] VARIANCE - fee $50.00 for setbacks or $125.00 for others + expenses
(] OTHER - fee $
Applieant(s): The Northwest Conference of the Evan¢eIical Covenant Church
Applicant(s) Address: 4121 East 31st Street .Mnls.MN 55406
Applicant(s) Phone(s): Home:Haelund 682 6469 Office: 721 4893
Address of Property: 1 94, Chelsea Rd and Co.Rd.118 Monticello
Legal Description of Property:
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Other: See attachment East 9.7 Acres of Parcel A. Boy'e orooerty
[ ] See Attached
Currently Zoned: B 3 Hiahwav Business Proposed Zoning: East 4.7 Acres to B-2
Names of Property owners within 350 feet: () See Attd5.0 Acres to PZM
for Church use.
Monticello Public School
FArm Credit of Sr. Paul
Qthers Unknown
Please explain the reason for the public hearing request:jp disrugs the
possibility of chanaina rhe 4 Z.Ar 4(nn—AT 515 fr -nn rn Rd 119 and 400 nn
rhel en) to B-2 Neiahborhood eommerirnl and 5.0(halanre mc nrnn—ry rn PRM
Size of Plat to be Subdivided: 9.7 to build church acres
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: pendino zpnii�pp ' tv�.nl
Date: Orrnhnr 17.1991 Signed: r�1 . r - ..19, tii�,.� l.�l
•r.aa... .....►••a.s...r...a............G. ..0.. jit>,gjy.'iL1.. lVS.S4.tA .`�uAw�iJW.e '+.
(For City Use Only)
Data Application Received: Receipt Number:
Date of Public Hearing at Planning Commission: Time:
Decision of Planning Commission:
(I See Attached
If a variance, was there an appeal? (] Yes [] No; If so, attached a copy
of the appeal.
Date of Council Consideration: Time:
Decision of Council:
(] See Attached
Comments:
Data of Publication:
Date of Mailing:
(] Soo Attached
(attach copy of public hearing notice)
(attached copy of a:fidavitof mai-in 7
NYC11
N Ilc�i .
FOR CIIURCII
USI..
FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL USE
11Z
R—Z
F..CILp
I—
YO II
0 730 Ma low
`sfU[ .1 1111
--DOY"DEVELOPMENT
.\pWN1I 11.1
I:BASIS FOR REQUESTING ACTION t0 RE ZONE SITE FOR CHURCH'USE(5.OAcies)
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS:
For the church - From our eiPerien ce, we find that we often- do''the
local church a d.is,favor by finding land for chufch use where the costs.
for a "buildable" site are unknown . This is the only site that meets
our acreage needs where these costs ere known.
For the city - I,f we are forced to purchase a site where all the
needed city improvements are not available, we Vill, within a few
years, ask the city to extend these improveiments. This will force
the city to extend chase services and expend the related coats
prematurely.
LOCATION:
We selected this location for several reasons:
I. Close proximity tothecity prover - A church needs to be close
to the "established city" to identify with the entire City. Any
church who begins it's ministry located in the outskirts of the
city or in a neighboring rural area, will find identity with the
"established city" to be very difficult.
2. Traffic patterns - We like to be neat the freeway, the north -
south County Road 118 and especially Chelsea Road which will
provide a very positive traffic flow from Highway 25.
3. The Middle School - We find that being near to a public school
provides a very positive image for a church,.
4. Being near to commercial or neighborhood business - Bning`near
to business establishments, especially office or service fac'iliti'es_
is a positive co'nsi'deration fox our church.
SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY:
We feel that the Monticello Covenant Church is a growi'sg 'chu'rt
because of it's positive relationship to the community: We`;cannot,
state for, sure,, but ,possible sery i`cis from _this sick might be:
EWOK - This stands:for Evenial-With Quit Rids
Yrescbool programs
Dayeare fatilitias
Various,ehildren'a.clubs sad youth activities
Senior citizenservices
These activities could best bs done- from this site.
AESTHETICS:
As we see churches formed, site$ selected and first facilities built,
we see that the churches image, personality and facility presentation
often has an effect, either posit iyely or negatively, upon the
community. This is best ezpvassed in serviceability,location and
visabi'licy of the facility. Our view is that this site@ serviceability
and Location are excellent and it's use for building a church is
compatible with it's neighbors. Beyond that however, we are most
impressed with this potential for excellent visability tot those who
travel Interstate 94 from the east and for those who will, in the
future, live in the valley to the south. In Matthew, there is a Bible
verse that says,"a city set an a hill cannot be hid". The same applies
to a church.
it. BASIS FOR REOUBSTING ACTION TO REZONE SITE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMM.(4.?A:RE
We are villin` to have the church o n the 5.0 acres described above and we
are requesting that this corner pia ce be rezoned to 1-2 NsiBhborhool
Commercial. We would hold the property until a buyer could b• found toCY)
utilize the property for B-2 purposes.
IN
hbor "d �t
F
1�
11 ��
re
To P/C oe Or; ; �a 8u Planning Commission Agenda - 10/1/91
K4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to rezone a 9 -acre,
portion of Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (hiqhway
business) zoning designation to PZM (performance zone mixed),
which would allow development of a church. Applicant,
Evanqelical Covenant Church. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall at the August meeting of the Planning
Commission, James D. Haglund, Assistant to the Superintendent
ofthe Northwest Conference of the Evangelical Covenant
Church, was present to introduce himself and inform the
Planning Commission that the Evangelical Covenant Church is
actively seeking a site for development of a new church in the
city of Monticello. The Covenant Church has found a site that
they feel is excellent fortheir church facility; however, the
site is currently zoned B-3 (highway business), which does not
include church use among permitted uses listed. Therefore, a
zoning ordinance is required which would rezone this property
to a district that does allow church development as a
permitted or conditional use.
City staff recommends that if the zoning district designation
Is changed to allow a church facility to operate that it be
changed to the PZM zoning district, as this district allows
church use as a conditional use and also allows development of
retail businesses. In essence, the PZM zone is the zoning
district designation most similar to the B-3 zone while still
allowing church development.
The area proposed for rezoning is located at the northwest
quadrant of the intersection of Chelsea Road and County
Road 18. The freeway forms the northern border of the area.
As noted earlier, this property is currently zoned for highway
commercial use, as It was originally anticipated that at nomo
point in the future an Interchange might be developed at this
site, which would result in this property being used heavily
for highway business uses. The update to the zoning map,
which Is being scheduled for public hearing later in October
of this year and has been reviewed by the Planning Commission,
continues to show this area as a commercial area; howovor, the
futuro zoning may change from the highway commercial
designation to a designation that continues to include
commercial activity. The nature of the commercial activity
will likely be lose intense than the current B-3 highway
zoning designation duo to the fact that the nature of the
business activity at this corner will likely be dependent on
development of the residential area nearby rather than being
dependent on freeway traffic related commorco.
D
Planning Commission Agenda - 14/1/91
To the north of the site is the freeway. To the west of the
site under our current zoning map lies 8-3 property, which,
according to our study underway, will be converted to the I-1
business campus zone. To the south of the site is property
owned by the school district, which is currently zoned H-3;
however, under the new plan, the school property will be
rezoned to R -i, which would allow development of school
related athletic fields. To the east of the property is
County Road 118, and east of 118 is a low area that is zoned
for a residential planned unit development. The portion of
the planned unit development area directly east of the site
will likely be used for storm water drainage retention pond
area.
Following is a review of the site in terms of the requirements
associated with zoning ordinance amendments.
Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan
On page 51 of the comprehensive plan, it is noted under
item #6 that "churches should have ample site for building,
landscaping, expansion, and off-street parking. Parking
should be provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches
should be located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector
street and have easy access to the area served. They should
not be located on a minor residential street and in the midst
of residential neighborhoods." The amendment to the zoning
map as proposed appears to be consistent with this section of
the comprehensive plan. On the other hand, another section of
the comprehensive plan under commercial policies states that
the "location of now shopping areas should be justified by an
adequate market study and consideration for the neighborhood,
land use, and circulation pattern."
In reviewing the general area that is available for limited or
neighborhood type cnmmPrcin) activity addressing the needs of
this burgeoning residential area, it appears that the proposed
location for the church facility is located in the prime
position for commercial development. If the church developed
a facility at this location, the displaced commercial activity
would need to be moved to another location either further west
encroaching in prime industrial land or to a position oast of
County Road 18, which would cause encroachment into arena
earmarked for residential development. In other words,
although development of a church facility by itself at this
location given the adjoining land uses may make sense, the
resulting displacement of the commercial activity to a much
less desirable area does not make sense. Therefore, the
proposed zoning amendment may not be consistent with the
policies outlined in the comprehensive plan of the City.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/1/91
The Geographical Area and Character of the Surroundinq Area
Development of a church facility at this location will not
create a negative impact on residential properties and can be
properly screened from the business campus zone so as to
mitigate any potential conflicts that might develop. Zn
addition, the schcol L^-cs to the south appear to be comnlptely
consistent and compatible with the church use. The proposal
appears to be consistent with this zoning ordinance amendment
criteria.
Demonstrated Need for Such Use
As noted earlier, the proposed location for the church
facility appears to be the only feasible location for
commercial activity serving the growing residential area. The
site is perfect for the convenience store type businesses and
other commercial activity that serves the needs of the local
industrial and residential markets. Furthermore, the location
at the intersection of two major roads further enhances it as
a commercial site.
In reviewing the land available for development of a church
facility near the proposed rezoning site, there appear to be
other suitable locations along the perimeter of proposed
residential areas; therefore, there does not appear to be an
overriding need to rezone the property as proposed in order to
provide land necessary for church development. There are
other options available.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the request to rezone the said property
from the B-3 to the PZM zoning district.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make
the finding that the proposed amendment 18 conslete nt
with the comprehensive plan in terms of development of
church facilities as noted in item 16 of the community
facilities policy, and Planning Commission could include
In its finding the statement that the development of a
church at this alto is consistent with the character and
geography of the area, as a church developed at this
location will not be likely to create a negative Impact
on adjoining Industrial, school, and residential uses.
Motion to deny the rezoning request as proposed based on
the finding that the development of a church facility and
associated rezoning at this location, though consistent
with portions of the comprehensive plan and consistent
with the geography and character of the area, will result
04
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/1/91
in the displacement of a commercial zone to another less
desirable area. Furthermore, development of a church at
this location does not represent the highest and best use
of this land.
Planning Commission could also include in its finding
that other alternative sites for development of a church
facility in the area are available, and, therefore, the
need for the rezoning has not been sufficiently
demonstrated.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative A2 based on the findings
suggested.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Area identification map; Rezoning application; Concept plan
for area development prepared by Northwest Associated
Consultants; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91
Public Hearinq--Consideration of a request to rezone a 9 -acre
portion of Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway
business)•zoninq designation to PZM (performance zone mixed),
which would allow development of a church. Applicant,
Evanqelical Covenant Church, Jim Haqlund.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearinq.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the request of the
Monticello Evangelical Covenant Church to rezone a portion of
unplatted land from B-3 (highway business) to PZM (performance
zone mixed) zoning. O'Neill outlined the location of the
rezoning request and how it would relate to the proposed
zoning. He also reviewed how the site would relate to the
requirements associated with a zoning ordinance amendment.
The criteria used in analyzing a zoning ordinance amendment
are 1) relationship to the municipal comprehensive plan;
2) the geographical area and character of the surrounding
area; and 3) the demonstrated need for such use.
Following are some concerns that were addressed by the public.
1) Economic considerations- -this is a buildable lot
with utilities readily available. If the church
looked at a site without utilities available, there
would be additional cost for the development of the
site plus the cost for the City to extend services;
2) Location --Che church's proximity to the existing
core of the city and traffic patterns are very
important, as this lot is fronted on two major
streets, County Road 118 and Chelsea Road, and it
is noar a school, which is a very positive image
for the church. It is also nearer to existing
zoning which would allow commorcial/neighborhood
business construction near the site.
3) Service to the community --prior to the
establishment of regular church services, which are
currently conducted in the Monticello Elementary
School, the church began providing services for
residents of our community. Along with regular
church worship services, they are considering
providing other services from their own facility
such as a) a program called "An evening without
kids;" b) preschool programs; c) daycaro
facilities; d) allowing various children's clubs or
youth activities to conduct their meetings in their
facility; and s) conducting senior citizen
eorvices.
4) Aesthetics --the church members feel that because
this Bite is located next to I-94 and is on higher
ground with a lot of visibility, it would be an
excellent location for a church in this community.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
asked for further input from the Planning Commission members.
Concerns addressed by the Planning Commission members were as
follows. Commission members understood the need for churches
to grow within this community and that they sometimes start
off in rented facilities and eventually grow enough to build
churches of their own. Because the location that was chosen
currently exists as B-3 (highway business) zoning, the
Commission members felt it would be in the best interest of
the City to preserve this land for the existing zoning rather
than rezone it to allow a church facility at this site. There
are other locations where a church facility could be
constructed near the Monticello Middle School and at other
locations within the city. Unfortunately, there are no other
locations as well suited for commercial uses which would be
displaced by the proposed rezoning.
C A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie
to deny the rezoning request to rezone a 9 -acre portion of
Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway business)
zoning to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. Reason for
denial: Motion is based on the finding that the Planning
Commission members believe the commercial zone is the best use
for this particular site in its location rather than rezoning
the site to allow construction of a church facility. Motion
carried unanimously.
Oq-
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
5. Consideration of recommendingapproval of preliminary plat and
final plat of the East View residential subdivision.
Applicant, "Investors Together," Dean Hoqlund and Ren
Schwartz. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the October meeting of the Planning Commission, the East
view preliminary plat was tabled pending correction of various
plat design details and pending input from the Parks
Commission regarding park dedication. Plat design details
have now been corrected, and the Parks Commission has reviewed
the matter. On November 5, the Planning Commission reviewed
the preliminary plat again and provided a positive
recommendation as detailed later in this memo.
Following is a review of the plat and various issues.
Parcel Confiquration/Restrictive Covenants
The plat shows development of four single family residential
lots and an outlet that will likely become the site of a town -
home development. The lots created meet requirements noted by
ordinance.
A set of restrictive covenants has been prepared. Some of the
restrictions exceed requirements noted by City ordinance. For
instance, the building size requirement noted in the
restrictive covenants ( 1,040) is slightly larger than the City
minimum. In addition, building and construction plans must be
approved by "Investors Together, Inc.," hereafter referred to
as the developers. Please review the attached copy of the
covenants for more detail.
Gradinq Plan
Typically, when a subdivision Is developed, all of the lots
and easement areas are graded at the same time to assure that
proper drainage is achieved. In this case, however, the
density of trees combined with stoop grades limits the ability
to grade drainage swales at the time of platting or
immediately thereafter. It makes more sense, in this case, to
establish an overall drainage plan for the area and then
require that each lot be graded when a home is constructed on
tho lot. Attached you will find a copy of the "red -lined"
copy of the grading plan that has been approved by the City
Engineer.
I
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
Site Access
No public right-of-ways will be developed to serve the site.
Lots 1 and 2 will have direct private driveway access to
Gillard Avenue. Lots 3 and 4 will have an access easement
allowir.-, a comiron dri•ro::ay access to County Road 39. When the
common driveway is developed along the boundary between Lots 3
and 4, the existing driveway serving the original home site at
Lot 4 will be removed. The proposal calls for multi -family
residential development at Outlet A that will be served by a
single access point and an internal private driveway system.
The location of the access will be determined at a later date.
Wright County Highway Department has approved the access plan
for the five parcels created.
Park Dedication
The method for satisfying the park dedication requirement has
been the most controversial aspect of this plat. At the
October meeting of the Planning Commission, the matter was
tabled in part due to concerns about accepting the 2.8 -acre
parcel of land between County Road 39 and the Mississippi as
park dedication urea (Outlet B). Some of the problems noted
are as follows:
The location of the park requires that neighborhood users
cross a busy county road.
Development of off-street parking will be difficult due
to low/flood plain elevation.
The neighborhood park needs may require development of a
"standard" park featuring playground equipment, ball
fioldo, otc. It will be impossible to develop this type
of park at the site proposed.
in light of the problems above, the Planning Commission
referred the matter to the Parks Commission for further study.
The Parks Commission reviewed the matter on October 8, 1991.
It was the consensus of the Parks Commission that the unique
natural characteristic that the site possesses should be
preserved, and there is good reason to support placing the
land under the public domain. On the other hand, the Parka
Commission noted that due to problems noted above, it did not
make sense to accept the land for city park purposes. Rather,
the land should be under the control of the Department of
Natural Resources.
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
After the discussion, the Parks Commission unanimously passed
the following motion:
"Motion to recognize that the subject property serves a
valuable purpose to the community and acate of Minnesota
as a scenic river and fishing site; therefore, the City
should accept the site as park dedication associated with
the East View plat. Due to the river location and city
park development limitations, the property should be
under the domain and control of the Department of Natural
Resources. It should be the goal of the City to sell the
parcel to the DNR with funds obtained from the sale to be
used to fund future development of a neighborhood city
park."
Subsequent to the Parks Commission meeting, I contacted the
trails and waterways division of the DNR to determine what
interest there might be in the DNR acquiring the subject
property from the City. DNR official, Martha Rieger, visited
the site and made very positive comments about the site and
seemed interested in promoting acquisition of the site by the
DNR. However, she was very clear in stating that the DNR has
limited funds for purchase of land. She did not know how much
the DNR would be willing to pay, if anything. Reiger went on
to note that she would contact her supervisor and give me a
more detailed response soon. I hope to have better
Information on the DNR's position by the meeting.
At the Planning Commission meeting held November 5, 1991, the
Planning Commission struggled with the Issue but ultimately
developed an interesting recommendation. Before reviewing the
recommendation, I would like to outline the pro's and con's of
accepting Outlot B as the park dedication area.
It could be argued that the City should not accept Outlot B
and Instead require a $7,000 cash payment because the land
area proposed is substandard for use as a park.
It is too low and narrow to allow development of
parking, play areas, etc.
The location of the park requires that local users
cross a busy highway.
If the City accepts this land and perhaps gives it
to the DNR, or if the City keeps the land as a
passive nature area, park dedication resources
(land or cash) associated with this plat are not
available to assist in satisfying the local
noighborhood park noods.
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
Following are reasons why the City should accept the land as
park dedication.
The river front location, although undevelopable,
provides a valuable natural resource to the entire
community that should be preserved under the public
domain for all to enjoy.
2. In the future, the Krautbauer, Norell, and Sandberg
East areas are very likely to become urbanized and
will likely witness development of 120-180 homes.
outlot B will provide public access to the river
for the many people that will reside in the area.
Otherwise, the closest public access is at the east
end of Mississippi Drive near the wastewater
treatment plant.
After discussing the item at some length, the Planning
Commission made the following recommendation regarding the
park dedication. This recommendation is somewhat confusing,
so please call me if you have any questions. Before I launch
Into the recommendation, remember the park dedication amount
If taken in cash is $7,000.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The Commission recommended that the City approve the
preliminary plat with conditions noted in alternativo O1 and
accept outlot B, not as park dedication area, but as an
investment in land to be sold to the DNR. In addition to
providing this land to the City for resale by the City, the
developers must provide $30500 (1/2 the park dedication
amount) to the City to be hold by the City for a period of 18
months during which time the City will negotiate with the DNR
regarding the sale of the land. The recommendation
essentially proposes that the City and developer share the
risk that the DNR will not buy the property for an amount
equal to the park dedication fee. For example, if the City is
able to sell the land to the DNR for $7,000, then the $3,500
provided by the developer will be returned to the developer.
If, on the other hand, the City is unable to get one cent for
the land, the City will retain the $3,500 and, in essence, the
City will be covering the other half of the $7,000 park
dedication cash requirement. If the City is able to sell the
land for $5,000, the City will return $1,000 to the developer.
If the City is able to sell the land for an amount in excess
of $7,000, the proceeds will be split evenly between the
developer and the City. Okay, enough scenerios. I think you
understand.
4
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
This is a positive alternative, as it accomplishes the
following:
I. Assures that valuable river frontage is placed
under the public domain for future generations to
enjoy.
2. The City will obtain at least 1/2 of the normal
park dedication fee, and there is a chance that the
full amount (=7,000) could be recovered through the
sale of the land. IMPORTANT NOTE: The DNR
purchased land to the west of this site (see map)
in 1976 for $17,000. Outlet B of the East View
plat is certainly comparable to the land purchased
for $17,000; however, the land purchase was
completed before there were significant
restrictions against river front development.
Since Outlet B is not developable due to new laws,
the DNR may not be willing to pay as much as it did
in 1976.
3. The developers have accepted this proposal.
Under this alternative, the City would take ownership of the
land, not as a park, but as an investment to be converted to
cash if possible. It is hoped that this investment will allow
the City to obtain the full park dedication fee of $7,000
while preserving the land for public use under the domain of
the DNR.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary and final
plat of. the East View residential subdivision subject to
the following conditions:
1. County surveyor approval of the final plat.
2. Prior to City signature on the final plat, tho City
must be provided a 100 -foot oasomont area across
Outlet A for storm water drainage purposes as
described on the preliminary plat (to be submitted
at the meeting).
In conjunction with final platting, the developer
must prepare and record an accoss easement document
affecting Lots 3 and 4.
4. Restrictive covenants must be recorded at tho time
j of tinal platting.
9
10
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
5. Adopt PlEnning Commission's recommendation noted
above pertaining to park dedication, which requires
that the City obtain a letter of credit from the
developer in the amount of $3,500 (to be submitted
at the meeting).
b. Adjustment to final plat must be made as noted
prior to City signatures.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of the
East View residential subdivision or motion to table the
matter.
Council may wish to select this alternative if the
developer is unwilling to comply with any of the
conditions desired by the Council under alternative •1
above.
if Council believes that the developer should provide the
entire $7,000 up front as the required park dedication
fee, and if the developers are unwilling to pay this
amount, then this alternative should be selected. Under
this scenario, the developer could retain Outlot 8, which
{
would then remain under private control.
F C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff
concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy
of preliminary plat and final plat; Grading plan; Final
plat;
Restrictive covenants; Excerpt from subdivision
ordinanco--park
dedication roquiroment.
10
_�_.•... -- -. _ .:._ :. ;•• � =� PRELIMINARY��' ` r �AT;�.;+:
Common Driveway Yypieel "' "
r l
for Loh 3 B 9 Block 1) ' Or '
.Na SCALE
_ EAST VIEW
lb
2�. .1+`;.�1, •1- `,�J�� �'� i.d{3•...,.', 5. •Q �A+..1.11 I. •': ' �+ - �� :v.• Y ,i f / /��J
i��S1fl�it•r.q• -'':'� +�•. L, •S.SL1�C•,.,it}1+..1�L�.,P .J��.�',. _ ��r�P�'♦ ',l;Si"__-�1r/J'/� /-_.
7 +1 J., v. ;]� sti' i•`�,1 C S �,� 1 •'a.ly'.'966;41.Z.3ti' )•'�,t.' �,•' •�,!'.��+°'!„�,;.�"> _�r•GSe �. % g-7!' �!'
, •'t Jl•�IC�- ✓.`,• � i ` '•• ,� • 5, ••1�1 L�":� �' ry •�ia-)',4�..j11 a P .y f�•).'•?'' �. .a7.7�-- y, s'.'��` .' ll,.. ���+r`•:•t
.. rr Py�Jf QqsC��rrooil.ic.. ``r lY([`/..�Ct�7''f ri , t a I V 5', r',��-f r,•`. u'.�.`..�rj,�''•+� Gi • " ..' • `• /`.1
tn.,{}D-yf ' le lir .rrN.a rO ',fc!Su.jl.r 'y .�_, 'W: •L,.il' 1 , d.�. .ice` Lw •, �l� 77
:', '�Ir :wo•'a.r.rrwq'.).a44c15'Q! �'r••.. .t 'pDy.•h•�1�;'%�) � ''r�•Y• 7+ti r � - ". %v�'� �•• i'.I
.•�..a ��'I,j'.'.� 'et1)1,.l�a.�'i •;y'�H.r. }AIC'f �•� •�� J4 * ..L / -i..• 4✓/'. ,.I
•rr ..' �7 ��r 1 ,�• 74n rr�J�•y.f .�,}���..' rn r •' �..�J, yDJ�•y•.�: ��.•.+
v'�' •l� 3, `'.`C``�. 7.'.iS,F .-• µpa ,Ij '•,1 j 5r- )�Y��'. •(
�5' .�J! 1 Y••i��e��J '+• ``i f , }>rw•`#, •a _ ii. �i:�df �
,� r - r f„ 1 ,�•• 1 ,,, . i.
16 C, "t..� : •�:Y'� �''1 1�� i i If�.� �l'Wi, ?yK� f�•�{i. ' c'.: )J, � ,y 1 � '•.. `,.�.,, •
4�, � r�, •� FC' .r,.. �t- );.'1,' . Q, 1. � w' f 4:OdtR q'1 t,X� 1 '.., ,, �!a;�
,�� lr, f a ip,A ;�"• ;;�':T• '�O: r — 'k J�
:i•�'.`j=,� •,t �'°�•.1�•ILl i.t '�1�1{9{it•r1� � - e .' y' J' .v'�- 1 i
' ;'i. .�� �.'�. ,'. •1:1.1 ., }, st rAr!fCl 1. ,� j =4o0 or . '• ' �r i.L r,�-•
�,�. r� �I ,tr!�,1/:' +•_ � � - �.^!k F r Krr6G'� J .• , , r�'i_1.,� ,l_.�;r_ _ :.. _' r5 • ..� � y � �r!''`�1a
[ipt•�i;�r'�+�6*`'
• • � _ 1 � t� r i 1 . lei' :�?.� . �..�_.
',aA1 -'•• :: • � -'�/�' -� v. `i., Y' ., ;'I• r� i 5,' �. �y�?�� •—�,�_L_y _ _ - � .r►f••�����6(µi i
.''. i{, ,I��L�,.,.i�ej I Ohy�.r �r,,� � _�. � �.P .,F,.�ln��:' •1M-f''^;'j4�"e�,�i�P � , . l,i��,�i: �;• 1' `�. • " '�c,
EASTVIEW
R�vEa -•
M1551551Pp1_---'�C�GNI
wac,rt twurtt wawa. ry .
C. S. A. H. 0 _
' I OUTL0T
"— 11
W-
ls; 8 .r•..
��.. �•~��p y`.w��p,fLr l.. ._'w.�r.•rr. ...-. r...r. _n�'iunio e_.e._.__ __ ars rr •.�r.r w_i ...r. ...
wll. A.r. -_.. o - w•i•.'er� r.'_.i�u .TGT..:.i -n•s ..r. m .� ._. r r. �.��� 1r•...r rw... r - — ..� ..r.� r v y— �... rn rur w r.�e..
.. _� 1r..._ _ r��r. r.- _ _- _ w - -. a � ri�i.�• r ..w. rC.S�i'R}tT'W�_T�T..�3i: .. e. r. �_ w� �• -+w.._.. � _ _.. r�..s_
. ..... ..... .. r�...�.rZT.T .•.•' rrr._�.rrr _..nr r.._�u .. -_ w .—. ...► w. ._....
O
-59
�
GI
PREIIMIMARY-
��.. �•~��p y`.w��p,fLr l.. ._'w.�r.•rr. ...-. r...r. _n�'iunio e_.e._.__ __ ars rr •.�r.r w_i ...r. ...
wll. A.r. -_.. o - w•i•.'er� r.'_.i�u .TGT..:.i -n•s ..r. m .� ._. r r. �.��� 1r•...r rw... r - — ..� ..r.� r v y— �... rn rur w r.�e..
.. _� 1r..._ _ r��r. r.- _ _- _ w - -. a � ri�i.�• r ..w. rC.S�i'R}tT'W�_T�T..�3i: .. e. r. �_ w� �• -+w.._.. � _ _.. r�..s_
. ..... ..... .. r�...�.rZT.T .•.•' rrr._�.rrr _..nr r.._�u .. -_ w .—. ...► w. ._....
O
PRL- ,WARY PLAT
OF
EAST VIEW
GRADING PLAN N
11tt. F- ft
A..l
I TV. 0,
C,
SYMBOLS
OUT
Lot
L 14-
.4f.
Investors Together Inc'
1-0 to Res
0
TT
553 O
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
INVESTORS TOGETHER, INC. a Minnesota Corporation, fee owners,
of Lots One, Two, Tree and Four, East View, City of Monticello,
County of Wright, State of Minnesota, do hereby declare and establish
the covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth to which each of
said lots within East View, Wright County shall be subject.
1. No lot shall be used except for single family residential purposes.
2. All residences shall conform to the City of Monticello zoning and
building codes in effect at the time of the construction thereof.
All structures shall be completely finished on the exterior within
nine months after commencement of the construction thereof.
3. No structure, planting or other material shall be placed or be
permitted to remain on any lot which may damage or interfere with
the installation, maintenance and operation of any utility easments
created by the plat of East View.
4. No noxious or offensive activity shall becarried on upon any lot nor
shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or
nuisance to the neighborhood.
5. No inoperable vehicle or vehicles not currently licensed shall be
permitted to let stand upon the streets, roadways or lots in the sub-
division for more than a period of 48 hours.
6. Owners shall Install blacktop or concrete driveway within one (1)
year of occupancy. Owners shall seed or sod the front yard of their
lots within one (1) year of occupancy.
7. A one-story dwelling shall have at least 1.040 square feet of floor
space, excluding porches and garages. Split-level types of dwellings
shall have at least 960 square feet of floor space, excluding base-
munt area, porches and garages. Two-story dwallingo shall have at
least 960 square feet of floor apace on the first and second floors.
excluding porches and garages. Each residence built thereon shall
have an attached garage having at least 420 square fact of ground area.
All detached structures must match the decor of the residence. Pre-
fabricated or modular typo structures are prohibited.
8. All building designs, construction plans and sketches of exterior
appearance, for initial construction, must have prior written approval
by INVESTORS TOGETHER, INC.. its successors or assigns.
Page Two
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants - East View - Wright County
9. These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding upon
all persons and parties claiming under the declarants for a period
of ten (10) years from the date of the recording of this instrument.
They will be automatically extended unless amended, modified, ex-
tended or terminated by the owners of at least sixty percent (60%)
of the lots subject to this Declaration.
10. These covenants may be enforced by the owner of any lot in the plat
of East View. Enforcement may be by means of injunction or other
legal or equitable remedy. The Court shall grant reasonable attorney
fees and costs to the plaintiff should he or she prevail in obtaining
Court ordered relief.
INVESTORS TOGETHER, INC.
By: Kenneth J. Schwartz, President
By: Dean R. Hoglund, Secretary
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of . 1991, by Kenneth J. Schwartz, President;
and Dean R. Hoglund, Secretary; of INVESTORS TOGETHER. INC., a Minnesota
Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the
Corporation.
Notary Public
G1
t
SNARED DRiVMY EASEYRMT 00NYEYANC-9
AND
AGREEKQIT MR AhIlfWANCE
Thia Agree—nt dated this day of 1991, by and between
` , hnre r;ttar referred to as
Parties of the first Part, being the wwn4r(s) of Lot 3, East View, fright
County, Minnesota.
MID
hareinafter referred to as
Partlrs of the Second Part. being the ownerta) of tat 4, East View. Weight
County, Minnesota.
Parties do hereW agree as toliows:
That the Psrties of the first Part heroin do hereby convey to Parties of the
Second Part, a right o1 way easeaant for driveway purposes over the West 33
feet of the North 33 feat of Lot 3, Pest View.
VID
Khat the Parties of the Second Part herein do hereby convey to Parties of the
first Part, a right of way oaseeent for driveway purposes over the East 33
feet of the North 33 feat of Lot 4, East view.
In cohafderation toe the grentinng of the aforesaid driveway samw ents, the
parties of the first Pa" and Parties of the Second Part Arvin do hereby
agree to share ecfwally in the coat and expanse of awintenance and upgrading
of the aforesaid delveway oasoments an may tram time to time be required.
State of Minnesota
aa.
County Of
The foregoing was ecA+wwiedgod before ea this day of
1731, by and
Note" Public
1 01
CHAPTER 6
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC USE
SECTION:
11-6-1: Dedication Requirement
11-6-2: Cash Contribution
11-6-3: Delayed Dedication Payment
11-6-4: Purchase or Condemnation of Lands
11-6-5: Location and Configuration of Dedication
11-6-1: DEDICATION REQUIREMENT:
(A) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subdivision 2, the City
Council of Monticello shall require all developers requesting platting
or replatting of land in the city of Monticello to contribute ten
percent (108) of the final plat gross area to be dedicated for use as
either parks, playgrounds, public open space, or linear park and trail
systems or to contribute an equivalent amount of cash based on the
conditions outlined below. The form of contribution (cash or land,
or any combination thereof) and the specific area in case of land
contribution shall be decided by the City Council based upon need and
conformance with approved City plans.
(B) In order to determine the park dedication requirement, an appraisal
of the market value of the subdivision shall be provided by the
\Roo6°` developer. This appraisal shall include the appraisal of the entire
subdivision plus an appraisal of the area proposed in land if
applicable. This appraisal shall be based on the current market value
of the raw land.
0n`` (C) City Council may accept appraic3al ordered by the developer or may
., order own appraisal to arrive at the fair market value of the
PC In either
subdivision and any land proposed for park dedication.
'CO case, the developer is responsible for the costs of such appraisals.
Ct (D) Park dedication credit should not include a wetland or ponding area
�l necessary for the drainage plan of the particular subdivision.
(E) Land dedicated for park purposes should be transferred to the City of
Monticello by warranty deed.
(3/9/81, 993)
11-6-2: CASH CONTRIBUTION: All monies collected from cash contributions
shall be placed in a special fund from which only those public
uses as listed in (1) above may be constructed or improved or land for
those same uses may be acquired.
O
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TITLE XI/Chpt 6/Pogo 1
11-6-3: DELAYED DEDICATION PAYMENT: Upon petition by the developer, the
Council may approve a delay in the actual dedication of the cash
required in lieu of land until such time as development occurs on the
property being platted provided that a proper legal agreement is executed
guaranteeing such dedication. Delayed dedication payment shall include
eight percent (8B) interest per year.
11-6-4: PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF LANDS: Where a proposed park,
playground or other recreational area, proposed school site, or
other public ground that has been indicated in the official map and/or
master plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision,
such proposed public site shall be designated as such and should be
dedicated to the City, School District, or other proper governmental unit.
If the subdivider chooses not to dedicate an area in excess of the land
required under this section hereof for such proposed public site, the
Council shall be required to act to approve or disapprove the plat of the
subdivision for a period of ninety (90) days after the subdivider meets all
the provisions of the subdivision title in order to permit the Council,
School Board, or other appropriate governmental unit to consider the
proposed plat and to take the necessary steps to acquire, through purchase
or condemnation, all or part of the public site proposed under the official
map or master plan.
11-6-5: LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF DEDICATION: In such cases where
the developer is required to dedicate land area, the City
Council of the City of Monticello shall have the right to determine the
geographic location and configuration of said dedication.
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE %I/Chet 6/Pag S
Ik �c�in,4IOr% i1oW%`nt 0
d5U6 d"�1S;**% p/d,Aa
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Are public land and open spaces in the city o f
Monticello dedicated or reserved for recreation purposes.
PERCENTAGE OF GRADE: On street center line, means the distance vertically
(up or down) from the horizontal in feet and tenths of a foot for each on e
hundred (100) feet of horizontal distance.
PEDESTRIAN WAY: Is a public or private right-of-way across a block or
within a block to provide access for pedestrians and which may be used for
the installation of utility lines.
PLANNING COMMISSION: Is the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello.
PRELIMINARY PLAT: Is a tentative drawing or map of a proposed subdivision
meeting requirements herein enumerated.
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: Are contracts made between private parties as to Che
manner in which land may be used, with the view to protecting and
preserving the physical and economic integrity of any given area.
STREET: Is the public right-of-way affording primary access by pedestrians
and vehicles to abutting properties, whether designated as a street,
highway, thoroughfare, parkway, road, avenue, or boulevard.
STREET - THOROUGHFARES: Arterial Street - are those used primarily for
heavy traffic and serving as arterial trafficways between the various
districts of the community as shown in the comprehensive plan.
STREET - COLLECTOR STREETS: Are those that carry traffic from minor
streets to the major system of thoroughfares and highways, including t1lo
principal entrance streets of residential districts as shown in t110
comprehensive plan.
STREET - MINOR STREETS: Are those which are used primarily for access to
abutting properties.
STREET - MARGINAL ACCESS STREETS: Are minor streets which are parallel and
adjacent to thoroughfares and highways and which provide access to abutting
properties and protection from through traffic.
STREET - CUL-DE-SAC: Is a minor street with only one outlet and having an
appropriate torminal for the safe and convenient reversal of traff is
movement.
STREET WIDTH: Is the shortest distance botween lines of lots delineating
the street's right-of-way.
SUBDIVIDER: Is any individual, firm association, syndicate, co-
partnership, corporation, trust or other legal entity having sufficient
proprietary intorost in the land sought to bo subdividod to commence aind
maintain proceedings to subdivide the same under this ordinance.
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TITLE KI/Chpt 2/Page 2
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
6. Consideration of a request to rezone a 7 -acre parcel described,
as part of Lot 2, Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright
County, Minnesota, from AO (agricultural) zoning to R-1
(single family) and R-2 (single and two-family) zoning.
Applicants, Dean Hoolund and Ken Schwartz. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
If the City Council recommends that the preliminary plat be
approved, then the rezoning request should be considered. If
the preliminary plat is denied or tabled, it would make sense
then to do the same with the rezoning request.
The rezoning request proposes that the four parcels earmarked
for single family development be zoned for R-1 or single
family use. This zoning district designation is very
consistent with the type of land use proposed and should,
therefore, be approved. The balance of the property (2.8
acres), or Outlot A, is proposed to be developed under the R-2
(single and two-family) designation, which allows for
development of townhome units with no more than four townhome
units per structure. Outlet A is approximately 2.8 acres in
size, which provides enough room to allow 24 individual
housing units to be placed on the site.
As noted earlier, access to Outlet A will be provided by a
single driveway access, and an internal driveway system will
need to be developed to serve individual housing units on the
site. Maintenance of this driveway system will need to be
done privately and will likely be controlled through a
townhomo association. At the time of development, Outlet A
will need to be platted, at which time the City will require
documentation that a townhome association is established along
with documentation of proper access easement.
Development of townhomos at this site with a relatively high
density makes sense in that the townhome traffic will enter
directly onto a county road and will not need to pass through
lower density residential areas. Single family residential
development of this location is difficult because Wright
County will not grant individual driveway access permits to
39, and the other option of developing a frontage road will
not work because the cost to develop the road per housing unit
served is too high.
A review of the comprehensive pian shows no reason why an R-2
dovolopmont should not be allowed in this area. In terms of
geography and character of adjoining properties, the site will
create a higher density of development than will be witnessed
nearby; however, it doesn't appear that this higher density
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
will have a direct impact on the livability of the R-1 zones,
as the R-2 development area will not create any additional
traffic problems on local roads serving R-1 properties.
The City does have some control in regulating the townhome
development, as development of any structure with over two
units first requires acquisition of a conditional use permit.
The conditional use permit process provides the City with the
opportunity to assign conditions designed to mitigate any
negative impact on nearby R-1 properties.
In summary, it appears that the proposal to place an R-2
zoning district at this location is acceptable in terms of the
criteria reviewed when analyzing rezoning amendments.
Planning Commission recommended that the property be rezoned
as requested.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
1. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning
request based on the finding that the proposal is
consistent with the comprehensive plan, is consistent
with the geography and character of the adjoining land p
uses, and the need has been sufficiently demonstrated.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning
request.
Under this alternative, the Council would make a finding
that the proposal is in some way inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan, or the proposal will result in a
negative impact to the adjoining properties. This
alternative may be difficult to support, as it will be
difficult to provide ovidence that supports the finding.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative /1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the map showing proposed changes to the zoning map.
12
REZONING REQUEST
APPLICANTS: Dean Hoglund and Ren Schwarz
Proposed R-1 Zone
Proposed R-2 Zone
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
Rezoning of a 7 -acre parcel described as part of Lot 2 of
Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County,
Minnesota, from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family)
and R-2 (single and two-family) Parcel is located at
the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Gillard
Avenue and County Road 39.
Adopted this day of , 1991.
Mayor
City Administrator
0(_
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91
two car garages was intended to apply to all residential
zoning districts; therefore, the ordinance should be amended
as proposed. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearinq--Consideration of a preliminary plat of a 7 -
acre parcel descrioed as part of Lot 2 of Section 18,
Township 121, Range 24, Wriqht County, Minnesota. Applicants,
Dean Hoqlund and Ken Schwarz.
AND
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to rezone a 7 -acre,
parcel described as part of Lot 2 of Section 18, Township 121,
Range 24, Wriqht County. Minnesota, from AO (agricultural)
zoninq to R-1 (single family) and R-2 (sinq_le and two-family)
zoninq. Applicants. Dean Hoqlund and Ken Schwarz.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the requests for the
preliminary plat and the rezoning by Dean Hoglund and Ken
Schwarz. He highlighted that the information was received
late Friday afternoon and was reviewed by City staff on
Monday, noting several items that need to be completed in
regard to the plat design. O'Neill noted in a memo presented
to the Planning Commission members the items that need to be
completed prior to being presented to the City Council at
their next regular meeting on October 15, 1991.
O'Neill indicated that the developers' intent was to have all
of the items as noted on the memo completed by the next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
Clint Herbst questioned the square footage of the East view
lots in relationship to the lot size and square footage of the
Sandberg East lots. They also asked what the proposed R-2
zoning would consist of and the maximum amount of development
that could occur on Outlet A, which would be zoned R-2.
Because the land outlined on the plat as outlet B for park
dedication is a small, less desireable piece for development
of park land, the City should consider accepting cash in lieu
of land for park dedication.
The developers responded with their intent is to moot all of
the items addressed in O'Neill's memo by the next regularly
scheduled City Council meeting. Their intent is to have
restrictive covenants regulating development on these lots,
possibly including a minimum square footage requirement for
the houses. The developers indicated their intent was to
Page 5
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91
develop family residential on the R-1 portion of the property
but have no plans at this time for the development on Outlot A
with the R-2 zoning designation. The developers indicated
that they live, work, and sell real estate in this community,
and they are quite concerned with the development of the
proposed East View addition to be representative of a good
project within the community. They also indicated that Lot 2
is actually larger than what the plat shows, as there is a 50 -
foot road easement for Gillard Avenue on this lot, which would
further increase the visual effect of the present land area to
be used.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
asked for input from the Planning Commission members. Due to
the amount of items still to be completed and the fact that
the Park Board has not yet considered the park land dedication
of this new subdivision, Planning Commission members felt it
would be best to table this item until their next regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting or to set up a special
meeting to consider this item prior to the next regularly
scheduled Council meeting on October 15, 1991.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart
to table the preliminary plat and rezoning request of a 7 -acre
parcel described as Part of Lot 2 of Section 18, Township 121,
Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, to a meeting date set by
the City staff prior to the October 15, 1991, City Council
meeting date. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson
absent.
Consideration of calling a public hearing reaardinq amendments
to the zoninq ordinance map and establishment of a "BC"
(business campus) district.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the development of a
"BC" (business campus) district, the proposed amendments to
the zoning ordinance map, and calling for a public hearing.
O'Neill explained that the proposed changes to tha zoning map
would change the existing B-2 zoning in the Thomas Park
Addition to I-1 (light industrial) zoning, which is consistent
with the property just south of this addition. The area is
bounded by County Road 117 to the southerly boundary line of
the John Lundsten property and whore the northerly lino of the
Kent Kjellberg property west to Cedar Street and also the
proposed southerly extension of Cedar Street to be rezoned
from B-7 (highway businoss) and I-2 (heavy industrial) to B-4
(regional business).
Page 6
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
Consideration of approving Chamber Reimbursement Agreement for
Information Center improvements. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous Council meeting, authorization was granted to
the Public Works Director to negotiate with contractors for
the improvement of the Information Center remodeling project.
The City staff is still negotiating with contractors and is
hopeful in reducing the cost to approximately $15,500. The
Public Works Director has been finding it difficult to get a
commitment from the contractors to complete the work before
January, but he may have additional information for the
Council Tuesday night.
As you are aware, the Chamber of Commerce has agreed to
reimburse the City for the cost of improving the Information
Center estimated at $15,000 to $16,000 over a ten-year period
of time in exchange for the use of the building as their
office. The Public Works Director and myself met with the
Chamber Director and President for the purpose of developing
an agreement covering the reimbursement. Amortizing the
Improvement costs over ten years would amount to between $125
and $135 per month. Due to the additional cost the Chamber
has incurred for a part-time Director and the monthly
reimbursement amount, the Chamber would like to set the
monthly reimbursement at $100 for the first two and one-half
years, increase the payment to $166.67 for the next two and
one-half years, with the remaining balance to be negotiated by
the City Council at the end of five years. The idea was to
allow a little time for the Chamber to increase its membership
so that it would have additional revenue to support the rental
payments.
The agreement as prepared is structured similar to a rental
agreement. Since the City is not technically charging rent
but only requiring the improvement costs to be reimbursed, I
would like to call your attention to item #10 titled
"Termination and Default." This section indicates that if the
Chamber should desire to move out of the Information Center
before the and of ton years, they could still be liable for
any balance of the reimbursement costs that they have not
paid. This is Intended to protect the City for its original
$15,000 to $16,000 investment by obligating the Chamber to be
responsiblo for the entire cost, oven if they should leave
early. As noted, this is subject to modification by the City
if it so desires. As further protection for the City, item
#10 also indicates that after five years, the City has the
right to terminate this agreement should the City docido there
is a bettor use for the property because of redevelopment or
for whatever reason. Should the City roquost the Chamber
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
vacate the premises, it would only seem fair that since it is
our decision, the Chamber could be relieved of any future
reimbursement obligations. This section would not be needed
if the City Council is comfortable with guaranteeing the
Chamber a ten-year lease; but considering the City is only
receiving reimbursement for the cost it spent and not really
rent, I thought it may be wise to allow the City the
opportunity to terminate the agreement if the City had a
better use for the property. If the Council is comfortable
with providing a ten-year guarantee, this provision could be
eliminated.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the reimbursement agreement as presented. The
exact reimbursement amount and dates for the agreement
would depend on actual construction costs and when the
building is available for Chamber use.
2. Approve the reimbursement agreement with any
modifications desired by the Council. Should the Council
feel that it is not warranted to be allowed to terminate
after five years, this provision could be eliminated or
modified.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The agreement as drafted should allow the Chamber the ability
to reimburse the City for all of the improvement costs
associated with upgrading the Information Center over the next
ten years. The Chamber has agreed to be responsible for all
of the improvement costs, even if they choose to relocate
before the end of ten years. Probably the most controversial
provision may be the City's right to terminate the agreement
after five years. I inserted this provision to allow the City
the opportunity to ask the Chamber to move if the City
determines it has a better use for the property because of
redevelopment or another public purpose. This would not lock
us into a ton -year lease since we aro really providing a low-
cost benefit for the Chamber. In all likelihood, there may
not bo any reason to terminate after five years, but it does
give the City the option if necessary.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Reimbursement Agreement.
14
AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT
OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS - INFORMATION CENTER
This agreement, made and entered into this day of
1991, by and between the City of Monticello (owner)
and the Monticello Chamber of Commerce in consideration for
reimbursement of $ in remodeling cost incurred by the
City (owner) at the premises situated at 205 South Pine Street,
part of Lot 6, Block 35, city of Monticello, the City hereby agrees
to allow the Monticello Chamber of Commerce the use of the
described facility for a period of ten (10) years, commencing
and ending unless
otherwise earlier terminated as provided herein, on the following
terms and conditions:
1. The Chamber agrees to reimburse the City the total sum of
$ payable in monthly installments over a ten
(10) year period as follows:
A. For the 30 -month period through
$100.00 per month (total $3,000).
B. For the 30 -month period through
, $166.67 per month (total $5,000).
C. At the end of five (5) years, the remaining balance
of $ may be renegotiated but shall not
be less than $133.33 per month for the remaining 60
month term of lease.
2. Use of Premises. The premises shall not be used by the
Chamber for any purpose other than Chamber activities
without the written permission of City.
3. Alterations and imerovements. The Chamber shall make no
alterations to tho buildings on the promises or construct
any buildings or make any other improvements to premises
without the prior written consent of owner.
4. Maintenance and Repair and Utilities. The Chamber shall
be responsible for all normal repairs and incidental
maintenance of leased space, including snow removal
around entrance. The Chamber shall also be responsible
for all utilities including host, electricity, sowor, and
water. The City shall keep the exterior of the promises
In reasonable repair during the term of this agreement
and shall maintain the grounds and snow removal of public
sidewalks on promises.
INFO LEASE: 11/4/91 Pago 1
5. Insurance. The City shall maintain insurance coverage on
the building structure, and the Chamber shall be
responsible for maintaining insurance coverage on any
personal property or contents within the building. The
Chamber shall also provide and maintain in force public
liability insurance coverage and name the City as a co-
insured.
6. Waiver of Subroqation. All insurance policies carried by
either party pursuant to this agreement shall contain
clauses by which the insurer waives all subrogation
ric„lhts which it may have against either party hereto and
against their respective insurers. The parties hereto,
on behalf of themselves and their respective insurers,
waive such subrogation rights. In addition to the
foregoing, the Chamber agrees to name the city as an
additional insured on any insurance policies required
herounder.
7. Hold Harmless. The Chamber shall hold City harmless from
any damage suffered by any person arising out of
Chamber's use or control of premises and shall defend
City against any claims against lessor arising from
Chamber's use or control over the premises.
B. Taxes. City will be responsible for the real estate
taxes during the terms of this lease.
9. Assignment and Sublettinq. The Chamber shall not assign
this agreement or sublet any concession or license to use
the premises or any part thereof without written
permission of the City.
10. Termination and Default. If any default occurs in
payment of monthly installments, at the time horoin
be fora specified, or if any default is made in
pe rformanco of or compliance with any other torm or
condition hereof, this agroement, at the option of the
City, may be terminated.
The City (owner) reserves the right to terminate this
agroement and the Chamber's use of premises after 60
months from date of agreement, upon 90 days written
notice. Should owner exercise this option, the Chamber's
remaining financial obligations as specified in Section I
shall be terminated.
INFO LEASEi 11/4/91 page 2 G)
7
If the Chamber desires to vacate premises prior to
the Chamber acknowledges and agrees that
any remaining improvement costs not yet reimbursed shall
still be payable and the obligation of the Chamber unless
modified by the City. The Chamber agrees to pay all of
the City's costs, including reasonable attorney's fees,
in the event legal action is necessary to obtain
reimbursement of the unpaid improvement costs.
11. Applicable Law. The Chamber shall abide by all
applicable statutes, administrative regulations, and
ordinances covering Chamber's use of the property.
12. Heirs and Assigns. The covenants and conditions herein
contained shall apply to and bind the heirs, legal
representatives, and assigns of the parties hereto, and
all covenants are to be construed as conditions of this
reimbursement agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
reimbursement agreement this day of ,
1991.
Monticello Chamber President City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
es.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT }
On this day of , 1991, before me
personally appeared to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed.
Notary Public
INFO LEASE: 11/4/91 Pego 3 0
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
8. Consideration of amending provisions within the Cardinal Hills
and Briar Oakes development agreements. (R. W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Because of last week's unexpected storm of the century, the
construction projects occurring within the Cardinal Hills and
Briar Oakes Estate developments have pretty much come to a
halt. In both developments, sanitary sewer and water mains
have been completed, but it does not appear feasible to
continue construction in regard to bituminous paving within
either development. The Cardinal Hills plat does have curb
and gutter Installed, and curbing was scheduled for last
Friday but was terminated because of the snow storm.
A construction meeting was recently held between the City
Engineer, City staff, developers, contractors, and utility
company representatives to discuss the status and time table
for completing the projects. While it is obvious that
completing the bituminous paving would not be possible this
fall, it did create a problem in both developments in that
homes are currently under construction and will be ready for
occupancy before next spring. Within the Cardinal Hills
development, up to ten homes were scheduled to be occupied
before spring, and in Briar Oakes, one home is ready for
occupancy within ten days. According to our development
agreements with both plate, no occupancy is to take place
until all the streets have been paved. In addition, the City
normally does not take over maintenance of any new street
until it has been paved and accepted.
During our construction meeting, it was determined that the
developers and/or the contractor could be responsible for any
additional coat associated with preparing the streets for
paving next spring. Because a hardship could exist if the
City did not allow the existing homes which were issued
building permits to be occupied before spring, the City Public
Works Department is comfortable with agreeing to plow the
streets during the winter, but it would not be the City's
responsibility to do any other maintenance or repair the
damaged subgrado before paving next spring. Only minor work
has to be completed on the sower and water improvements by the
contractor before the homes can be occupied.
The Council is asked to approve this amendment to the
dovelopor's agreement, which would allow the buildings to be
occupied without a completed bituminous street surface, with
the understanding that the City would be responsiblo for snow
removal only and that any additional expenso occurred by the
City In maintaining these stroets would be the responsibility
of the developers.
15
Council Agenda - 11/12/41
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an amendment to the development agreements with
Briar Oakes Estate and Cardinal Hills developments
allowing occupancy of homes issued building permits
without the streets being completed. This amendment
would make the City responsible for snow plowing but no
other maintenance.
2. Do not amend the development agreements. This would, in
effect, deny occupancy to any of the homes currently
under construction, which may cause hardships for a
number of families. The public works crew did not feel
that snow removal would be a problem as long as the City
is not responsible for any damage to the road surface or
curbing that may result.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since it appears unlikely that the weather will allow any
paving to be completed yet this fall, it seems reasonable to
make an exception to our normal policy and allow occupancy to
take place without the streets being completed. Actual paving
r may not be able to be completed until the end of May or early
June next year, and thore could be as many as a dozen or more
homes ready to be occupied by early next year. As long as the
City is not responsible for any damage to the road base that
may occur because of our plowing activities, the staff is
comfortable with amending our development agreement.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Sections of development agreement requiring Council approval
for amendments.
16
l �R,AR U�9�Es f' CA 011-14t 14f / If
DFvtcoPMEN% AGeF�...F•ur
Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the.
Developer shall be grounds for denial of building
permits, including all or part of said plat sold to
third parties.
D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence,
clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is
for any reason held invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of
this Agreement.
E. So long as the City uses its best efforts to
construct the petition items, Developer agrees to
assume the risk of damage to Developer attributable
to any delays in completing the petition items. +:
F../. -No one may occupy a building for which a building
permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent
basis until sanitary sewer and water lines have/
been installed, hooked up, tested, and approved byS~—
the City, and until the streets needed for access
have been paved with a bituminous surface.
The action or inaction of the City shall not
constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions
of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or
waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties
and approved by written resolution of the City
Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal
action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a
waiver or release.
H. The Developer represents to the City that, to the
best of the Developer's knowledge, the plat does
not require an environmental assessment worksheet
or an environmental impact statement. The City
hereby waives its right to require an environmental
assessment worksheet provided, however, that in the
event that subsequent facts become known to the
City that the City's reasonable judgment indicates
a need for an environmental assessment worksheet,
an environmental assessment worksheet shall be
prepared in compliance with applicable legal
requirements. Developer snail reimburse the City
for all expenses, including staff time and
attorneys' fees, that the City incurs in connection
with the preparation of the environmental
assessment worksheet.
I. Future residents of the plat shall not be deemed to
be third party beneficiaries of this Agreement.
BRIAGREE.TwD: 7/25/91 Pago 10
0
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
Consideration of aoorovina partial payment and accenting
aerformance bond for fire hall oaintina contract--Lindbera b
Associates. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This past summer, the Council authorized the expenditure of
approximately ;8,000 for the refinishing of the siding on the
new fire hall. As you may recall, the City staff did not feel
the finish on the siding was holding up very well, and Gary
Anderson had contacted D.L. Anderson b Associates, the
original contractor responsible for the initial finish
material, to indicate our dissatisfaction with the appearance.
Representatives of D.L. Anderson b Associates had viewed the
building and agreed to supply the material for recoating and
restaining the building free of charge. Specifications were
also prepared by the manufacturer, Sikkons Wood Finishing
Products, which specified that the eastern exposure of the
building should have all old coatings removed by using some
type of stripping material with three coats reapplied. The
balance of the building was specified to have two coatings.
The City received a bid from Erickson Protective Coatings,
Inc., of Long Lake, Minnesota, to complete the project per
specifications for a total amount of $8,926. In the meantime,
another quotation was received from Lindberg b Associates, who
Indicated they would perform the contract for $8,000. As a
result, the Council authorized awarding the contract to the
lower cost bidder, Lindberg 6 Associates.
The project was recently completed by Lindberg's; but in
viewing the finished work, it became apparent that Lindbcrg's
did not follow all of the specifications in that the old
material was not removed on the east wall as specified.
Lindberg b Associates indicated they did not know they had to
strip the material on the east side and have questioned the
necessity to do so when the appearance of the building will be
different on the oast side versus the other sides. It was the
recommendation of D.L. Anderson 6 Associates through the
specifications that removing of the old material would be
necessary to insure that their product retains its useful life
of 3-5 years. At this point, the problem is Lindberg b
Associates did not complete the project according to
specifications, and the question is whether the job is
acceptable the way it was performed or whether the City should
require Lindberg's to remove all material on the oast side and
ro-do it according to specifications.
Gary and myself have had two meetings with Lindberg
representatives to discuss the issue, and it is obvious that
at a minimum, a reduction In the contract should occur If the
Council Agenda - 11112/91
job is acceptable to the City. The first quotation the City
received indicated that removing the old stain along with
applying three new coats was bid at over $4,800. Although
Lindberg's did not break down their bid accordingly, I have to
assume that if we required the building to be restripped on
the east side and three new coats applied, it could cost us
$4,800 in the future to have this accomplished. Since it is
no longer practical to have it done this fall, Lindberg 6
Associates are requesting at least a partial payment for the
work they have completed, and they are proposing a reduction
in the contract totaling $1,600 be approved along with a
performance bond being supplied, which would guarantee that
they will complete the job as specified in the spring of 1992.
If this is acceptable, the performance bond guarantee would
have to be approximately $3,200, which in addition to the
$1,600 reduction in the contract would allow the City
sufficient funds to have another contractor complete the work
If Lindberg's did not fulfill their obligation.
Lindberg b Associates do not feel it is necessary to remove
the existing material and rostain, as they feel the coating on
the oast side is now no different than the rest of the
building. They acknowledge that they did not follow the
specifications and are willing to provide the bond if the City
so desires. The only other way to insure that the material
applied does hold up for at least three years is to require
some type of guarantee for three years, which Lindberg's does
not feel they could supply. The bottom line is, it appears
the only way for Lindberg's to meet the specifications will be
to return in the spring and completely strip the east side and
re -apply three new coats of material, which may have to be
colored to match the rest of the building.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Council could approve a partial payment totaling $6,400
(a $1,600 reduction from their contract) contingent upon
Lindberg's providing a performance bond totaling an
additional $3,200 to guarantee the east wall of tho
building is redone in the spring according to the
specifications.
2. The Council could agree to accept tho work as performed
and make a final payment totaling $6,400 without
requiring the east wail to be redone next year.
Under this option, the City would save $1,600 but have no
guarantee that the material will last or weather the same
as the other sides. Lindberg 6 Associates indicated if
the City is willing to accept this reduction in the
contract, they will guarantee only in writ ing that if the
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
c.
east side deteriorates faster than the remaining three
sides within a three-year period of time, they will
supply free labor to then remove all material and
refinish. This would not be a guarantee through a
performance bond but only their word.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the City has had problems with the appearance of the
fire hall since it's been built, we had hoped that this
staining project, if done according to the specifications
prepared, would solve future problems. Since it's apparent
that the specifications were not followed, it again becomes
questionable whether the City will experience deterioriation
problems on the east side as in the past. It may be best for
everyone if the City requires that Lindberg's complete the
project according to the specifications; and as a result,
withhold $1,600 plus require a $3,200 performance bond and
have the contractor complete the project next spring according
to the specifications prepared.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
/ Copy of specifications for fire hall refinishing.
I
CE
J U 1 - 10-9 1 M.ON 1 3 34 D L caN DE R9 0N& A9SID -
P
(April 16, 1991)
redwood siding. The surface was coated in 1937 with two
coots of CetolHLS and one lop coat of Cetol Filter 7.
AKZO
Coat Intl Ur vtslun
has to be removed. On the other locations of the bit ildi11h
SIKKF,NS WOODFINISI-IES APPLICATION SPECIFICATION
Fire Station - West, Sixth Street
Speeifi.•arion 1/91104- — --- .-----
OENF.RAI_ INFORMATION
This fire station is accented with vertical smooth California
(April 16, 1991)
redwood siding. The surface was coated in 1937 with two
coots of CetolHLS and one lop coat of Cetol Filter 7.
Fcpecially on the east side, the system is deteriorating and
has to be removed. On the other locations of the bit ildi11h
the system is partly deteriorated, but has to be maimainlJ
before damage occurs.
NOTE„ Care should be taken with the sprinkler systern.
At the moment, some sprinklers are wetting the siding.
Before doing the recons doh, this should be corrected.
RMUCAMN
.,nud
PRIEPARATII)N
Remove a Id c LIn c with a wax free chen,lcal paint 4'
Eastern Exposure
an power was not to exceed 500 pounds of ,later
/
pressure per square inch) with clean water. Allow indry
for three dry days.
•
Sndiutn hydrodde type of strippers hnve to be neutralized.
Make sure you follow the InslructIons or advice of the
manufacturer,
LnrHrI211Ienk4LBlte Fuaei (Aise for nail rums, water
mar�tt.)
Apply by garden sprayer on o%nlle acid solution (dissolve 4
ouncesof oxalic acid crystals In 1 gallon of wane "ver).
Let it work for 15 to 20 minutes, Power wash (nut to
exceed 500 pounds of water pressure per square inch) with
clear, venter. Repeating may be necessary Prier results.
Allow to dry for three dry days.
— ilkF ens
l�
a,:a GVJ•L':IM
DI!;�Ih1 IWIArS
0o eo,io6+
ua,.w..eo7
9
D9
�
000
tri �,UAeS 000
'
IP^01 All• f :x9
3!5
L . L . AN DER 9 [YNcr. F+SS0C . P. OP
mss-% =---
Coatings 019ston
Drr, r,,me FN{n¢5
PREPARATION
Spray the surface wet with water. Using a "garden spry>•er'
mixture
Southern, Western air
type applicator, sprayy app ly a o two ounces of Tri•
Phosphate liquid household
Northern Exposures
Sodium (TSP one quart of
bleach and diree quarts of water. Let the cleaning solution
"work° on the substrate for 15 to 20 minutes to clean the
surface. Power wash (not to exceed 500 pounds of wnicr
pressure per square inch) with clean water.
Allow the siding to thoroughly dry for three days.
CAULKING -
Caulk with an acrylic or urethane based caulking along the
window frames and the affected areas (joinis, cracks find
crevices, etc.) where molslure can enter into the siding,
SYSTEM
Eastern Exposure
1 coat of Ceiol HLS fit selected color
2 coats of Cetol 61.31 In selccted color
Southern, Western arc
1 coat of Cetol HLS In selected color
Northern Exposure
1 coat of Cetol 61.31 (heavy coat in selected cttinr)
All of the Cetol HLS coats should be applied with a lung
hair black china nature bristle brush and the Cetol 81.31
eonis with a quality long hair mixture of nylon/polyester
bristle brush. Cro%% hrnsh and finish along the wood groin,
maintaining a wet edge. The coating should be brushed
evenly, free of brush marks, sac% runs and with no
appearance of poor workmanship.
•
Coverage of the Cetol NLS will be approximately 350
square feet per gallon.
•
Coverage of the Cetol BL 3l will be oppru.rimetcly 350
square feet per gallon.
Cetol HIS is recoatnble after approxlmntclyy 16 hours and
Cetol P1.31 Is recontable after approxinrotely 4 hours at 70
degrees F and 65010 relative humidity.
alMMan,
PRECAUTIONS
The total system of Ceinl HLS and Cetol BLJI shntTJTi`—
applied within a Limo period of 30 days.
•ro Crea••ser
9r(p)hf f,niN.3
10 ac. tr'O
h •ry. �u a q.;p r. tC., .
rp i,U3;g:h0aC0
.] IJ I l— t 0--P 1 NON 1 8 : 5-S D. L.. n N D E R S O N IL A S S ,J C O. Q G
!-�'l� co,we, oidno�
PRECAU111ONS Cont'd The redwood substrate should be thoroughly dry (Ices ilial)
1867c moisture content) for all coating applications.
The Cetol FILS and Cetol BL31 should be applied only in
temperatures ranging from 50 degrees F to 90 degrees F
being careful not to apply in st= direct sunlight or nn a
hal surface,
• One maintenance coat of Cetol B11-31 is to be applied
approximntely every three years to maintain proper laver
thickness of this protective coaling system.
• The Cleaning Preparation of the Paint System Information
of this specification is applicable for a Perlod of up to six
months of the initial dating (April 16, 1971).
1
This specification was compiled by Akzo Coatings Inc.,
l Decorative Finishes Technical Department. Any
additional questions may be directed to Ed Baeckelandr,
Teclinical Support Manager at 800.833.7288.
9 P 0 00. 1U0r,ct %u 4$00 1. ?CA !
1.1 Il 'l16lh01GG
.....?.... e•
Council Agenda - 11/12/91
30. Consideration of bids for traffic signal at the intersection
of CSAR 75, CSAR 39, and Countv Road 118, and consideration of
award. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The bids for the traffic signal project at the intersection of
CSAR 75, CSAR 39, and County Road 118 were opened on Friday,
November 8, at 10:00 a.m. The bids are being reviewed and
checked, and more information will be presented at the Tuesday
evening's meeting.
20
FY 'I'llAT 1'l I1S
11 A TRUE AND CORREC.; I-
TAl1Ul KHON 01: Tl IE BIDS AS
RECE-IM-D ON:
DATE: Numoiber 8. 1991
BY:
Ronald D. May. 11.1:.
.481 5-..- ..111. _..__.... _.:
... .�
0
c:
Bo66y * 8L -T w
IIIU'1'AUUIXI'ION
S'1'Itlslsl'
l:l)NS'I'ItUCI'll►N AND APPURTENANTWORK
I'I(OJIiCI' NO. 19914
I"Olt'I'11E,
CI'1'1' OI MON'1'ICIs1,1.O,
MINNESOTA
RIDS OPE.NF.1/:
Nim-mhcr It. 1491
UI(1(-SCI11'sl,lsN•M1IAI'1;1(ON
IU:IIU a.w.
&i ASSOCIATES, INC.
l;t)N'I'ItAt'1'trlt
1{11) SE(AI I Y
'TOTAL I911)
CV
-7 r,�60 i
7/99/ �—
WpK 6,tr C-icggI'c
s %.
60 -150 °=
i
GY.
F187R1C
cERVlcI'!' ®
; '7
"-
� ! � �l
C'/O��
��L,ggjc. a)
s
G P / � � -
FY 'I'llAT 1'l I1S
11 A TRUE AND CORREC.; I-
TAl1Ul KHON 01: Tl IE BIDS AS
RECE-IM-D ON:
DATE: Numoiber 8. 1991
BY:
Ronald D. May. 11.1:.
.481 5-..- ..111. _..__.... _.:
... .�
0
James F. Powers
Chief Deputy
Don B. Lindell
Lieutenant
a
WRIGHT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
DON HOZEMPA
SHERIFF
10 N.W, 211d Street
Bullato. Minnesota 55313
October 10, 1991
John Simola, Public Works Director
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, Mn. 99362
Dear John,
811 EMERGENCY
Buffalo 682-1162
Mello 473-6673
Monticello 295-2533
Delano 972-2924
CokalO 286-5454
Annond.1. 274-3035
Enclosed are the result of the traffic survey conducted on Co. Rd.
79 in Monticello this week. The survey was performed Deputy Norman
Moro, a 20 plus year veteran officer who has conducted many of
these types of surveys in the poet in hie employ with Buffalo P.D.
Deputy Moro used two different vehicles during the survey periods.
One is a red 1990 Chevrolet Lumina soden, and the other is a
charcoal gray 1989 Chevrolet Celebrity.
The dates, times and location should be self explanatory, but it
should be noted that included in the truck category are buses.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
�Inceroly / n
Don Lindell, Chief Deputy
Cal Sheriff Don Hosempo
Mayne Pingaloon, Wright Co. Hwy. Engineer
00,
/ TRAFFIC SURVEY MONTICELLO EAST BOUND EAST BROADWAY AND HENNIPEN ST.
0905 THRU 1010 HRS: 10/8/91
1
CARS EAST BOUND 113 AVERAGE SPEED: 36.6 MPH OVER 40 MPH 34
CARS WEST BOUND 70 AVERAGE SPEED: 35.02 MPH OVER 40 MPH 15
TRUCKS EAST BOUND 13 AVERAGE SPEED: 35.8 MPH OVER 40 MPH 2
TRUCKS WEST BOUND 10 AVERAGE SPEED: 36.2 MPH OVER 40 MPH 3
TOTAL VEHICLES CHECKF,>: 206
SURVEY EAST BOUND EAST BROADWAY AND HENNIPEN ST 1400 HRS to 1510 HRS
CAR EAST BOUND 123 AVERAGE SPEED: 36.71 MPH OVER 40 MPH 33
CARS WEST BOUND 75 AVERAGE SPEED: 34.69 MPH OVER 40 MPH 6
(RUCKS EAST BOUND 24 AVERAGE SPEED: 35.62 MPH OVER 40 MPH 2
TRUCKS WEST BOUND 17 AVERAGE SPEED: 35.47 MPH OVER 40 MPH 5
10/9/91 SURVEY EAST BROADWAY AND HENNIPEN ST MONTICELLO
0610 to 0715
CARS EAST BOUND 178 AVERAGE SPEED: 37.85 MPH OVER 40 MPH 55
(_CARS WEST BOUND 46 AVERAGE SPEED: 36.19 MPH OVER 40 MPH 9
TRUCKS EAST BOUND 19 AVERAGE SPEED: 37.10 MPH OVER 40 MPH 6
TRUCKS WEST BOUND 3 AVERAGE SPEED: 38.33 MPH OVER 40 MPH 2
TRAFFIC SURVEY WEST BOUND BROADWAY AND CHESTNUT 10/10/91 0600 to 071.
CARS EAST BOUND 125 AVERAGE SPEED 36.09MPH over 40 MPH 23
CARS WEST BOUND 171 AVERAGE SPEED 34.84 MPH OVER 40 MPH 19
TRUCKS EAST BOUND 4 AVERAGE SPEED 32.0 MPH OVER 40 MPH 0
TRUCKS WEST BOUND 9 AVERAGE SPEED 30.66 MPH OVER 40 MPH 0
TRAFFIC SURVEY
WEST BROADWAY
AND CHESTNUT 10/9/91
1410 to 1605
CARS EAST BOUND 124
AVERAGE
SPEED
34.83 MPH
OVER 40
MPH
18
CARS WEST BOUND 228
AVERAGE
SPEED
34.45 MPH
OVER 40
MPH
30
TRUCKS EAST BOUND 6
AVERAGE
SPEED
31.5 MPH
OVER 40
MPH
0
TRUCKS WEST BOUND 19
AVERAGE
SPEED
32.05 MPH
OVER 40
MPH
1
TRAFFIC SURVEY WEST BOUND BROADWAY AND CHESTNUT 10/10/91 0600 to 071.
CARS EAST BOUND 125 AVERAGE SPEED 36.09MPH over 40 MPH 23
CARS WEST BOUND 171 AVERAGE SPEED 34.84 MPH OVER 40 MPH 19
TRUCKS EAST BOUND 4 AVERAGE SPEED 32.0 MPH OVER 40 MPH 0
TRUCKS WEST BOUND 9 AVERAGE SPEED 30.66 MPH OVER 40 MPH 0
J .—.!I — 2 9 — ? 1 PI r'r rl 1 ._ 1•1 R 1 -7. 11 '1' _ '1 •, r' 1•1 D F . 0 1
ROARO OF CO'J.1TY COMMISSIONERS
MRIGXT COOrrtY, M1Y11Cr0TA
DOto S.pt«eor 71�1•dl __Po ^•ol utl On Ao. �, ,____ __
Motion by Conniaofoncr_ Seconded by Comiaaloner ,_—_
me w«ly ee.rd of Cael.aoea. Wer vrryhl ca«Iy Cow n.r.ny
r •S••rl tb Cetyl oleo R! Tr•e•porb el« Io wte es• meosr•ry
le••r ela•tl en is d•t•, •1•• tw• . •• wel• •:a a.l• •p«d r• er o•la•0
l0 6•etlo• 169.II. 6•Ddlrt•lee i or ntr:x. lt•tuw e: tn• roll:..!
arlrwt [aunty
CSAR 71 1— CSI. 39 to Orchard load
rut pG
MCAlpinny„�-„_ —� Mr Al pl ns
Ooden rl•f_��_ �— Reewwrl n/
Cn •crow rrry•tto��_____
unite nelaeq,-
achllla.scred.htllvrac fi
STATE Or M1a:1690fA1
so.
County of Yrldht 1
I'
RtcMrd W. Roman, duly appotnted. yuellllod, and act tnd clam is 1•
County Due re forenu County et trrldht, Ful• of �lnneeotn, de MreDy acct U/
Chet 1 have ",I” rd tlrt fOtepoln0 copy of a lotofutlon or ..tion With the
orlp
In
.1 1.".. of aM proCeedlnd• of the Basta of Count �l eco—laolennre.
W, ht Count Mlnnraat et the lr ateelon held on lhe�dor el
• «• 1. 9i nor on Iu• In wry e/Iles. and have feuwd Www
Ramo to o uua end couao� copy thwraol. r
apnea• wy hand and of "alai anal at voltaic, Rlnneeots. this 23r0 Car of
��,lrrt.r Id, _�1�•
TSwTea:r Jlw:Id--"'
aaaaaae
ICA r 1 Il cap p aaj T r A aa•aa••e•aa
FROM.
PHONE:
W: Cil,Poe�j i( N eo.
W 01.0 76h - F,