City Council Agenda Packet 06-13-1994AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 13, 1994 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 23, 1994.
:3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Legislative session update by Representative Mark Okun.
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution ordering project and
authorizing preparation of plans and specifications - Meadow Oak storm
sewer.
G. Consideration of accepting the 1993 Audit lieport for the City of Monticello.
7. Consideration of a variance request which would allow placement of a pylon
sign within the required setback area. Applicant, Champion Auto (Warnert
Automotive).
8. Review status of development agreement negotiations - Country Club
Manor, Outlet A.
9. Consideration of a request to amend the City open burning ordinance.
10. Consideration of approving open hurning permit - Clen Posusta - AMAX
Storage.
11. Consideration of annual municipal maintenance agreement, with Wright
County, and consideration of access agreement outlining Cily use of county
right-of-way for ISTEA pathway.
12. Consideration of advertising for hids for demolition of the old (;ille house
and appurtenances at 1324 West Broadway.
13. Consideration of change Order p I for City Traject, 93.1 W, ChlorinationI
1lechloiimation Project at the wastewater treatment plant..
14. Consideration Of it resolution declaring intent to reimburse project costs
through it future bond sale --Project 93.1'20.
Y
15. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses.
16. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 23,1994 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith,
Brad Fyle
Members Absent: None.
2. Consideration of anoroval of minutes of the regular meeting held Mav 9,
1994.
Shirley Anderson requested that item k10 be amended to include the City
Attorney's opinion with regard to the conflict of interest question pertaining
to Councilmember Olsen's vote on the EmmerichfNein rezoning
comprehensive plan amendment request.
Rick Wolfsteller requested that it be noted that a third proposal was
submitted by Vic Hellman to purchase and develop Outlots C and D. This
proposal arrived three days after the submittal date requirement and
offered less cash per acre than the two other proposals.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve the meeting minutes as updated. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/oetitions. reauests. and complaints.
A. Representatives from the Senior Citizens Board were present to
personally thank the City Council for supporting the Senior Center
remodeling project. It was noted that the project has resulted in
improved lighting, better ventilation through installation of windows,
and greatly improved bathroom facilities. The Senior Citizens Board
invited the City Council and staff to an open house scheduled for
June 7 from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
B. The City Assessor was present to identify adjustments to market
values of six properties arising from the recent Board of Review
meeting. The adjustments are as follows:
155.012.001050 Richard Tigue
1994 EMV $96,100 Reduced to $92,900
155-016.00uO10 Douglas Stokes
1994 EMV $79,600 Reduced to $74,000
Page 1 9
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
155-010-067100
D. Pitt
1994 EMV $54,500
Reduced to $42,400
155-010-058010
Roman Brauch
1994 EMV $116,300
Reduced to $112,400
155-044-004120
Michael Beck
1994 EMV $123,700
NO CHANGE
155-015-011030
Frederick Hickman
1994 EMV $83,900
Reduced to $70,600
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Patty Olsen to accept the report provided by the City Assessor.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Clint Herbst mentioned that he had received a few calls regarding
the Emmerich/]dein zoning ordinance amendment and comprehensive
plan adjustments approved at the previous meeting. The calls
pertained to a perceived conflict of interest for Councilmember Olsen.
Herbst noted that the best way to run government is to keep it up on
the table. He suggested that the City Council refer the conflict of
interest question to the Attorney General.
Herbst went on to make a motion to submit information regarding
the case as presented to the Attorney General for an opinion. Patty
Olsen seconded the motion and noted that she was comfortable that
she was within her rights to vote on the issue without violating
conflict of interest statutes. She would welcome an Attorney
General's opinion if this is what it takes to clear the air.
Warren Smith noted that he does not object to submitting the
question to the Attorney General; however, he felt the City Attorney
did a thorough job of reviewing the situation and that, therefore,
referral of the matter to the Attorney General is highly unnecessary.
Patty Olsen then withdrew her second of the motion because the
motion concerned her directly. The motion was then seconded by
Shirley Anderson. Voting in favor of the motion: Brad Fyle, Shirley
Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith. Abstaining: Patty Olsen.
Public Henrico: --Consideration of it resolution vacating a portion of
undevelooed 7th Street, Petitioner. Citv of Monticello.
Rick Wulfsteller noted that at the previous meeting, Council granted
preliminary approval of the concept of selling a remnant portion of the 7th
Street right-of-way that was isolated when 7th Street was realigned in
Page 2 0
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
conjunction with development of 7th Street west of Locust. Wolfsteller
noted that in order for the City to convey the remnant parcel to Land
Projects Partnership, the remnant portion of 7th Street must be formally
vacated.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the
public, the hearing was closed.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to vacate the portion of 7th Street lying west of Locust and
agree to accept the offer of $18,000 for the parcel from Land Projects
Partnership. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 94-16.
Consideration of a conditional use uermit allowine a church facility to
operate in an R-1 zone. Aoolicant. A Glorious Church.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed City Council that A Glorious
Church requests that Council grant a conditional use permit allowing a
church facility to develop in an R-1 zone. The request is nearly identical to
the request approved by the City Council on November 13. 1990. O'Neill
noted that the only aspect of the site plan proposal for the facility that has
changed since the previous approval is a request that installation of parking
and landscaping be deferred one construction season subsequent to the
season in which the church facility is built. O'Neill noted that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit request as
requested. It was their view that this precedent allowing deferral of
parking and landscaping is acceptable because it is limited to church
facilities in R-1 zones and does not apply to other institutional and
commercial developments in other zoning districts.
Warren Smith noted that the City loses its leverage to require parking lot
and landscaping improvements once an occupancy permit is granted. Dan
Gassler recognized Smith's concern but noted that his congregation has had
success with its fund raising relating to development of the church. It has
paid off the cost of the property and associated assessments and is now in
position to develop the facility. Gassler expressed his confidence that funds
will be available to complete the parking lot and landscaping within the
requirements of the conditional use permit as proposed by the Planning
Commission.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve the conditional use permit request as reconunended
by the Planning Commission with the additional requirement that an
easement be provided to convey storm water from the south edge of the
Page 3 9
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
property to the County Road 39 ditch system. The precise location of the
easement is to be defined jointly by City staff and church representatives.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Consideration of a variance request which would allow placement of a sign
on a public right-of-way. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the Monticello -Big
Lake Hospital District requests permission to place a pylon sign near the
canopy serving the new Hospital District clinic addition. The variance is
needed because a sign at the proposed location would place it in the green
area of Hart Boulevard. Under normal circumstances, there would be little
chance for approval of this request: however, this situation is unique
because the location proposed for the sign is in an area that is proposed to
he vacated at some point in the future under the plan reviewed and
approved jointly by the City and the Hospital District.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to grant a variance allowing placement of a sign on a public
right-of-way based on the likelihood that Hart Boulevard will be vacated in
the near future. The variance is contingent on the following:
1. The Hospital District shall enter into an agreement with the
City indemnifying the City of any liabilities associated with
placement of the sign in the boulevard. The agreement must
also state that the sign will be removed by the Hospital District
in the event that the street vacation does not occur within the
time frame identified under condition q2.
2. The Hospital District must execute the redevelopment of their
parking lot and the associated street vacation process must he
completed within one year after CSAH 75 is upgraded to a
four -lane highway.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Consideration of allowing Country Club Manor hallfield to be reserved for,
structured practices by youth teams.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the City had received
some complaints from some residents adjoining Country Club Manor
regarding the use of the Country Club Manor Park by a youth ball team for
practice. O'Neill noted that a current policy exists that does not allow
structured games scheduled through organized leagues to be played at the
Country Club Manor Park. This rule was established because the park is
an isolated facility imbedded in the back yards of a number of homes.
Page 4 -CJ
1,
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
Structured games bring people from outside the neighborhood, which results
in on -street parking affecting traffic safety in the neighborhood and
livability of residences in the area. Council was asked to consider whether
or not it is appropriate to allow the field to be reserved for structured
practices by youth teams from outside the neighborhood.
Clint Herbst stated that allowing reserved use of the fields would be way off
base. He noted that every field in the city would then be taken by teams
reserving them for practice. Herbst concurred with the Parks Commission
recommendation, which supported use of the field by any individuals or
organizations on a first-come, first -serve basis.
Brad Fyle noted that Country Club Manor Park is a public park that all
citizens of the community should have access to.
John Simola outlined the organizational problems faced by organized teams
when not allowed to reserve a field for structured practice. In outlining the
problem, he described a situation where parents drop children off at a field
for structured practice at a certain time only to find that the field is
occupied by three or four neighborhood children. The practice at that point
either needs to be rescheduled or delayed until the children currently using
the field leave the premises.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to authorize staff to check
with other cities on their policies regarding reservation of ballfields.
After discussion, a motion was mude by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to adopt the Parks Commission recommendation which in
summary allows the field to be used on a first-come, first -serve basis.
Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle. Opposed:
Warren Smith and Patty Olsen. Smith and Olsen felt that it would make
sense to allow reserved use of the fields on a limited basis for structured
practice.
8. Consideration of amendment to Section 3.4 IGl of the zonine ordinance that
further defines the minimum floor area reuuirements for various stvles of
sinele familv residential structures.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that this item has been
submitted by the Planning Commission but originated from a request made
by the Value Plus Homes developers. The proposed ordinance would allow
a wider array of styles of single family housing through modification of
regulations controlling square foot minimums for the second atory of
residences. O'Neill noted that under the current city ordinance,
development of a second story living space is limited to 751) sq ft. O'Neill
reported that Val uo Plus Homes showed the Planning Commission a
Page 5 0011
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
number of attractive housing styles that include a second story with a floor
area less than the minimum currently allowed by ordinance. Planning
Commission concurred with Value Plus' argument that the current
ordinance is unreasonable because it somewhat arbitrarily eliminates
housing designs that are very livable.
After discussion, a motion was made by Patty Olsen and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to adopt the ordinance amendment based on the finding
that the proposed amendment will allow for a wider variety of housing
styles and there is a demonstrated need for this flexibility. The amendment
is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the geography
and character of the area, and the amendment will not result in a decrease
in property values. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 251.
Review of bids and consideration of award for Project 93-04C, Phase 11 of
the Public Works Deuartment Expansion and Renovation.
John Simola, Public Works Director, reported that bids were taken for
phase II of the public works facility expansion and renovation on Thursday,
May 19, 1994. Simola noted that, unfortunately, the lowest bid for the
project as designed came in at $396,000, which places the project over
budget by $149,000.
Simola went on to explain possible reasons for the bids being so much
higher than expected. One reason is accuracy of the estimates, and the
other is the current bidding climate. Currently, there are a significant
number of building projects being bid, many larger and many less complex.
The City only had five general contractors holding plans, and the project
only attracted three bids.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to reject the bids for the public works facility and direct the
City Engineer and building committee to revise plans and specifications
where possible to cut costs and develop a recommendation to the City
Council with regard to rebidding the project at a later date. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Consideration of ureuarat.ion of ulans and suecificntions for ditch grading in
the Meadows subdivision.
John Simola, Public Works Director, described storm water drainage
problems resulting from a grading plan that was not. completed. Simola
went on to outline the possible methods for correcting the problem and
Page 6 9
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
estimated the cost in the amount of $7,000 to $10,000. Simola noted that
the problem resulted from poor follow-up on developer grading
requirements.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad
Fyle to authorize a feasibility study and obtain quotes on a cost to complete
the project. If the lowest quote comes in at a price less than $10,000, City
staff is authorized to, complete the project with the entire cost funded by the
City. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Consideration of authorizine a feasibility studv for storm water
improvements - Outl of A. Country Club Manor.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that in conjunction with
development of Outlot A of Country Club Manor, it is necessary that the
City construct a storm water pond necessary to manage run-off coming from
Outlot A and from other land area in the vicinity. In order for the design
phase of developmen t of Outlot A to proceed, it is necessary that a
feasibility study be prepared which would specify the size and proper design
of the pond needed on the property. Once the design parameters of the
pond are understood . then the developer can move forward on the design
phase.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Patty Olsen to authorize the feasibility study as requested with the scope of
the study to include an analysis of Outlot A and the general watershed that
Outlot A is located within at a cost not to exceed $3,000. Motion carried
unanimously.
12. Consideration of a resolution settine a ouhlic hearine for the Meadow Oak
trunk storm sewer extension.
John Simola, Public Works Director, reported that on January 2.5, 1993,
Council reviewed a feasibility study for the construction of a Meadow Oak
pond outlet. The feasibility study outlined four alternatives for the
construction of the trunk storm sewer. Council had authorized further
study of alternative (i, which nuns the storm sewer through the Rod Norell
property at a cost of- $254,000, and alternative 1), which runs the storm
sewer down the center line of Gillard to the Mississippi River at an
estimated cost of $290,000. Simola reported that the staff has met with
property owners affected, the Monticello Township Board regarding
redevelopment of Gi llard Avenue, and has spoken with Rod Norell about the
possibility of extend ing the trunk storm sewer through his property. Norell
indicated that he is not interested in having the storm sewer extended
Page 7 @)
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
through is property at this time. Stiff also discussed the matter with Gene
Bauer. Based upon the discussions, it appears that alternative D (Dillard )
is the best alternative.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty
Olsen to adopt a resolution ordering a public hearing on the proposed
Meadow Oak trunk storm sewer extension using alternative D at an
estimated cost of $290,000. The public hearing is to be scheduled for
June 13, 1994, at 7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 94-17.
13. Consideration of review of bids for suoplemental contract mowing
operations.
John Simola, Public Works Director, reviewed the bids for supplemental
contract mowing operations. In his review he noted that John Lukach is
currently responsible for much of the mowing that could he done under this
contract. Currently, Lukach has to work over 40 hours per week in order to
keep up with mowing that must he done. The higher summer hours offset
lower winter hours.
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by
Brad Fyle to authorize the Park Superintendent to supplement mowing
done by John Lukach to the extent that it reduces hours to 40 hours per
week. Supplemental mowing to be completed by Quality Lawn
Maintenance. Motion includes a request to submit a monthly report on the
use of contract services for mowing. Voting in favor of the motion: Warren
Smith, Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen. Opposed: Clint Herbst.
Clint Herbst requested that the public works department look at making
,John Lukach a full-time employee.
14. Consideration of it request for it one-dav 3.2 beer license for the ,luly
Riverfest Celebration.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to approve the request for the 3.2 beer license as submitted.
Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Patty Olsen, Brad Fyle.
Abstaining: Clint Herbst.
15. Consideration of bills for the month of May.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to pay bills as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 8 G)
Council Minutes - 5/23/94
16. Other matters.
A. Discussion following up on the special meeting conducted immediately
prior to the Council meeting ensued. It was the consensus of Council
that City staff should move forward on the issues relating to city hall
staffing. Staff was authorized to prepare alternatives for City
Council review.
Council reviewed a staff proposal at a previous meeting to hire Paul
Waldron Ltd. for building inspection contract services. O Neill noted
that additional research shows that the hourly rate proposed by
Waldron ($24/hr) is less than the rate charged by the City of Elk
River ($.30/hr). Furthermore, Waldron's rate includes all costs
associated with insurance, transportation, etc. O'Neill reiterated that
utilization of a private firm to assist with peak summer work load is
a good short-term solution to the problem and will buy us time to
analyze the best way to organize and staff the building inspection
department.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Clint Herbst to hire Paul Waldron Ltd, under the
conditions as outlined in Waldron's letter to the City dated May 4,
1994. Motion carried unanimously.
011ie Koropchak reported on her work activities. She noted that her
work load has been impacted by the success of the industrial
development efforts in the community. A major portion of her time is
spent following through on important project details from the time
that an industrial prospect commits to coming to Monticello through
to occupancy of the new structure.
John Simola requested guidance from Council regarding hiring of
summer employees that are relatives or children of city employees.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Brad Fyle to allow children of city employees to be hired as summer
workers as long as said employees are qualified for the position.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 9 0
STREET, FRONTAGE;
...- _tet'• ...:.6_,..—_.—..-,-__
/DoT Row
—___ .. _. �• . ;,= .�.-„:�:.y;�,;.�;�?=.j ASSESSED AREA
Mown 8y: Drowing Title Comm. No.
R.G.O. 3ehslsn MEADOW OAK TRUNK 1748,93
Oate � Aaoctatss.ina. STORM SEWER EXTENSION
LUNE 6, �4b"°"h'°n• n"«°. "6"M°n”.• ta"i• "rFig
u,
..... MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
1994 sL...wb.+" w.u.us. ur•�ann
..r
I�
—___ .. _. �• . ;,= .�.-„:�:.y;�,;.�;�?=.j ASSESSED AREA
Mown 8y: Drowing Title Comm. No.
R.G.O. 3ehslsn MEADOW OAK TRUNK 1748,93
Oate � Aaoctatss.ina. STORM SEWER EXTENSION
LUNE 6, �4b"°"h'°n• n"«°. "6"M°n”.• ta"i• "rFig
u,
..... MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
1994 sL...wb.+" w.u.us. ur•�ann
..r
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
4, Le¢islative session update by Representative Mark Olson. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND 13ACKGROUND:
Representative Mark Olson has requested to appear before the Council to
briefly update the Council on issues and new laws that have been passed
during the recent legislative session. Mr. Olson indicated he would briefly
summarize items he thought may he of importance or interest to the City of
Monticello, and he would be willing to take questions from the Council on
any topics you choose.
If any Council member has any specific topic you would like to see
Mr. Olson discuss and review at the Council meeting, you may ask for his
input at the meeting or let me know ahead of time. and I will let Mark
know of a specific request. Other than a brief review, there is no specific
action needed by the Council on this item.
Council Agenda • 6/13/44
b. Public Hearimr--Consideration of a resolution ordering project and
authorizint3 preparation of plans and specifications - Meadow Oak
storm sewer. (.1.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the meeting is to conducta public hearing to provide an
opportunity for public input nn the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet project.
City staff will he making it presentation outlining the scope and design of
the project along with a proposed assessment roll. Following is a brief
review of the project design, cost., and proposed assessment, formula.
PROJECT DESIGN
As noted at it previous meeting, our only current alternative for
development. of the system calls for construction of the storm sewer line
under Gillard Avenue. This will require complete reconstruction of Gillard
Avenue. The estimated project cost is $329,41111. Following is the basic
formula to he used in development of the assessment roll.
STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT
The total cost of $29:1,269 for storm sewer related improvements will he
collected through a combination of assessments against developed prupert.ies
and through future acquisition of storm sewer access charges from
properties now undeveloped. Storm sewer assessment amounts have been
calculated hosed on it specific amount per acre and will he assessed to
developed properties accordingly. Coincidentally, the plrojected storm sewer
access charge ends up being approximately the same amount per acre as
what is proposed to be paid by developed properties via the assessment roll.
This means that an open lot next, to n Int with a home will pay all access
charge at the time of developmentthat is approximately equal to the
assessment levied against the property with the home based un 1994
dollars. In terms of total dollars, the assessment roll will generate
W,942.50 turd pay 16.71/ of the total storm sewer cost. These are funds
that the City can expect to obtain through direct paynlenl of the assessment
at the time the project is completed by individual properly owners or
through payment of annual assessments through the assessment program.
The h:dance of the total cost. for the slornn sewer not paid via assessment
($244,326.511) will he paid hack to the City over time as the land area served
by this storm sewer project is developed. Also included in the storm sewer
cost pre costs associated with removal of the existing road surface on
Gillard Avenue.
In order to execute the plan, it final agreement will he worked out with Mr.
and Mrs. Gene huller to exchange an easement or drainageway for storm
sewer lenefit with this pruiert.
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
STREET ASSESSMENT
The assessment roll as prollosed calls furan expense of $36,130.70 for
redevelopment of Millard Avenue. It is proposed that this expense he
funded as follows: The Township will contribute $6,000, which represents
their estimated cost to complete it 2 -inch overlay on the township half of the
roadway. The balance of the expense is proposed to he assessed on a front
footage basis to the property owners on the city side of Gillard Avenue. The
City's share represents what would otherwise be paid by the residents living
on the east side or township side of the road. Our existing street
assessment policy allows us to assess the city residents on Gillard Avenue a
significant portion of the cost to redevelop the roadway due to the fact that
the road is in relatively poor condition and has come close to reaching its
life expectancy. The cost per lineal foot for city residents on Gillard will
amount to $7.77 per foot. Many of the lots in that area are 80 (1, long.
which results in a street assessment of about $620 per lot.
DITCH 33 COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
As a separate but related issue, Minnesota I)epartment of Transportation,
Soil and Witter Conservation District, the County, and 'township have been
informed of the city storm sewer project and tare in the process of
determining whether or not the system the City is developing can be used to
help relieve flooding problems on ditch 33. 'there is it possibility that it is
feasible to drain it portion of ditch 33 through the Meadow Oak outlet
system; however, doing so will require that the City oversize the system.
Obviously, it, would be e'xpe'cted that the township, stale, county, etc., ureas
benefiting from the oversizing should nt it minimum pay the cost, for the
oversizing.
At this point, in time, discussions ore preliminary. It is not known if the
affected agencies can work out it cost sharing plan for funding in time for
the City to order the oversized project.. In order to provide tin option that
would allow ditch 33 water to access this system, it is proposed that the
construction plans include it bid alternate which calls for the oversizing
necessary to serve the ditch 33 area. In the event that tun agreement
regarding funding of the oversizing can he established anio lg the agencies
involved, the City could select the alternative providing the oversized
system. In the event tin agreement cannot be established, or if it is
determined that it is not feasible to connect ditch 33 to the city system,
then the City could simply select the lowest hid for the base system serving
the city needs only. Due to the fact the cost to design an alternative bid is
minimal, staff is suggesting that it he included in the hid specifications.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
c; J t/
Motion to adopt a resolution ordering the project and authorizin
preparation of plans and specifications.S
Under this alternative, the City Council is comfortable with moving
forward on the project. It should he noted that the mock assessment
roll presented is only a starting point tier discussion and that the City
Council is not obligated at this time to adopt it. In fact, the
assessment hearing will come at some time atter the project; however,
it may he prudent at this time to discuss the funding program and
assessment roll in detail and, therefore, have a finn idea as to how
the cost would be distributed at such time that the assessment roll is
prepared.
2. Motion to deny ordering the project.
Under this alternative, City Council prefers to postpone or stop
further consideration of development of the storm water outlet at this
time. '['his alternative could he selected if Council helieves that staff
should research the potential of purchasing land or homes near the
Meadow Oak pond which would allow more water storage in the
present. pond. This does not appear to be feasible, as it does not
provide a long -tern solution to the problem. In addition, it would
result in the loss of a major portion of the Meadow Oak Park due to
inundation and because it would require raising of city sewer mains
adjacent to the pond area.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative t11. It is our view that, the time is right for
development of the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. Development of Oak
Ridge, Briar Oakes, and Outlots C and 1) all contribute to the need to
rectify the problem. Ordering preparation of plans and specifications at. this
time provides the City with time necessary to meet our original goal of
having the project done in 1994.
Il. SUI'I'OIfI'IN(', 1)ATA:
Engineering design cost and assessment data submitted by OSM; Resolution
for adoption.
'MEADOW OAK TRMk.,ORM SEWER EXTENSION'
MUANANY ASLWEM ROIL
PROJECT NO
CITY OF MONIICHEO. M WASOIA
OSM PROJECT NO. 174593
MEA ASLL. AREA
NAM 0. SECTION, TOw/wM ASSESS AWL. Ea61Av. ANESS. i1REET
PREF ARM MUD I2GAl DE/CIII'TION a RANGE AODOL OW16 MEA 7ONKNG RATIOS ARA AMOUNT NIONI
ACR 111 11YWNA II
W NO IIIL NatY
1{!a/aYM _d1619C a _ �Iln 111 llrlN VIM' p.lyrrv.�w Wal �glaYrw /Ic �\ Y1RID � 4X1♦ NI)m
��d2610Caa YHOOW OM IWIf �In Na D71N OM i4a �
HNM�1 -(R a61OCAa1fADOw OAa 1NAE_11n Ell"llN 1" ,AM N1f
11l _waMOCaarIODWIW 111A11 /In{1\1171N IRIA ,�
1Y1 alaa.w OD M
IEEfMe -.0\6190 a WAOOw OMI IAAI.- .UL111-f1L11W!'
IYaM�R_0FlL IaaRAD0WQ%lLj INf i1n 11•IIrIN W _�AsnD •61[�[MMYaO __
A{IL YaoOMrOA-
l�pN� _. d a 61D0a rA 0i1.a[faAE i1R{II IIrIN WM -= IN�2_ amol!S wAOs7 --
IN94AM0 ,611. ILOCla WWWOM RANI �fLHNNEINAM_kAdMILV Nff _Af.e!CGISY\IaJWw
IMIEYM►IWMRIRdaEwAE .,Ja lIa 11»NIRaM _.�.w {\ _/Iw �: rMrAY La"a1 --.
IMNwa�/r .oluu7wauM�/Nv.lwA/ .._ a!!�� �rlMw i1rA a1v.,INwaw _..
O /i NY alta
0611M
RERRrRERR/
INll�sr � ilt•
1\10AR6111R1� r �
11{61YOR{1R �IA61rR��61 I1E\RIL�RTM r X111
l Lmu RR-
- mkm
R--mkm AM\R761 RIR161Y
ftp 1
Rf1�
J�
I
•ays 1
STREET
NRONf. IC!A:
ALEL AWL
11 AAI
"MEADOW OAK TRUP.A STORM SEWER EXTENSION'
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLE
PROJECT NO -
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MiNNESOIA
OSM PRO,If.CI NO 174893
PARCELED.
SECTION, TOW -MIP
I
i
ARIA
ASSESS
AREA
STREET
MNASER AESREVIA/ED LEGAL OESCRVT]ON
ARANGE
ADDRESS
OWNER
ASSESS.
AREA ZO)RNG
ASSESS.
RATIOS
EQUIV.'
APIA
ASSESS SiP[ki
AMOUNT TRONI,
FRONT,
ASSESS.
TOTAL
ASSESS
N:m
SQ3f
Ilf.•O]Nx I4
SI I/nl
SM Kan C1cM.
1
ItSdiMa1N fOi III pOCaa NxtYTN ilax ISSYQ
}il]. Stt i]IN maW
µext NaRW 4Sbt
fwwDYM»{ Nkan(In
OSIS Rnro
1
OIA
t!SI ]!�
3:0171
256 datmiYn t{k ii, mCK.x4 WNkY r454x tXAt{
SIn. S38 ItTY. maW
lu]gnn C.cN
.:Nyta. 1:362
I
1C.•vuMR W.iur
U IJ qW[>
_
�
pnn
4t tNi Ntl_
_
>t thr
-.. .
1 Iasdaadln fol Y]m«xaWNJ4w tLYtiXN1
sin. /u 11]1. maw
3m KNnaw
a.•racl.n. M. wan]
I]a.r.rR ♦Ref�:cn)dF.a
Daw u11ro
1
oew
y1, 3g3.s1_
;I{N�+_
Iwda ml.ln IDI Ix m4x-aa WNx3w oM 4XxR
in Sla lulN maw
Iry Krm ctw
Y.n1kMn W+bSb3
jj
Inr.Rl.4 icrnl o.�l,.n
j
oe)e! unrt>
j
I I
nn/a
Il nvl.tll
._
___
tivnw
i
2ttDMray.• Ou Yw
Ibsau tloala IOL it mOCKAWN)0w OM r.Mrt
Sw ne lulN maw
D.II
µ1
IOL I• mu1. WAL)OW
a, CkalMr
1MOISMiDID NKYtq.
Sin 112 fill. W-
--- s+N5 _+-
Q..nt)ibR.^t_nnr;n
n443 pRN)
i
nMt
SNA n!
Stynt•!
IUI I. MDcx 1 wN Oa ad
2m1 R -Ota Cxca
--
-' -
'-
i56d}am. Nxxi[Ya
$in Stt{i]i. maw
MaA -YW 55b2
rW'MrC. t4NRt .+fN
purr RAYS
i
OSt)
Sart bl
3a/Se1
ICI]tki-RT WNa OM2,.1
RD RN 1IW MMNKN.
l65dSl1NtLU NYYIKY]
Sin. 11611]2. maW
M. SbbT
la.vlN. Ir.
p)a> RNLL)
1
pia.
41N ISS
33/v l:
a.3
IOI3 RiX4x-DOWOMIQ.,x,,cYrY
]WI
Ilbd3{111NU Nx1Ix;3N
In 11411]1. maW
M•nS+Fr MN L•b]
NeµeW.el J. Men
_07W DND
67M
sale]'.
SaMt'_
.011 C%M. x W N]O.OM Tea
--1
1lldbin]fMl NY.IR"w
S In $10 1171. maw
.... -.1
o2. ..s,
1
o7.
1411 a!
tW 6 ffiGCt 2. W NXMrOM atl
34;a Rnf W CYa.4
IbSOl3 O331xJ N4alx',w
5In. /101.11. mna
µ.,N N, Kut .SS4]
mreat Mt.+•ry
n]a qAN>
I
D]au
3}0516
3ASv,
IOIAa(Y;.T.WADOII,ONt Tal
11DYY.YOw C.1IJIr1
j i.Snt}fx3Tln N%nx?. __SSn
fii ii]iN 0]aW
M,�il1r Ni M. WbJ
WiSW ii3mxtrrrR_T�
�_p3J5 _RRA}
_� -
OJ3y
- t'AS JS
;•+iii:
EUI I m tA:K 2. W N)C/N OM if.l
galMxxywfXa OFO
-� -
_
-54 v ."I-
1tn.Ita tilt. 47m
R1.xaa YRa GSSn1
XwmMifM.•0+ort>i<n
n.x0 RRX3
1
Arte
HlJai
fal�W
1.1 N MOCK 7, WNb3W OM a.l
"..'m =1-
IWd54aWY1 NxxI.:1N
SIn 1111121. maw
1�..3 ��m. MN e}Nl
lterilru�vv.�_
x_711 GAMJ
I
Uill
MT131
HN 1'.
1031 Mca.K x W AIX -OM aW
w}Mnaan. t]o nw
_-1
-
IbadSOimoi) NN111-
%in sit 1121. 1Y31N
µ.�ly,Nt M. fSbJ
Rrt MµfrrS`_„�
-D741 gANI
1
0]!•l
{.41;.1
4101•.1
IW IQ CLOCK I %AtiO OM a'u
14ld}CSp114 iNY.1e:W
11n 11411].. in-M.nF'N�
MN bib)
bMID Loi v- I-.,
om o..1
1
075!
1-11
1-21
3oI 3+, a41Cx ]. MiNlx]+N oxi to
ItwaytaY,. as IY.O
-
ilbdSCSRIID N4.1q
$In. It I'll. R7x.
µ••F Mt WV wW
4?-�.OA Ahnp
�_-
�- 8JS) RAA>
i
415.3
UnlT
fr•J 45
IOL I.mU[xWN3[AA OM 7N
x
1210 gNlOblur
_ _
_.
I/SdSmia}m NNR.Y+
1In.lU In1N maW
MN 1
W_'Ar.�Nt�.�.�:�-
W Mri bmFRaR J<r•.af
O7tn qAR)
3
613n
{Swm
oft
, w1 ]. saw x 1aA33uw c3ix a0I
ImdSmtmp NNxlwm
nn. ua X21. m-
MmF:N. M. sar7
I. -I c -I.
ora+ own
1
ont
ISM ]1
13Mn
iUi x mtx:Y i W JN}}M OM TY
gKM.pplr Ou
111dS mann NKYIKW
SIn. 111 IISIN D)m
IL.a µiib Y; MN Gble: gktutrl W µYW 41 A wth
- - -�
p]L gAfl
- --
1
�2L
--
1)ql I(1
IIi11U
T Yrni ffia:Kx WN]Dw a3xx a.3
gn11a•xra KXi sYY.
•- -
IISdA(IIYL] Nxxlx,
In 114 fl71N m.wYR�1F.N.Ya.
blb]
Iha�W aN»Rlrxeb2�,�
pl}n AW)
I
OTb
ISuem
IIVAFI
Id t, aDCa 4 W N)OW OM Is.
4S1D YIfW3r ON EMri
-- _
_
IWd5MK110 NY.IY'w
/in tit 1171.a?-
µnb NtYW lVnt
fef.t rwtrr
6]oJ ARL)
4
02%
taS}M
ta!].I
'0"0'-"W N)bW OM ad
ISyb5431ttm NKYSCw
SIn, 3tt tiJ4N. maW
]101 Raver lisle
µNY Ni Y.t SSW
it la3ixaMt Ras
67tU ASNA}
4
Oi01
}31510
ft}StR
Mcx0AY3T as
Ay.;
N 3Na
"MEADOW OAK TRUNI, STORM SEWER EATENSIOW
PRELMINAR/ ASSESSMENT ROIL
PIK)A GI W)
CITY OI MONTICEUO. MIOMASOTA
OSM POOR CT NO 114893
PAN= 0.
AREA
SECTION. TOwww
AREA
STRIP
NR•IM�
AINEM D &HIAE RtlCINIMN
• RANG
ADDOU
ASSESS STREET
ERONI
IOL O. •OSI A &GADOMI OM tti
AREA ZONING
M• OaA.r. Tarr.
AREA
11►0•O•r
V0,01)N
Ian fll IIIIN 111
121 01A►r Mr YN7 o,dNA
K.f
IC•OCJI l S{AOOINOM W
,r rr r
Iwo—_
Opt •r1Ar
IYO•r11r
Opt
11 114 I'M OW
MGGIGGGGA IM OW
I11AA
OIY •11D
1. •OCAI► WAD010001 Wa
OIY
1w
OY I\
OIY 6JW
TIE 1111N 411"
OIY
on"
a a 61oc6 a 1•ADow 0tl 3"
0,410a.uD
RwOMuI•la
Ulm
1
11 Il IIlIN •' IN
__OAN "Up
1
OM
1. \OG L &GADDIN OM W
MOtEM
0311 aIRD
1
0311
11 1111 IM •ata
Nlni
Elie tow
a 610G 1. WADM OIM ad
Gift
E116NISIsr
1�►p/rlor
tm •1w
11/a. Ila TI11N rw
Oar
ML IO
a O1OCA I rAOMO bd.-
tma aND
1
OW
1 J
�A Ill 11'1
•
1
0
l IlOfi 110ADOW 0V tA1
Ow O�IbI�
,IN awc
1
aw
11a1N
WI_
_.,em
OI►Wfa S N{ADOW 016Y
•s
1
TIM 6uD
1 11111 IN
am
$41,11,l0
/ 610o a mtA _am
..o 44W1
o
1
1 1 111
8w0
E�
0 p
a 640fA a MAD—OM W
1.Ya1
IrO1,Y7�
0
y E III
1A1
i 1r41rIR•
►\DuI&IL U1 NOAaW
I
R6a10•Iw
'
► ■= I IaI1DOW OM W
1
0001►Iw
IMM
1
/fuw
1
1
a / aDu 1 1•ADuw oAA s1
EAU N
OI{60.1w
1
1r Ir10N
_O
i I
161301
•
1
I111—aAaADOlO "
_
II•
w1p
tow
1
1 I
t A� a IAIAtIOa' OA• N
1
OIi6
��
a 6Eou a %GAPM OAR N
11►ONiw•
1
�i a MUDM OM a/
1*2mm EEt
1
ll4. Mlfj _
J
'
1
\IDOL a 6GADOM OM Jw
1 I. SMpIMOq all
1• Ts11r.
1
i
mk�
t 61001 rAoorolw •1
mmuml ow
►RID0110AOOMOy rI
II 1
W l \OG 1. l•ADOa�Oq •1
A "comO
V \`
_
I IJElII I111N ASF
r11N1R �a
tl1ra Y•
OW S
1
AREA
ASNIGA. I
AREA
STRIP
AUDS.
ASSESS
IQ".
ASSESS STREET
ERONI
TOTAL
AREA ZONING
RATIOS
AREA
AMCKW 1ROW
ASSESS.
ASSESS
AGa
K.f
{I.{WM♦ it
,r rr r
Opt •r1Ar
1
Opt
131►p
I11AA
OIY •11D
1
OIY
i1a1IS
OY I\
OIY 6JW
1
OIY
on"
1lrp
0,410a.uD
1
Ulm
1291 p
1N1 ♦I
__OAN "Up
1
OM
_{I/14
II/In
0311 aIRD
1
0311
Mr•
W/..
Elie tow
1
Gift
Marr
W/AN
tm •1w
1
Oar
ML IO
M3IIU
tma aND
1
OW
_ rlar
YIAAO
•
1
0
Y
1.OI AI
,IN awc
1
aw
__Ipra
WI_
_.,em
1
•s
-SA
TIM 6uD
1
am
$41,11,l0
W, 1R
..o 44W1
o
I�lo
NQ ro
8w0
1
0 p
"011P
1.Ya1
0
1A1
91PIP
No•
W.41,
awn
1
So,
IMM
/fuw
1 •
1
EAU N
I VUQ
1
OM1
_O
161301
•
1
6
_
w1p
1
Hs"
!1 �OW
1
OIi6
��
MII J•
NW
"MEADOW OAK TRUNA ..ORM SEWER EXTENSIOM
)YEIW WAff AfYLEYEM ROIL
PROJECT NO __
CITY Of MONTICELLO, MNNESOTA
(AM NOACT NO 114893
►MCIL IR
SECTION TOWNSHIP
uN10
NINRU MNNIVIATED IEGA/ DESCRYIION
aRAN" ADDRESS
OWNER
AI L MU -I I MMIMUIM MO—
• aIOC:R L LLAODW 011E ae
0
07Y
oM
0711
INOMmwM II�ION
IIn YaIIfIN L{M /y1q
tmf
Id a StOM I, IUDOIV OM NL
p • L10G1. L MIAUDII OM 111
N
IMOOd10M �M
')n {Il IN1I/Olar JSIW
IWIs
AT I.LWO WOM1 aF
I. HOGS L MMODN OAA d
RI1S 1
IY�14A IOM
� In {N 1171N Lf11Y p11.
E_al_
• NRS 1. N ADO- DAR 11
p • \OOL L Y1Ad1M OM M
1w 1
I16010401010
11R {N 1171N LSM Sana
Igmt
I. alncS L 4RAnOw DA11
• IOLa L LfADOM' OM d
low
IILONm1Yw
•IR {1111}IM a1M AWIIP
Ism
L t•OOI f YAOOW OAR M
II.IIODlL MipOW OAaM
fly
IY
II/R lla il)IN aRM SIN
%W11I
f MAD—OM 11
wl �olA/MG4Dagoww
INOM
'J/R III II11N R11a t.arla
.awl
l tIOCO L WAODW OAR 11
Ill L \/f11 L MVOIwr GA11 �
_
'•Am IIyIN RNM ./N
IsOI
N LOGO L YIAom OM d
• aw[a L NMODII uM aA
1
) 114TIVINR10M
rM
IS �O111 L MIAOOW OAR d
d L W(f L MIADIIM uM
1 I EN JIM RRw
I 1
An.SNnllotm I iMMPJP
d a IIOLi L I{ADDO. C AK-
In IN FILM �M
IMOM00>DM
'Jn/N IIT INLIM
Aa1►1
AREA AMISS AREA
ASSESS. ALMLS EOIgV A-- sIFEe
AREA ZONING RATIOl AREA AMOUNT FRONT
-al 11(.81 III .A 1.
�lO\ qND 1 Ola♦ 17OM
O IIt, 040 1 OII/ lfai /0
C
a
OND 1
1. \OGS L MIADM 0"
uN10
q/W 1
OND 1
O)Y
Of
111111&161!1l YM
{MLD
• aIOC:R L LLAODW 011E ae
0
07Y
oM
0711
LIYLD
MST
I IAL IN INIM LEON
OIIO I
_q ND 1
_1140 1
p • L10G1. L MIAUDII OM 111
N
J•
_,. IM_N
SND 1
a ,0--
-
I. HOGS L MMODN OAA d
RI1S 1
ly
on.
11d�I j1�aMN
OIM
p • \OOL L Y1Ad1M OM M
1w 1
IiL4M_�,
! In $141111.4 LRMI
OIM
11
• IOLa L LfADOM' OM d
low
IL►M_�10
jf
1�1�/1 N4_i_
Lm I fill.
II.IIODlL MipOW OAaM
fly
15114
04W
M10 1
1 �IIL I1/111 LFII
• -
wl �olA/MG4Dagoww
= In Ill INIII LRM
Ill L \/f11 L MVOIwr GA11 �
• aw[a L NMODII uM aA
! !wI! 111101
IYMWRIP
d L W(f L MIADIIM uM
1 I EN JIM RRw
L NOGL I M1AM W 0M AL1
Iowa0ME0
In IN FILM �M
.Rswnlu
Aa1►1
AREA AMISS AREA
ASSESS. ALMLS EOIgV A-- sIFEe
AREA ZONING RATIOl AREA AMOUNT FRONT
-al 11(.81 III .A 1.
�lO\ qND 1 Ola♦ 17OM
O IIt, 040 1 OII/ lfai /0
C
a
OND 1
07i
uN10
q/W 1
OND 1
O)Y
Of
{WN
{MLD
LND 1
OND 1
allo 1
OND I
0
07Y
oM
0711
LIYLD
MST
tN.a
LITT
OIIO I
_q ND 1
_1140 1
0)01
071
Onl
N
J•
_,. IM_N
SND 1
a ,0--
-
/W b
RI1S 1
OIN
on.
_ 1
OIM
IA/Y
1w 1
OIOI
911D 1
OIM
11
_, MIO
M
low
to
jf
_-."M
Lm I fill.
M10 I
I
fly
., MNLY
04W
M10 1
IsmM
0)11
STREET
FRONT TOTAL
AMU. AMU.
$1 "A'
WW
'MEADOW OAK TRUNI. .NORM SEWER EXTENSION'
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT IOU
YROA.CI NO.
CITY O/ IA9NIICEUO, MWYiSOIA
OSM PROAC1 NO. 11493
•aRr/r Ldlll
Mk -aft -M.10— TL %=a EaM OA�OMU I IM1 SN IgIN.RO /1 �� ^ �
Ib41E07� �ILLOLRaIrY blr� /IM1 1N ntlalMM � �
IYIR� �IalOO1LNI1RO11RSNAR TUI Ir TI1r rM ala
YIIM�I d►IIOya1tMROA�tW /ktrlltm*w Ila 4=
Ij :pl►Lad LtwllA�w AULMLnPkf4 M an Rolf
Ir«R�R.wNtlaaatwol�rr Iuawntr.aR /.1. �
fllNf� L11af1oa aRwoA rtw IIM1 IIa nI111.M -AM 1110
IJlOrIf>f1r arLOQatw011rttML TIALM"I"
t� a�aN1.0 auamattrRall��IL /law mla tRwr ala ..w
�„ YM rLROarRa1�M TUI TIL ntR11RRw Ian �
_ ` y�r 01�•
AttM AREA STREET
EGUIV. ASSESS STREET FRONT TOTAL
AREA AMOUNT FRONT. ASSESS. ArfSL
ACK IISSQfMA U 111PAI
1 _wl n
1 •MI __�Ir_r
1 1
1 •_ __ I/YM
rllr
•
AREA
MLCU D.
SECTION. TOWNSHIP
ASSESS
AMU
INLIIFt ANNVNEED U!" DESCRIPTION
L RANGE ADD"
OWNER
AREA IONW.
At:tr
1ATIOI
r01 r ll]CY a IfAnow oAf 11r
lmwmw.Im1
IY.fODD10 AIII7NON
{1/af111171N rfa �Mvat�b Wrlfr
wYA w.aa{DOuo�M
r>a
•NP
1
.a a soca a IaAowv oM u.
Tloawm.law.
Ir0Y00atD AOI710M
11R II11171N 07aR /stiW W 01Y7 }lriYrl •WIVnY
1
abrraG>vY
INOAm1010 p l aual 1. tw OA46IMH
/ lit S/► 1171N Slow Ir YTM rr
O / w K COY
W
I
IN0Nm10p p lol a1. PWCIAIIIAM
Allom
al
I
INYWm1UO ..tNallA.i 1. __ i1M114{IAIS_
11/L t111171N
IL
O
al
I
IMS_„UI\��ia 1_�M/I OIIg114AR /IR n11171N wM' /ora
Tarr.
OT]I.I
11
I
IYOrOm101R yla aonl IaM!✓NIIaH
11/t fll lltlN O/Aa /Rla
�
�
al
1
Iraomllry a r noa 1 Rw owEEte<
R ua w n71A t7.a_, p.
Igrn
�
•1
1
IYYAWIfp.._.,SIlROl71 �AOAfO1RAR
IIQIr II�IN OIIY /R!!
h
►1
I
Iwommm Goo q r Rl1CR 1. taM ONII IIIAL
/ In tll IIt1A 011N __,am11
1
n 6. So trl
IYRIOOOIRO, dIILOG11. t1aM ONl11MM
��1ll jlA ttllV /IIIfw/r
11
1
NIIa IIIIralaa a.a
'*WHOM. -a I. SM LIMA O06WH I��Ia TITIN Aa1
►1
1
•aRr/r Ldlll
Mk -aft -M.10— TL %=a EaM OA�OMU I IM1 SN IgIN.RO /1 �� ^ �
Ib41E07� �ILLOLRaIrY blr� /IM1 1N ntlalMM � �
IYIR� �IalOO1LNI1RO11RSNAR TUI Ir TI1r rM ala
YIIM�I d►IIOya1tMROA�tW /ktrlltm*w Ila 4=
Ij :pl►Lad LtwllA�w AULMLnPkf4 M an Rolf
Ir«R�R.wNtlaaatwol�rr Iuawntr.aR /.1. �
fllNf� L11af1oa aRwoA rtw IIM1 IIa nI111.M -AM 1110
IJlOrIf>f1r arLOQatw011rttML TIALM"I"
t� a�aN1.0 auamattrRall��IL /law mla tRwr ala ..w
�„ YM rLROarRa1�M TUI TIL ntR11RRw Ian �
_ ` y�r 01�•
AttM AREA STREET
EGUIV. ASSESS STREET FRONT TOTAL
AREA AMOUNT FRONT. ASSESS. ArfSL
ACK IISSQfMA U 111PAI
1 _wl n
1 •MI __�Ir_r
1 1
1 •_ __ I/YM
rllr
•
'MEADOW OAK TRUNK 57ORM SEWER EXTENSION`
MMIWRALM ASSESSIAENI ROIL
MK)ACI NO
,,sly,* 0.k MI K -i t i ll MININ'a1 A A
".M"1 it. I IInn""
RANal ID.
SECTION, TOWNSHIP
STREET
ASSESS
fQLI1V, ASSESS
NIgMEA AIMEVIAIED ISGAL DESCM ION
AIll
ADORNS OWNLR
ARIAEONfA:
ACIP/ -.A
11 f/trot
1
-4
IIIIY
Ifa0AaW110 q Y IOOI Ti MK 0.49 IAM
'1n 11a II71N am
"FIRM
01
aI
Ilapg0001q d1l.lodlMMROgRf TIM
tIM1/I11171N RIM .MIr 1MIw
Oi111
RI
IMO�.,a l l0a 1 M1Aa ON67 ESIA�_. _
I I IIS I111N t1IM/
fVYMw IMIa bMl
W YSII D a rla�.l Cabo
O YIJ
R I
NN 10
Iµ0 OI/. OCR MMaOMflAAN
I /1a 1111N RIN
dnW 645/7 Ra01a�170cdam
Oq
al
NIS pIiIYI► LSI -14
Nvira W
Iµ0AM11q g11.<OL%a1 fYM tMN1lNAN__J
I IIat171N RIM
.alcla�Nnl lFm/OwR
0»I
•I
YsrarllG Y'1
IYpAW01O 91 14 IOC11IMa 0-46 SAM _/InfIL
1171M tlIN
MslG alb'/a fdwlal
0
•1
P o f1» 7d6 r C_A
IY0700001W OII►IocA1 MMR OIIIf ERM
Iln INS WIN WIN
/1., f►n71M6 .I.Y owl dom c%slIsI,
0
RI
OIaIOCaI WMW
_- —9111 lOPI.WMW
(OI "lora, ods".4IAN
g L IOCa 1. IMdomm, EAfI
_
TNI allnl.r Nw.
. I�yil�lQ-��/�-----11I11»IgIN
AMM
i1IIIl Id11MI M11a_.��wt ►Sow 0,wd -
_ ti f��
R1
Yi1aStOq X11 IOOLM/AR41N1
I�f1a 117 /NAM
11SMf�a17 RI�MNS_
IMI IRI, 111 •1
_.dsd INA WAIN
IMlI� TDI l IDC111 p/ppI W
I IM1►Y MINI aI1M
ar1l _pl w 7sa�e y
0
• 1
�_
�wa1 MMIAwwINN1.
Irw�M �IalolaLwalll►Aw
11n7ILfir%FSIM
—0 IF
a
IYaa1�M �IIIGCilfllaal fllal
IIM1 IN IIIIN IM
�11a INA
!1
»arl� �1►•OL7L WlR�R4�
/iM1 aN IIMN MIM
wlw _._i!R!1
II
IM1 NL III/-& OMI
'A I 1111121
I1
1Y�1�a d1.lOO1LiWdRYM
Iln /N IIIIN �Nf
Iww �N
1
IMaaI.OILIOL:aa ►MF__._i1M1
I
IN IIIIN Ri
IYelOq �alOQllW�l►FM
0 111 SigI'll. RLM
�w I/II
1
,1a►:.•�,••• �•• ...n.�wl
I1n ua nnN 11IIM
r11a rA
• 1
1 /� �4I Ijj�YlIMalfM
V
` SIOIM��IY
~I•
AREA
ASSESS, AREA
STREET
ASSESS
fQLI1V, ASSESS
STRELI FRONT TOTAL
RATIOS
ARRA AMOUNT
FRONT ASSESS ASSESS
ACIP/ -.A
11 f/trot
1
Oiq NNY
IIIIY
I
01M Il» q
"FIRM
1
OYII SrWw
1IIN70
I
010`_ FIN SE
IIII SS
I
0»I NNY
NNW
I
0 7' NN w
NN 10
1
Oleg Ross
CHIT, W
pm
NIS pIiIYI► LSI -14
I 7r M1
'MEADOW OAK TRU— STORM SEWER EXTEMSIOM
PRELMAINMY AMEMMENT ROLL
PROACf NO
Ury OF MONIKAL10. MU" 501A
OSM PRGAC I NO 114843
AMA
Miff
NEA
SIREEI
AU M
Affil.
lFMRV.
ARM
STRUT
FRONT TOTAL
OWNH
AMA
10F•{N MHOS
AMA
AMOUR
FROM
AMEM. AIKU,
ACm
ACJII
FIFFOIN•
11
$—A'
sm
61 I
0
Vft—
wei
NI w
ion4
0
•1 1
om
11»m
mol
NLDPFW 111"4
a!
qm
u I
e
vna"ol
N/MY41._-J!m1•
b.r
q.1w
•I I
0
p»
"e'
w4"1M14 SUIS"
—a -f ftb— a— _
as"
• I 1
oTN
T•nY
_ qa
4"4•iwl _ Pot
{Im
II&PIPOP
SN»/w
ber
.6m.
•410 I
11444"
SUL="
•IUD 1
_ 1
Tl.lwm.
{Llri
Soo,
4l.fIT!?
1
• 1
1
6%40
"a4m
1
• 1
1
•"m
yyp
1
I •
"boa
1"04
4
NOW
M»I"
•4w I
_l4Ww
"•4w
• I
44m
"Mom
'
•o
Him
1
'
pM�
1
• 1
1
•
alpee
41,a•�
• 1
1
1
Fl4.Tm
1
gloomp
•
SAD 1
�
NONE
}l.iM�
P•' I
RRLN
FARM D. SECTION, TOWNSHIP
/AYElf A Y MATED UQ& DESCRIPTION ►RAN.E
_ OI 11 ElOCaS OM /Ocf +In /Is TIJ ivJwv
yr; rrdww�....nd
RA ,.�1►mA f1a 11]1N eiwY___w�
/qtly qM> d W HA wIN d
M iwar o00N /1•IIJ1N eJwY /N
101
OF WAY Ma 101. TONY .MA
�rr�r
'MEADOW OAK TRUNK aTORM SEWER EXTENSION'
►OFIIMINAKY ASSESSMENT POLL
MljiCI NU
i IY C4 M, NlI J- "NNI k01A
. AEfA
AYEEE. Aft[E{.
ADOiL oEs1/n MEA ZMM RAllp
Kf
o t aR,o 1
010 •RIO 1
ru�Irdr lerVq� 22 untowtD 1
� N
�enlWOIfD 1
aroW ww+r
]Ta IH[OIfD 1
1N 111s
10 a 1IY. Mot�►a
INOM®W JIIROIASfA00W OM EYAII 11/1E1011]IN" maw __ 7J1 a1MiNMp
IMarafOSEs It1AAR"JN`oMiaUli...___. 1,nt%nnN
�mffL-1 Wg N► Ililla OM �Rl1a !P7
Make MN WOW*"Ibww Na Pa ,litsMNEwfo
Y". a
ANUL
AREA
sintil
E�11V.
Ass[SS.
3TIR[T ifONi.
TOTAL
AE[A
AMOVNT
FRONT AlSEu.
ASS[u
Kf
Ilf/OIN•
11 f�/SAI
Oa
/1]aW
31M 1fi
0/
11. IA/m
/11aJm
n
{1a)Olf
tU HIT
W
AsUNvw
1fM
{Safe
//W►o
IW
m
_/Il]au1 $1 -m -do
_ /"2mw
]0/0 _,__ItgO/ EaawM
i1, la�lpi ._
IE 3W 1!!a
1 _ EW WIM wtw�nl.
/1►m.w NW]ww
V—
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
G. Consideration of necieatina the 1993 Audit Resort for the ON of
Monticello. ( R. W. )
A. RF.FERFNCF. AND IIACKCICCIUND:
Mr. Rick Borden and/or Mr. Kim Lillehaug of Gruys, Borden, Carlson &
Associates will he present at the meeting to present a brief overview of the
1993 Audit Report that has been recently completed by their firm.
A copy of the report has been previously delivered or inciuded with this
agenda to each Council member for your review. I realize that this lengthy
report is hard fur the Council to review and analyze in such a short period
of time, but the report should be accepted by the Council prior to the end of
June, as it has to he submitted <x> the State Auditor by June 30, 1994.
After the brief presentation of the report by Mr. Borden, if the Council feels
that they would like additional time to review the report, this item can
again he scheduled tit a future Council meeting for additional review.
Should any of you have tiny specific questions regarding the information
presented in the audit report, you may contact me prior to Monday night's
meeting, or you may wish to speak to Mr. Kim Lillehaug oNways, Borden,
Carlson, and we will try to answer any questions you may have. Aber
review Monday evening, Mr. Lillehaug would be available for questions by
the Council by simply calling in for an appointment.
Generally speaking, i believe the City is in fairly good financial condition,
and 1�"l saw increases in our fund balances in almost all funds tit year
end. Increases in the fund balances are additional surpluses that have
accumulated and result from revenues exceeding expenditures in a given
year. As I noted previously, Mr. Rick llordvii will review -with the Council
the fananciol condition of the City and highlight Lilly significant points
during his presentation.
It. A1:1'RItNA'i'IVE ACTIONS:
1. Council should accept the 199.4 Audit Report as pretiented so that it
may be submitted to the State Auditor by the required June 30
deadline.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 1993 Audit. Report (if notpreviously delivered sepLmitely).
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
7. Consideration of a variance reauest which would allow olacement
of a ovlon sign within the reauired setback area. Aoolicant,
Champion Auto (Warnert Automotive). (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For the sake of efficiency, the information provided to the Planning
Commission is provided to the City Council regarding this matter.
The Planning Commission recommends that the variance request be denied
based on their finding that no hardship or unique situation exists that
would justify the variance. It was their view that the pylon sign would
receive adequate exposure and be perfectly visible from the right-of-way at a
location that meets city ordinance; therefore, there was not sufficient reason
to grant the variance.
Please see supplemental information for more detail. A video of the site is
available for Council review at the meeting if necessary.
ed
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/T`►
6. Public Hearin¢ --Consideration of a variance reauest which would
allow placement of a ovlon Bien within the setback reauirement.
Applicant. Chamaion Auto (Warnert Automotive). (J.D.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Champion Auto requests that the City grant a variance to the setback
requirement that would allow placement of the pylon sign at a position very
close to the property line. In the application, the exact distance from the
property line has not been provided; however, a physical inspection of the
site shows the location of the proposed sign to be almost directly on the
property line. The need to place the sign on the property line stems from
the fact that the private drive serving as a frontage road for businesses in
that area is located in a manner that conflicts with normal placement of a
pylon sign. The presence of the frontage road eliminates the ability of
Champion Auto to place the sign at the minimum setback of 15 R and forces
the sign w be placed very close to the building at a distance much greater
than 15 ft. Attached is a site plan showing the situation in more detail. A
video will also he provided at the meeting which will make the situation
more understandable.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the variance request. Motion is hosed on the
finding that the presence of the service drive/common roadway
easement creates a hardship. The variance is necessary in order to
place the sign in a position where it will have sufficient exposure.
2. Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding that a
hardship does not exist.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a
finding that the property owner can simply place the sign on the
building side (east) of the frontage road, thereby avoiding the need for
the variance. The additional setback distance that is demanded by
placing the sign east of the frontage road does not sufficiently
diminish the effectiveness of the pylon sign; therefore, a unique
situation or hardship has not been demonstrated.
Under this alternative, the applicant would be required to place the
sign in a position similar to the Subway Shop sign and in a position
similar to the existing Billiards pylon sign.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative k2. It is our view that the situation is not
sufficiently unique and that a hardship has not been demonstrated that
would justify placing the sign on the west side of the frontage road. It is
our view that adequate sign exposure can be achieved for the business if the
sign is placed at a proper location on the east side of the frontage road.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of location; Copy of site plan; Video presented at meeting.
J
so
i:a requirement.
to
Ir
/
L_ --+------����
�
r |
�
.... |
so
i:a requirement.
to
Ir
/
L_ --+------����
�
�
.... |
so
i:a requirement.
to
Ir
/
L_ --+------����
Plar,
r•'- % ----1J 1 N.89°00'00"E. 282.70 1
Ynru - yN) SIGN S.TE}t}2AT1�E LOCATION Jam. t s0/• •:
', � .w � 'Ar�_ •Y' � Y . W • o a:yT^*,;,•:-'moi-'`r,�aY; �.v p j �` ''�,� � � `. �j ` .
'tom . fl °j +' ♦u'� k?<'.Ty •�" ►'tPn '�I'.�-� J' ' .4 +�.,.1:i;=k" ' i -� IL
•£.`� � 2it i.' r' y�^�'«._�;�zN, �. ; "
„� ?�` -:SS' .',",'� 9<e� _ `"`a• S%b�t'.+�9'r�b� �•+�t�':-s":r.,.:,.�';: � ;-`�;; � e t.: _� `' � � ' ° ' �,�'` N: : • • �„
lrt `+.' / yr°!!ajti `i''r:'�++'v Qc1:.1!''V-••`4�. �j� �. ryb �:p r
C N e9°00'00"E C!,�y�Y� - - ;. .. - "•273.J8•`' •� r. ~ � h aT ': • \ f
:X1 ,rtt7C, BILLIARD S�<T1J � !-fit:
/ S W. Co—, o/ Loi i °O90g.•�, pt 3t ...I• • t - �Y'4+��"�'S. � p�50 .l j
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 1, C0101EBCIAL PLAZA 25, Wright County, Minnesota,
ac.ording to the record plat thereof, except that part of said 0
Lot 1, that lieo Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the
i Westerly line of said Lot 1, distant 30.00 feet Northeasterly it
of the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the Eaoterl Jo 4
line of Lot 2 of said Block 1, distant ,0.00 foot 5outnwesterly
of the Northeast corner of sold Lot 2.
ANTh That part of Lot 2, of paid Block I, that lies Northerly of i go
n line drawn from a point on the Westerly line of Lot 1 of said t}7r
Block 1, distant )0.00 foot Northeasterly of the Sosthweot corner
Of said Lot 1, to a point on the Easterly line of oaid Lot 2
distant 50.00 feet Sout.hwentorly of the Northeast corner of said
Lot 2.
CITY OP MUTIC30AD
VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICATION 1J , 0' Z(VJ. AU
FEE: $50 for setback or $125 for others + necessary consulting expenses• W ✓lel.
• NOTE: Necessary consulting fees include the cost to have the City Planner analyze
variance, rezoning, and conditional use permit requests at the rate of $75/hr.
Generally, the level of City Planner Lnvolvenent corresponds with complexity of
request and/or the potential impact of the request on the City. The need for City
Planner assistance is determined solely by, ^C sty staff.
APPLICANT'S NAME/ADDRESS: CA Rfy\� AUT-6 ne T Au'roIno-nv-c
PHONE. A911W WM: '056 - l
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT I BLOCK �_ SUBDIVISION Com,.,,., PLRZA ADB
OTHER
DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST. ��o 0„95T 7> Hl-t-na. ?L.RCr'rh awi
py `iCC ST79 (,Di -.7�� /� 5 %!/d- rli F� Xyl Tb- r Err BACk
What are the unique circumstances that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing
the property in a manner customary and legally periaieoible?
DATE:. SIGNED:
..•.•.•...........................................................
(J Fee paid: Receipt Number: — Currently Zoneds J� J
Planning Case Number: CJy - n.� Date Application Rec iveda
Date of Planning Commission Public Hearing: ; _ L Times r10
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING
Has a hardship been demonetratod? (J Yea (J No
Will approval of the variance request:
A. Impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property? (J Yea (J No
B. create an unreasonable congestion increase in the public street? (J Yee (J No
C. increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety? (J Yee (J No
D. unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood? (J Yee (J No
1. be contrary to the Intent of the ordinance? (J Yee (J No
Summary of Planning Commission Plnding:
Was there an appeal? (J Yee (J No If no, attach a copy of the appeal. f
Date of Council cone iderat ion: %�%/ lt-,- Tim7�/
Line. .QU,4•
Decision of Councils
(J moo attached
Commenta.
(J ass attached
Publication DatesS/dt, ;jyt/7q
xling Daterr Video? (( Yee Is O No
VARREQ. FRM1 7/1/93 y
e
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
Review status of development agreement negotiations - Country
Club Manor, Outlot A. (d.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND IIACKO(OUND
As you recall, City Council authorized City staff to enter into direct
negotiations with David Hornig regarding the sale of Outlot A of Country
Club Manor to David Hornig for the purpose of development of multi -family,
senior housing, and owner -occupied townhomes. The first phase of the
development proposed by Hornig consisted of a 42 -unit multi -family housing
development. The second phase outlined development of a 26 -unit senior
housing development. The proposal staled that Hornig would pay
$3,000/unit developed, which amounts to $126,000 for the first phase.
Hornig won the opportunity for direct negotiations with the City over
Shelter Corporation (37 units, $86,000) based on the higher offer and higher
market value associated with development of a 42 -unit complex.
City staff, along with the City Attorney, met with Hornig to discuss terms of
the development agreement and were surprised to find that Hornig desired
to have the flexibility to adjust the sire of the first phase. Hornig requested
that the first phase of the development he reduced from 42 units to 12 -
units. It was also requested that the City sell only the portion of land
necessary to support the 12 -unit development ($36,000). Under this
arrangement, the City is required to hold more land for n longer period. I
infiornmd Hornig that his modified proposal appears to he at sufficient
variance from his original proposal to require that the City Council review
the matter. It appeared to me to be questionable as to whether or not the
Council would wish to continue negotiations under the revised terms.
I have invited Hornig to attend the meeting to discuss his intentions further
with the Council.
Council is asked to review the situation and {,rive staff further guidance.
B. ALTERNATIVE AC1'IONS:
1. Motion to authorize City staff to continue to negotiate with Hornig
and to accept project phasing and associated land transactions in
increments smaller Chun what was understood under the original
proposal,
2. Motion to direct staff to continue negotiations with Hornig but hold
firm on the requirement that Hornig's first. phase consist of a 42 -unit
complex.
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
Motion to continue negotiations with Hornig on development of a 42 -
unit facility with the first phase; however, authorize staff to instigate
negotiations with the Shelter Corporation in the event that Hornig is
unwilling to develop a 42 -unit complex as originally proposed.
Under this alternative, City staff would continue to negotiate with
Hornig but do so from the position that if negotiations fail, City staff
is authorized to begin negotiations with Shelter Corporation. Council
should know that staff has had ongoing communications with Shelter,
and Shelter is interested in entering negotiations at any time should
the deal with Hornig fall through. Garrett Carlson of Shelter
Corporation informed me that his offer stands to purchase the first (4
acres) phase in its entirety.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recognizes that the Hornig developments in the community have a
good track record, and the local neighborhood generally supports the
selection of Hornig as the developer for the site. It is our view, however,
that the position taken by Hornig during initial negotiations presents a plan
that is substantially different than the plan that was accepted by the
Council; therefore, if Hornig continues to hold firm on his revised plan, then
perhaps Council should consider reviewing its previous decision to select
Hornig and perhaps authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Sheller
Corporation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposal summary from previous meeting.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION / COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS
OUTLOT A OF COUNTRY CLUB MANOR - 4/21/94
HORNIG I I COMMENTS I SMELTER I I COMMENTS
Cspar >ee Proposal Good Sae Good
E ound:
Devabper Sae P Good Sea Pro Good
Oualllkatons:
PHASE I • FAMILY APTS
PHASE I • FAMILY APTS
Total svu=resRam
3
7
Total unra
42
a• 37
Ave sq Rlunt
1,365
1,OS3
Total square R
38.490
R"As ti s. \) 40.063Bu9dlgoonst.00st
$2.00D.000
LI $1,628.000
Total tett capaary
Annual taws
$43.000
533.300
Two bedroom units
11
19
Three beNoom units
32
6
Total be0roorro
118
62
Agee used
4.36
4
Density • unitslacre
9.83
9.23
Price altered
$126.000
/ 000 $84,000
Pnco Pa unit
$3.000
1\ / $2270
Price/acre
$28.899
w t { 1 $21,000
`
T arapes
42
37
U.„ xed pairing
78
74
Total panktg stabs
118
111
Tod staOMdt
2.81
3 00
Estmmted pop<dnbon
133
59
Ranter vtoome caP7
nc
yet
Estimated rwnW rams
$60D.$6OD
2BRIM - 3BR/$77e-
wasrtar/dryer
In each ml
Central I, -W q
PHASE II - SENIOR APTS
PHASE II - SENIOR APT°
Total urnb
24
28
Total bedroonns
48
32
Ave sq W MI
1,040
a00
Total square R
24,980
20.800
Suadlrg coal, cost
$1,100,000
1,170,000
Taal tar capaary
Annual tour
$0.000
$23,a00
Aama Used
384
4
Denary- unlm/mo
623
83
Pnce allored
$72,000
$84,000
Pica Par umi
$3.000
$3.231
Toms galages
24
28
L xad pats ahg
6
36
Tdb rwkUV at08e
32
36
Total ata&urut
1.33
2.13
waslhsr/dryo
In mach unt
to each tete
To' 'd and atm
Imp nem
MORNIG
COMMENTS
S [am waver saw
3
5152.000
Pal xee
2
Total kwasurn of
S ury4s lard
2.8
Toted acres
16
Ptm I ono II
PrnWeae
$24,146
511.200
Lard prate•WI
$196.000
EXPENSE AND CREDIT SUMMARY - PHASES I AND 11
S43.Op0
DEVELOPER
CRY
LandDost
$198,000
$20.000
Berm and tree ow"
$13,000
$13,000 Split 50'30
Tree ptw bnW70t St
$10,000 Orr $250 tree eery 20'
Park dmknx a 1
$3.000
$8.000 Dw•Im lot, Cltyadw
S torn s .-pond grddinp
$13.000
SUBTOTAL
5216.000
$46,000
To' 'd and atm
Imp nem
$262.000
Law pots ml
City experts" (not)
5152.000
City perk Imp. v We
$8,000
Total kwasurn of
$3.362.000
IanewAd 9ftlD
Totw emnual texas
Ptm I ono II
$70,000
City shwa of mm
511.200
PHASE III • POSSI&UTES
Puma III
cw@
$04,000 (If mmor Dl nmd r WW)
SMELTER I
I COMMENTS
3
2
3
16
521,000
5168.000
DEVELOPER
CITY
$168,000
530.000
Oev, tmlple0ad Ow1Marwdl-a rq
$10,000 Orr 5210 dee way 20'
S43.Op0
Dw•mt 1% and 00tw
53.000
$10,000 Dwaiopw herded
5246,000
$20.000
S268.0D0
5148.000
sa.000
13.084.000 I
538.700
$9,072
583.000
Council Agenda - 6/1'3/94
9. Consideration of a request to amend the Citv open burning
ordinance. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
I have recently had a couple of conversations with Mr. and Mrs. Dean
Carstens of 101 Craig Lane within the Ritze Manor plat, who have
complained of nuisance recreational fires that are occurring in his
neighborhood. Mr. Carstens is requesting that the City Council consider
amending the open burning ordinance to disallow recreational fires as an
exception to our ordinance and require that all recreational fires obtain a
permit first.
Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Carstens' letter requesting Ccu::ci! action for your
review. While 1 can certainly understand Mr. Carstens' concern if his
neighbors are constantly having recreational fires that are causing a
nuisance with smoke entering his house, this is the only complaint that I
have had for as long as I can remember concerning this type of fire.
Because of one complaint, I'm not convinced that the City should be
completely eliminating recreational fires, but the Council may want to
consider strengthening our definition and conditions under which these fires
are allowed.
While our ordinance makes an exception for recreational fires that are for
recreation, ceremonial, food preparation, or social purposes, this definition
can he quite vague, as almost any type of fire seems to he permissible. I
believe the original intent of allowing small fires in someone's back yard
was for food preparation and/or ceremonial events such as it boy scouts
event, we may want to consider eliminating the broad term "allowing fires
for social purposes" and provide additional restrictions. One possible
suggestion is to amend Section 5.4-7 by indicating that the recreational fire
must be for ceremonial or food preparation purposes only and be contained
within it 341 diameter area. In addition, the fire must not be left
unattended, and the prevailing winds should not cause the fire to become a
nuisance to other neighboring residences. Possibly this minor modification
to our ordinance would allow it nuisance fire to he it violation of our open
burning exception and would allow enforcement to discontinue the activity.
11, ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Council could determine to leave the open hurning ordinance as is
Without any amendments.
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
Since this is the only complaint city hall has received from the public
regarding recreational type fires, we may be overreacting to one
problem area by amending the ordinance to delete recreational fires
at this time.
2. Council could determine to delete the automatic approval of
recreational fires but require all recreational fires to obtain a permit
first.
I believe this option would he extremely difficult to enforce and
become burdensome on the staff to issue minor permits for these
types of recreational fires. In all likelihood, the public would not be
aware of the requirement for obtaining a permit for a small
ceremonial fire, which have not normally been a problem in the past
Council could adopt the amendment as proposed that would provide
additional conditions and definitions for Section 5-4-7.
Under this option, a recreational fire that becomes a nuisance to the
neighbors could be asked to be curtailed as violating our exception to
open burning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is the Administrator's recommendation that the Council consider
modifications to the definition for recreational fires but that they continue
to be an exception to the open burning restrictions. While 1 certainly
sympathize with Mr. Carstens' concerns over smoke entering his house from
these small recreational fires, to simply ban them seems to be overkill since
this is the only problem or complaint that 1 have received in many years. 1
would recommend the definition he modified as outlined with burning
allowed for ceremonial or food preparation only, the fire not left unattended,
the fire contained within a 3 -IL diameter area, and allowed only during
times when the prevailing wind would not, cause n nuisance to abutting
properties.
1). SUl'MRTINC DATA;
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
10
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
ORDINANCE SECTION 6.4-7 PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL FIRES
AS AN EXCEPTION TO OPEN BURNING RESTRICTIONS BE AMENDED
AS FOLLOWS:
5-4-7: 40CA?14ATIONA6 Fire set f4 reereationalr-eeremmiiel, food
PrepeFA:WMIr OF et
ial purposeF; are permitted provided only weed,
er-el3areeal-is-wed-
12L 'ATIONAL: Fires set for ceremonial or food preparation are
�S permitted provided the following conditions are adhered to:
(A) Only dry wood, coal, or charcoal is burned.
(13) Fire must be contained within a 3 -ft diameter area.
(C) Fire must not be left unattended.
J'�—
rI r;+ fib, MUST Be 60cn4o_.0 h K 1L,aed
Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of .June, 1994. (/ zs'
0 10171
Mayor
City Administrator
LID]
Mr. Rick Holfsteller May 31, 1994
City Administrator
Monticello, MN
Subject: Revise or Delete Recreational Fire Ordinance
Dear Rick,
As a city of Monticello resident, I am requesting that you take action
to delete city ordinance Chapter 4, Section 5-4-7, "Recreational
Fires". This section allows an exception to the open burning
restrictions of Chapter 4. Therefore, a "recreational" fire can be
ignited any time, regardless of prevailing wind direction and with no
minimum distance from the neighboring residences. I have had smoke
from a neighbor's "recreational" fire pit enter my house on several
occasions and according to the current ordinance there is nothing I can
do to stop it. A recreational fire should be listed along with the
ocher open burning categories of Chapter 4, Section 5-4-3, "Open
Burning Permit Applications".
There is no need for having the recreational fire exception. From what
I've been told it was put in the ordinances "in case the boy scouts
wanted to have a wiener roast". That reason does not justify an
ordinance that allows ground level release of high smoke content fires,
as often as desired, regardless of the prevailing wind direction and
distance from neighboring houses. If the "recreational" fire category
was transferred to Section 5-4-3, such an open fire would still be
possible, however, it would have to meet the same restrictions as other
open fires. That way, the permit for the open fire could be revoked
per Chapter 4, Section 5.4-4(2) if "a nuisance condition would result
from the burning".
1 regret having to bring this issue up. In a perfect world, the
ordinance may have worked for the rare occasion that the boy scouts
wanted a spur of the moment wiener/marshmallow roast and didn't want to
go to Montissippi Park. The reality is that it allows carte blanche
fires. I feel strongly that I have a citizens right co legally end a
neighbors fire if It is smoking me out of my house.
Please take whatever action is needed to follow up on my request. I am
available to answer any questions you may have or to attend a future
city council meeting. You can contact me at my home phone number
295.2182.
S0oraly,
Doan A. Carstens
Enclosure: City Ordinance, Chapter 4, "OPEN BURNING"
0
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
to. Consideration of approving open burning permit - Glen Posusta -
AMAX Storage. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Glen Posusta, owner of AMAX Storage located at Dundas Road and Cedar
Street, has requested a permit to conduct open burning on his property for
removal of brush and scrub trees from his storage building development. The
property in question should he more than 600 fl away from any occupied
residence, which is one of the conditions that must be met before a burning
permit can be granted.
Since there has been controversy on previously -issued burning permits within
the city limits, the Council has asked that all burning permit requests be
brought before the Council for approval and issuance. Although this location
should not pose any problems with residential properties, our ordinance does
indicate that a permit application shall be denied if there is a reasonable or
practical alternative method of disposal. As in almost all cases, brush and
debris can be hauled to a landfill for disposal, but it's usually more economical
to obtain a burning permit.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Because of the location being more than 600 fl from any occupied
residence, the Council could approve the issuance of an open burning
permit to Mr. Glen Posusta. As a condition of the pennit, the City
requires a $250 deposit to cover the cost of calling out the fire
department if needed and is returned if the burn is adequately
controlled. ? . J USS
2. Do not approve the open burning permit request. Under this option, the
Council would be determining that the permit should be denied because
there are other reasonable ulternutives to disposal of the material rather
than burning.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'ION:
While the staff does not have a formal recommendation on this request, this is
one of the occasions where the property in question actually is more than 600 R
away from the nearest residence. In the past, burning permits have been
issued to locations that were directly adjacent to residential properties; and in
this case, no homes would he affected nearby. It is also our understanding that
the brush and vegetative matter requested for burning did result from the
development of the property for the storage building complex.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of burning ordinance.
I
CHAPTER 4
OPENING BURNING
SECTION:
5-4-1:
Definitions
5-4-2:
Burning Restricted
5-4-3:
Open Burning Permit Applications
5-4-4:
Permit Denial and/or Revocation
5-4-5:
Liability
5-4-6:
Conflicting Laws
5-4-7:
Recreational Fires
5-4-8:
Penalty
5-4-1: DEFIN ITIONS:
(A) SCOPE: As used herein, the following words shall have the meanings
defined herein.
(B) NATURAL/VEGETATIVE MATTER: "Natural/Vegetative Matter" means grass
clippings, leaves, twigs, sticks, and branches, but not the main
trunk nor primary limbs of trees, and the non -harvested parts of
garden plants.
(C) OPEN BURNING: "Open Burning" means the burning of any matter
whereby the resultant combustion products are emitted directly to
the atmosphere without passing through an adequate stack, duct, or
chimney.
5-4-2: BURNING RESTRICTED:
(A) No person shall cause, allow, or permit any burning in the city of
Monticello except as may hereinafter be allowed.
(B) Open burns ng may be conducted if an open burning permit is obtained
pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance and other
regulations of local, state, and federal agencies.
5-4-3: OPEN BURNING PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
(A) APPLICATION: Application for open burning permits may be made in
cases where fires are proposed to be set for the following
purposes:
1. bona fide instruction and training of fire fighting personnel
and for the testing of fire extinguishing equipment;
2. elimination of fire o4 health hazards which cannot be abated
by any other practicable means;
3. activities in accordance with accepted forest or game
management;
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE V/Chpt 4/Page 1
�0
4. ground thawing for utility repair and construction;
5. the disposal of trees, brush, grass, and other
material/vegetative matter in the development of land and
right-of-way maintenance.
(B) RESTRICTIONS: A burning permit shall be issued on a prescribed
form to the applicant if the burning is for one of the purposes set
forth in (A) and the applicant agrees that all burning shall be
conducted under the following circumstances:
1. The prevailing wind at the time of the burning shall be away
for nearby residences.
2. The burning shall be conducted as far away as practical from
any highway or public road and controlled so that a traffic
hazard is not created.
3. The burning may not be conducted during the duration of an air
pollution alert, warning, or emergency.
4. The recipient of the permit or his authorized representative
shall be present for the duration of any fire authorized by
the permit.
5. Prior notice shall be given to the local Department of Natural
Resources forest officer, local fire marshal, or local fire
chief of the time and location of any fire authorized by the
permit.
6. Open burning for ground thawing shall be conducted in
accordance with the following additional restrictions:
(a) Fuels and starting materials shall be of a kind which do
not generate appreciable smoke.
(b) Coke used for ground thawing within 500 feet of dwellings
or occupied buildings shall contain less than one percent
sulfur.
(c) Ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and
carbon monoxide shall not be exceeded at occupied
residences other than those located on the property on
which the burning is being conducted.
(d) Propane gas thawing torches or other devices causing
minimal pollution shall be used when practicable.
7. Open burning of materials permitted in Section 5-4-3 (A)5
shall be conducted in accordance with the following additional
restrictions:
(a) The location of the burning shall not be within 600 feet
of an occupied residence other than those located on the
property on which the burning is conducted.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE V/Chet 4/Page 2
0
(b) Oils, rubber, and other similar smoke producing materials
shall not be burned or used as starting materials.
(c) The burning shall not be conducted within one mile of any
airport or landing strip unless approved by the director.
8. The following persons are authorized to accept application and
issue open burning permits.
1. Zoning Administrator
2. Building Official
3. Fire Chief
5-4-4: PERMIT DENIAL; PERMIT REVOCATION:
(A) Any permit application submitted shall be denied if:
1. a reasonable, practical alternative method of disposal of the
material is available; or
2. a nuisance condition would result from the burning.
(B) Any permit is subject to revocation at the discretion of a
Department of Natural Resources forest officer, the local fire
marshal, or fire chief, or the permit issuer if:
1. a reasonable practical method of disposal of the material is
found;
2. a fire hazard exists or develops during the course of the
burning; or
3. any of the conditions of the permit are violated.
5-4-5: LIABILITY: The granting of an open burning permit under any
provisions of this ordinance does not excuse a person from the
consequences, damages, or inquires which may result therefrom.
5-4-6: CONFLICTING LAWS: Nothing in this ordinance shall be
construed to allow open burning in those areas in which open
burning is prohibited by other laws, regulations, or
ordinances.
5-4-7: RECREATIONAL: Fire set for recreational, ceremonial, food
preparation, or social purposes are permitted provided only
wood, coal, or charcoal is burned.
5-4-8: PENALTY: Any person violating the terms of this ordinance
shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE V/Chpt 4/Page 3
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
t t. Consideration of annual municipal maintenance agreement with
Wright County. and consideration of access agreement outlining
Citv use of county right-of-wav for ISTEA oathway. (J.S., J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For many years, the City of Monticello has contracted with Wright County
for snow and ice removal on various county roads. The 1994 maintenance
agreement requested by the Councy includes Countv State Aid Hiehwav 75
from Willow Street near Pinewood Elementary School to the cast junction of
County Suite Aid Highway 39, and Countv State Aid Hiechwav 39 from the
Monticello Public Works building to the west junction of County State Aid
Highway 75. For County Road 75, we perform all of the snow and ice
removal with the exception that both the City and the County perform
sanding operations on that elevated portion of County Road 75 between the
hospital and the liondhus Corf»)ration property. For County Road 39, we
perform approximately 251h of the snow and ice removal based upon
whether we hit the area first or the County does.
The County reimburses us on it per -mile cost based upon the previous year's
cost incurred by the County. For 1994, based on the 1992 average annual
cost, we would he reimbursed $5,063.51.
Considerntiun of the annual maintenance agreement was delayed for
approval this year while we worked out details regarding the new pathway
project being on county highway right. -of -way. New that both documents
have been prepared, itis appropriate to consider adopting them at this
time.
I1. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would he to approve the 1994 maintenance
agreement and to approve the pathway access agreement with Wright
County as presented.
2. The second alternative is not to approve one or hoth of Clic
agreements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of Che Public Works Director that the City Council
authorize approval of the maintenance ngre menu as outlined in
alternative t11. This allows us to give our citizens a higher level of service
12
Council Agenda - 6113/94
than if the work were being totally performed by the County, as we must
travel these areas to reach other portions of the city and generally start a
few hours prior to the County beginning their operations.
The access agreement benefits the City and County by establishing clear
expectations with regard to construction, use, and maintenance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the letter from Wright County and the 1994 maintenance
agreement; Copy of access agreement.
13
WRIGHT COUNTY
2 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
iz Wright County Public Works Building
Route No. I - Boz 97-B
Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
'%WG Jet. r.H. 25 and C.R. 138
4y relephone (612/ 6827383
7866
January 21, 1994
Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: 1994 Maintenance Agreement
Dear Mr. Wolfsteller:
WAYNE A. PINGAL`iON, P E
High -.y E.g...,
68z 73M
DAVID K. MONTEBEL.LO. P E.
Mns m Hmh•ay Enor-,
682 7397
RICHARD E. MARQUETT£
Right of W ay Agent
682-7386
It is once again time to renew our annual municipal agreement for the maintenance
activities on the road(s) listed on the enclosed agreement.
You may remember that the costs used in computing the reimbursement for the
maintenance agreements is the highest average annual cost per mile for either the rural or
municipal roadway segments in the previous year. This is consistent with state -aid
procedures. In most cases maintenance activities are more costly in municipal areas
therefore these are the routine maintenance costs that are used in computing the cost per
mile for reimbursement. To give you an idea of the cost for each maintenance activity we
have shown the 1992 average cost per mile for each activity in the 1994 maintenance
agreement. Please note that we added "spring sweeping' to the 1994 agreement. It was
recently brought to my attention that you were not being reimbursed for this activity
performed by your forces in the spring to clean up the sand accumulation from the snow/ice
control activities.
1 have enclosed two copies of the 1994 agreement for your review and approval by
the City Council. Please return both copies of the executed agreement. Atter approval by
the County Board, one of the copies will be returned to you for your riles.
A check reimbursing your city for the maintenance activities covered under our 1993
agreement, has been sent to you under separate cover.
If you have any questions concerning this or if you note any discrepancies please
don't hesitate to contact our office.
Happy New Year!
Sincerely,
Wayn . Fingalson
County Highway Engineer t'� Enc.: (2) 1994 Mon. Maintenance. Agts.
Equal Opponunny i Affirmative Artwn Empbyvr
0
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 1994
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Monticello hereinafter referred to as
the 'City' and the County of Wright hereinafter referred to as the 'County".
WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Minnesota Statutes, permits the County to designate certain roads and streets within
the City as County State Aid Highways, and
WHEREAS, the City has concurred in the designation of the County State Aid Highway within its limits as
identified in County Board's resolutions of August 28, October 8, November 5, December 3, December 27, 1957 and
January 7, 1958, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to the best interest of all parties that the duties and responsibilities of both the City and
the County as to maintenance on said County State Aid Highways to be clearly defined,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED with regard to said County State Aid Highway maintenance:
That the City will be responsible for routine maintenance on the following highways.
MAINT.
PLAN SCGMENT MILES COST/ML• TOTALCOST•
1. CSAH 75 Willow St. to E. Jct. CSAH 39 3.74 774.34 $2,896.03
(Includes four lane portion.)
2. CSAH 39 From City Public Works Bldg. to 0.32 193.58 61.95
W. Jct. of CSAH 75
4. CSAH 75 Four lane portion 3.10 601.58 1,864.90
4. CSAH 39 From CSAR 75 to Kampa Cir. 0.40 601.58 240.63
ESTIMATED TOTAL - $5,063.51
That routine maintenance shall consist of the following: (Maint. Plan)
1. (CSAR 75) - Snow and ice removal.
2. (CSAH 39) - 25 % of the snow and ice removal.
4. One-time spring sweeping only.
'Based on 1992 average annual costs.
That when the City deems it desirable to remove snow by hauling, it shall do so as its own expense. The City
shall also be responsible for all snow and ice removal on sidewalks and other boulevard related maintenance outside the
curb or street area.
That the County will he responsible for all usher maintenance.
That the City shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the County and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action of whatever nature or character arising out of or by
reason of the execution or performance of the work provided for herein to be performed by the City. It is further agreed
that any and all full-time employees of the City and all other employees of the City engaged in the performance of any
work or services required or provided for herein to he performed by the City shall be considered employees of the City
only and not of the County; and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Workmen's Compensation Act of
the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third panics
as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the work or
services providud to be rendered herein shall he the sole obligation and responsibility of the City.
(Sheet I of 2)
That the County shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City and all of its agents and employees of any form
against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of actions of whatever nature or character, whether at law or
equity, arising out of or by reason of the execution, omission or performance of the work provided for herein to be
performed by the County including, but not limited to, claims made arising out of maintenance obligations of County,
mgineering, design, taking or inverse condemnation proceedings. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees
of the County and all other employees of the County engaged in the performance of any work or services required or
provided for herein to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of the County only and not of the City;
and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any
act or omission on the part of said County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to he
rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the County.
That in December of 1994 , the City shall receive payment from the County for their work. This amount shall
be based on the 1993 average annual cost per mile for routine maintenance on Municipal County State Aid Highways.
The average annual cost per mile will reflect only those costs associated with the areas of routine maintenance for which
the City is responsible.
ADOPTED
, 19_
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
CERTIFICATION
1 herebycert[ that the above is a true and correct co of a resolution duly passed. adopted and certify PY Y P Pt approved by
the City Council of said City on , 19_.
City Clerk
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED:
COUNTY OF WRIGHT Name of City
Chairman of the Board
ATTEST:
County Coordinator
e
(Sheet 2 of 2) G)
ACCESS AGREEMENT BE'1'WEEN�'K1t1('H'F COUNTY
AND '1'l1E CITY OF MOMI'ICELLO
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello (hereafter the City) desires to construct a public
use pedestrian/bike path along Wright County's property to offer residents safe
and convenient access between the east and west ends of the City; and
WHEREAS, Wright County (hereafter the County) is desirous of cooperating with
the City in providing a safe alternative to streets and highways for pedestrians
and bicyclists:
NOW, THEREFORE, the County and the City hereby agree as follows:
I. The County hereby grants to the City access to the County's property
described as Follows: The south boulevard of CSAH 75 from Meadow Oak
Avenue to Washington Street, from Elm Street (CSAR 39) to River Street,
and along the west boulevard of Elni Street (CSAII 39) from CSAH 75 to
Golf Course Road, maintaining an 8 -ft wide bituminous pathway and any
necessary drainage structures, signage, pedestrian bridge, and landscaping.
2. The City agrees:
a. That it shall receive approval of the Wright County Highway
Department for the specific alignment in the field prior (o
commencing construction. The City shall provide the County with
copies of plans and specifications showing route and construction
details fur I.he County's approval prior to setting it letting date.
b. That it shall notify the County at least three (3) days i n advance of
commencing with construction.
C. That it shall secure all permits required for the construction.
d. That it Shull not assess the County for any costs for construction or
maintenance.
C. That it shall maintain the path and approximately len (10) feet on
either side of the path in a good and safe condition.
1'. That it shall provide any police protection required for the path.
g. That it Shall defend, indemnify, and hill[[ the County hmmless from
any claims, suits, or causes of action arising from acty or omissions of
the City, its agents, contractors, or employees in the construction,
maintenance, or operation of the pathway.
(4. '['his Access Agreement may be amended in writing upon agreement of both
parties.
ACCESS.AGR: 5/26/94 Page I //
This Access Agreement shall be perpetual, although the Access Agreement
may be terminated by the mutual agreement of both parties after a period
of ten (10) years from completion of construction.
CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY
By: ------- By:
Brad Fyle, Mayor Pat Sawatzke, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
and and
Rick Wolfsteller Richard Norman
City Administrator Wright County Coordinator
and
Wayne Fingalson, P.E.
Dated: Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
ACCESS.AGR: 6/26/94 Page 2 0
Council Agenda - 6/13194
12. Consideration of advertising for bids for demolition of the old Gille
house and appurtenances at 1324 West Broadway. i.I.S.1
A. RBh'F.RFNCR AND BACKGROUND:
Action on this item was tabled in April at the recommendation of the City
Attorney, as it was his opinion that we did not have authorization to move
ahead and demolish the building. Since that time we have received a letter
of authorisation from Wright County and have received written input from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and staff feels it is now proper W
remove the building and seal the wells. We will be doing some excavation
to the south of the existing building for septic bank and drain field removal;
and if any contaminated soils fire found, we may stockpile and cover those
on site to be handled with the fuel tank removal. The fuel tank removal
itself will occur after authorization from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
We have spoken with Agassiz Environmental, the firm that did the original
site assessment, and they indicated that they would be willing to prepare a
funding pre -approval report for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency so
we can he assured of soil cleanup funding prior to removing the tanks. The
cost of preparing this report would he $2,000. In addition, they would assist
us with the technical portion of preparing the specifications for tank
removal so that we could hid those after obtaining approval from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Any additional contaminated
materials found with the house demolition and septic trunk removal could
then be handled with the Caulk removal part of the project.
At this meeting, we are asking the Council to approve the plans and
specifications and aut.hnrire advert.isenlenl for lids for the demolition of the
building and site appurtenances such as the pump islands and concrete
slabs and triangular building up front. There have been it few changes in
the plans and specifications, so they are enclosed for your review. We are
also asking; City Council to consider authorizing Agassiz to prepare the pre -
approval report for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at a cost of
$2,000 and authorize $600 to Agassiz for assistance with preparing the
technical portions of Lite specifications for tank removal. This work would
be done concurrent with the advertisement for hids for the building
demolition and well scaling. The bids are due hack on .July 7 u) be reviewed
at the .July 1 I Council meeting.
14
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to approve the plans and specifications for the
demolition of the old Gille house and appurtenances and authorize
advertisement for bids, and also to authorize $2,000 to be expended
with Agassiz Environmental for the pre -approval report and $500 for
assistance with preparing the specifications for tank removal.
2. The second alternative would be to approve the plans and
specifications and advertise for bids to hold off on developing the pre -
approval report until after we have the bids in hand for the
demolition of the building.
3. The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the plans and
specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for the demolition of the
old Gille house and appurtenances to he returned on July 7. It is the
Council's choice whether they want to move ahead with the pre -approval
funding report or wait until the bids are returned on the house. If the pre -
approval funding report was done ahead of time, this would save us some
time in completing the project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of revised plans and specifications; Copy of Agassiz site report; Copy of
all hills paid to date on this project.
15
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR BUILDING DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION OF THE
OLD GILLE HOUSE AND APPURTENANCES
1324 WEST BROADWAY
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO, MINNESaTA
JUNE 7, 1994
Prepared by
City of Monticello
DEMGILLE.SPE: 6/7/94
INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS
OLD GMLE HOUSE DEMOLITION
1324 WEST BROADWAY
FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
The City of Monticello will receive proposals at the Monticello City Hall, 250 East
Broadway, until 10 a.m., Thursday, July 7, 1994. All proposals will be publicly
opened and read aloud.
All proposals shall be inked or typewritten on forms to be supplied by the City.
Copies of the plans and specifications may be obtained from the Monticello City
Hall at 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 55362.
The successful contractor will be required to furnish and pay for a satisfactory
performance bond.
Proposals will be considered by the City of Monticello on Monday evening, July 11,
1994. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to waive any
informalities in the proposals.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
DEMGILLE.SPE: 617194
Page 2/l.
PROPOSAL FORM
FOR
BUILDING DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION
FOR THE
OLD GILLE HOUSE AND APPURTENANCES
1324 WEST BROADWAY
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA:
1. The following proposal is made for building demolition and site preparation
of the old Gille house and appurtenances.
2. The undersigned certifies that the project specifications have been carefully
examined and that the work site has been personally inspected. The
undersigned declares that the amount and nature of the work to he done is
understood, and at no time will misunderstanding of the specifications be
pleaded. On the basis of the specifications, the undersigned proposes to
furnish all necessary apparatus and other means of construction and/or
demolition to do all the work and furnish all the materials in the manner
specified to finish the entire project within the time hereinafter specified,
and to accept as full compensation therefor the sum stated below.
3. Base Proposal
A. Demolish the old Gille house and appurtenances as specified, prepare
the site as specified, and transport all debris to a state permitted
demolition disposal site for a total lump sum of
($ 1.
B. Excavate, stockpile, and cover as specified on site approximately 200
cu yds of petroleum contaminated soil at $ per cu yd X
200-$
C. Provide, place, and compact approximately 200 cu yds of clean fill
material ut it unit cost of $ per cu yd X 200 =
D. Total ofA+B+C=$
4. The Owner reserves the right to award to the lowest responsible contractor
as determined to be in the best interest of the City.
5. The undersigned further proposes to execute the contract agreement and to
furnish satisfactory Iwnd within five (5) days after notice of the award of
contract has been received. The undersigned further proposes to begin work
DEMGILLE.SPE: 6/7/94 page 3 'Z
as specified, to complete the work on or before date specified, and to
maintain at all times a contract bond approved by the City in an amount
equal to the total bid.
6. In submitting this proposal, it is understood that the right is reserved by
the Owner to reject any or all proposals and to waive informalities.
7. This proposal may not be withdrawn after the opening of the proposals and
shall he subject to acceptance by the Owner for a period of forty-five (45)
calendar days from the opening thereof.
8. If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation:
9. If a partnership, state full names of all co-partners:
OFFICIAL ADDRESS: FIRM NAME:
By
Title
By
Title
Date
DEMOILLE.SPE: 6/7/94
Page 4 0
SECTION I
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
INDEX
1.01 Descriptions
1.02 Designation of Parties
1.03 Insurance
1.04 Compliance with Laws, Building Codes, and Regulations
1.05 Bonds
1.06 Responsibility for Condition of Structure
1.07 Vacancies
1.08 Examination of Site
1.09 Completion --Liquidated Damages
1.10 Safety
1.11
Clean Up
1.12
Protection
1.13
Salvage of Materials
1.14
Evaluation of Bids
1.15
Approval and Final Acceptance
1.16
Method of Payment
1.17
Permits
DEMCILLE.SPE: 617/94 page 5 O
�Z
SECTION I
SPECIAL PROVISION
1.01 DESCRIPTIONS
a) These specifications cover the demolition and site preparation of the old
Gille house and appurtenances at 1324 West Broadway, Monticello,
Minnesota, all as herein specified.
1.02 DESIGNATION OF PARTIES
a) The word "Owner," "City," and/or "Architect," as used in these specifications
refers to the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
b) Where the term "Contractor" appears, it refers to the prime contractor
having direct contact with the owner.
c) The word "Subcontractor" refers to any individual, firm, or corporation who
has, with the approval of the owner, contracted with the contractor to
execute and perform in his stead all or any part of the contract of which
these specifications are a part.
1.03 INSURANCE
a) No contractor nor subcontractor shall commence work under this contract
until he has obtained at his own cost and expense all insurance required by
this article, such insurance to be approved by the owner and maintained by
the contractor until final completion of the work.
b) Workman'; Compensation Insurance - The contractor shall take out and
maintain for the duration of this contract statutory workman's
compensation insurance and employee's liability insurance as shall be
required under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
c) Public Liability Insurance - The contractor shall take out and maintain
during the life of this contract such public liability and property damage
insurance as shall protect him from nil claims for bodily injury, including
accidental death, as well as from all claims for property damage arising
from operations under this contract. The minimum limits which are
required are: $500,000 for injuries including accidental death to any one
person, and $1,000,000 for injuries including accidental death resulting from
one accident; property damage in the amount of not less than $500,000 per
accident and the same amount in the aggregate.
DEMGILLE.SPE: 6!1/94 Page 6 0
Z
d) Automobile insurance - The contractor shall carry automobile insurance on
all automotive equipment owned, rented, or borrowed in the minimum
amounts of $500,000 for injuries including accidental death to any one
person and $1,000,000 for injuries including death resulting from any one
accident. This policy must also provide $1,000,000 property damage
coverage.
e) Contractual Liabilitv Insurance - The contractor agrees to hold harmless
and indemnify the owner, the engineer, and their agents from every claim,
action, cause of action, liability, damage expense, or payment incurred by
reasons of any bodily injury including death, or property damage resulting
from the contractor's operations on this project.
f) Owner's Protective Liabilitv and Prooertv Damage Insurance - The
contractor shall provide owner's protective liability and property damage
insurance in the name of the owner, insuring against bodily injury and
property damage liability, in the limits set forth above for which they may
become legally obligated to pay as damages sustained by any persons
caused by accident and arising out of operations performed for the name
insured by independent contractors and general supervision thereof.
g) Insurance certificates evidencing that all the above information is in force
with companies acceptable to the owner and in the amounts required shall
be submitted to the owner for examination and approved concurrently with
the execution of the contract. In addition to the normal information
provided on the insurance certificates, they shall specifically provide that:
A certificate will not be modified except upon ten days' prior written
notice W the owner.
Coverage is included for blasting, collapse, and underground hazards.
1.04 COMPLIANCE. WITH T -AWS, BUILDING CODES, AND
REGULATIONS
a) The bidder is assumed to have made himself familiar with all codes, state
laws, ordinances, and regulations which in any manner affect those engaged
or employed in the work , or the materials or equipment used in or upon the
improvement, or in any way affect the conduct of the work, and no plea of
misunderstanding will be considered on account of the ignorance thereof.
The provisions of such codes, laws, or ordinances are deemed to be a part of
these specifications, and the contractor will he bound by the provisions
thereof.
b) The contractor shall and also by a surety agree to indemnify and save
harmless the owner and all of its officers, agents, and servants against any
claims or liability arising from or based on the violation of any such law,
ordinance, regulation, or decrees, whether by himself or his employees.
DEMGILLE.SPE: 6/7/94 Page 7
0
c) If the contractor shall discover any provisions in the contract, specifications,
or any direction of the City or inspector which is contrary to or inconsistent
with any such law, ordinance, regulation, or decree, he shall forthwith
report its inconsistence to the City in writing.
1.05 GUARANTEE BONDS
a) Before entering into contract, successful bidders must furnish surety
company bond or satisfactory letter of credit in full amount of contract with
suitable penalties provided therein guaranteeing faithful performance of
contract and payment of all obligations arising thereunder in accordance
with terms thereof. Form of bond and surety thereon subject to approval of
owner and shall cover work done under contract for period of twelve (121
months beyond date set shown in original contract for completion of same.
The bond shall be maintained in force for twelve months after completion of
the work and acceptance by the City. This contractor shall pay premium for
bond.
1.06 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDITION OF STRUCTURE
a) Prospective contractors are hereby advised, notified, and warned that the
City of Monticello and its agents, employees, and servants make no
representations as to the conditions of the structures for which bids are
invited, nor any part or portion thereof, nor any installation therein of any
nature whatsoever; and furthermore, the City takes no responsibility for
any change in such structure, portion thereof, nor any installation of any
type whatsoever therein contained between the time of initial viewing by
the prospective contractor and the entry into a contract between the
successful contractor and the City of Monticello.
1.07 VACANCIES
a) The premises will he vacated at the time of notice to proceed.
1.08 EXAMINATION OF SITE OF WORK
a) It will be required and expected that each contractor, before submitting a
proposal for work required under these specifications, will visit the site,
make a thorough examination of conditions, take all necessary
measurements, and thoroughly familiarize himself with all existing
conditions and all of the limitations pertaining to the work herein
contemplated.
h) The submission of a proposal shall be considered assurance that the
contractor has visited the site and made thorough examination of the
conditions and limitations.
DEMGILLE.SPE: 8/7194 Page 8 9
1.09 COMPLETION . LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
a) The contractor shall commence work within five (5) calendar days after
notification to proceed, and he shall complete the work within fourteen (14)
calendar days of such notification.
b) From the compensation otherwise to be paid the contractor, the City may
retain a sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each calendar day that the work
remains incomplete after the completion date, which sum is agreed upon as
a proper measure of liquidated damages which the City wiii sustain per
diem by failure of the contractor to complete the work at the stipulated
time, and this sum is not to be construed in any sense as a penalty.
c) No extension of tune will be given for the completion of the work except for
delays authorized by the City. Extension of time will only be granted upon
a written request from the contractor to the City.
1.10 SAFETY
a) Each contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect life, limb,
and property during the progress of the work and shall comply with all new
and existing safety and health standards and laws.
b) The contractor shall use every precaution to protect the public from
personal harm. The contractor shall erect suitable barriers to prevent
people from falling into holes or being struck by falling debris.
1.11 CLEAN UP
a) Upon completion of the work listed herein, the contractor shall remove all
tools, equipment, scaffolding, debris, and unused materials from the site
and the entire premises shall be left in a clean and workmanlike manner to
the satisfaction of the City of Monticello.
1.12 PROTECTION
al This contractor shall send proper notices, make all necessary arrangements,
and perform all other services required for the care, protection, and
maintenance of all public utilities, including mail boxes, fire plugs,
telephone and telegraph poles and wires, and all other items of this
character mi and around the building site assuming all responsibility and
paying all costs for any damages caused by the demolition.
b) The contractor shall provide and maintain guard lights at all barricades,
railings, and obstructions in the streets, roads, or sidewalks, and at all
trenches or pits adjacent to the public walks or roads.
DEMGILLE.SPE: 6/7/94 page 9
(Zi
1.13 SALVAGE OF MATERIALS
a) All salvageable materials within the building (except where specifically
noted) at the time of notice to proceed shall become the property of the
contractor. The contractor shall secure the building from entry beginning
with the notice to proceed.
1.14 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
a) In evaluating the best proposal for the City, the following items will be
considered:
Price quoted in the proposal.
Qualifications of the contractor. Evidence shall be furnished to the
City that the contractor has the necessary facilities, ability, and
financial resources to perform the work in accordance with the
specifications.
1.18 APPROVAL AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE
a) Upon the completion of the work herein specified, the contractor shall notify
the City in writing that the work is ready for final inspection. After final
inspection, the contractor will be notified of final acceptance or of additional
or corrective work required for final acceptance.
b) Before final payment is made for the work on this project, the contractor
must make a satisfactory showing that he has complied with the provisions
of Minnesota Statutes Annotated 290.92 requiring the withholding of state
income tax for wages paid employees on this project. Receipt by the clerk of
the owner of a Certificate of Compliance from the Commissioner of Taxation
will satisfy this requirement.
1.16 METHOD OF PAYMENT
a) Full payment will he made within 30 days upon completion and acceptance
of work.
1.17 PERMITS
a) The contractor shall obtain a City demolition permit for the demolition of
the building. The cost of this permit will be waived. All other permits
regarding transportation or disposal shall be the contractor's responsibility,
including cost of said permits.
DEMCILLE.SPE: 6/7/94
Page 10 0
SECTION H
DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL
2.01
General
2.02
Scope
2.03
Utilities
2.04
Protection
2.05 Site Preparation and Compacted Backfill
2.06 Clean Up
2.07 Disposal Site
2.08 House Moving Requirements
2.09 Area Map
2.10 Site Map
DEMGILLE.SPE: 617/94 Page 11 (0
SECTION U
DEMOLITION
2.01 GENERAL.
a) Buildine Descriution:
General Architecture: One-story wood frame, rear walkout single family
residence with a basement and attached garage
and shed. Some outside slabs, fueling islands, and
small block triangular building also exist.
Size: See plan sheet.
2.02 SCOPE
a) Work includes the demolition or removal of the existing buildings (including
triangular building) as shown on the site plan. This includes all walls,
posts, support columns, and floor slabs (including those outside) along with
pump islands and piping. The resulting excavations shall be leveled and
compacted with suitable existing site granular material. Any additional
granular material needed will be furnished to the contractor at no cost. The
existing fuel tanks are not to be removed with this project but are to be
protected if they are still existing at the time of notice to proceed for this
project.
b) All debris, including rubbish, furnaces, appliances, pumps, brick, concrete,
plaster, wood, wire, glass, steel, pipe, block foundations, miscellaneous
household waste, and other like materials shall be removed from the site
and properly disposed of.
c) All concrete slabs, curbs, platforms, walks, and drives "Within the urouerty"
shall be removed.
d) The structure is not expected to contain asbestos material. If any suspected
asbestos materials are found during demolition, they are to be reported to
the Owner for special handling by Owner.
2.0.9 UTILITIES
a 1 The two existing wells will be sealed by separate contract prior to the start
of this demolition project.
b 1 The sewer is expected to be a septic tank and drain field or seepage pit.
The demolition contractor shall follow the house sewer and remove and
dispose of all sewer pipe, septic tanks, drain fields, or seepage pits,
including rock. The resulting excavation shall he filled with compacted
DEMGILLE.SPE: 6/7/94 page 12 0
clean granular fill from the site or material will be provided at no cost to
the contractor. The septic tank shall be pumped by the demolition
contractor and disposed of as per state statutes at no additional cost
c) Electric service to the house will be disconnected and gas service will be
disconnected by the City prior to demolition.
d) If any additional existing residential wells are found, contractor will notify
the City, and the City shall have the well capped or sealed under a separate
contract.
e) During septic tank or drain field or seepage pit removal, the contractor may
discover soils contaminated with petroleum products. The contractor shall
provide a unit cost for excavating these materials as directed by the Owner,
stockpiling the material on site, and covering with 6 -mil black nylon
reinforced poly plastic tarps. The contractor shall also provide a price for
clean granular fill material placed with normal compaction.
fl The four existing fuel tanks are to remain. This contractor shall remove the
pump islands, triangular building, and piping. Pipes shall be cut off with a
rolling pipe cutter and the ends filled with foam within 10-15 It of the
tanks. The tanks must be protected from damage.
2.04 PROTECTION
a) Care shall be taken to control dust by watering, if necessary, and fire by
arranging for fire control and extinguishers; and to keep passersby from
entering the site, a temporary fence shall encompass the demolition area
once demolition begins if the site is left unattended before the demolition is
complete.
b) Fire Protection
1. A 1 1/2" hose line shall be connected to the hydrant nearest the
demolition area (near the old Baptist church) at all times during
demolition. The hose can be used for dust or fire control or to add
water to achieve optimum moisture for soil compaction. Water used
for these purposes will be provided at no cost.
2. The fire department shall be notified immediately if a fire is
discovered.
3. No material, obstruction, or debris shall be placed or allowed to
accumulate within fifteen ( 15) feet of any fire hydrant. All fire
hydrants shall be accessible at all times.
4. Whenever a cutting torch or other equipment which might cause a
fire is being used, the contractor shall keep fire extinguishers nearby
and ready for instant use.
DENIGILLE.SPE: 6/7/94 page 13 �Zi
c) The contractor shall remove all debris from the property over City-appruved
haul routes: CSAR 75.
2.05 SITE PREPARATION
a) The site shall be leveled or sloped and compacted so as not to be a hazard to
the general public at the completion of the demolition. Existing site
materials shall be used at no extra compensation. Any additional clean
granular fill needed will be provided by the City and placed and compacted
by the contractor at no additional cost
2.06 CLEAN UP
a) The site will be left in a clean condition satisfactory to the City.
2.07 DISPOSAL SITE
a) The contractor shall properly dispose of all materials in a state -permitted
demolition site or sanitary landfill as required by MPCA regulations.
DEMGILLE.SPE: 6/7/94 Page 14 CIL
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY 111
AT7m1 vGLVF .
Gary Anderson
City of Monticello
City Hall
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Re: Former Gille's Auto
Site ID#: 'LEAK00006549
Dear Mr. Anderson:
June 1, 1994
wlrt vu
•b L.Al A1L :'AOnD
ST PAIL. \Ih ••1!1�Iw
n:LLPI—V: Inl:l ."It 10'5
As we discussed, the MPCA has issued an Order to responsible persons identified for
the site referenced above. To date, neither party has assumed responsibility.
Under Minn. Stat. S 115C.021 and Minn. Stat. S 115C.09, subd. 3d (1992), the City
may take corrective action a nd apply for reimbursement if no responsible person has
responded to the Commissioner's Order. No further MPCA authorization is needed,
although if the City does decide to proceed with corrective action the City should contact
the MPCA project manager to ensure that the corrective action meets MPCA
requirements. Questions regarding costs eligible for reimbursement should he directed to
the staff of the Petrofund.
1 have suggested that the City ascertain whether Kunz Oil intends to take action (or
possibly to assist the City with funding) before proceeding with corrective action using City
funds. Although Kunz failed to respond to initial communications, it has now indicated
that it is checking its files to ascertain if it has a connection to the site.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
dVery truly yo
N4EN E. COHE
Assistant Attorney General
(612) 296.7346
cc: Jessica Ebertz
AwlcPa
Feemnlle: 16121 79741 39 r TDD: 16121 2%.7000 • Tull Free Line: 11on7 07d787 ITDD w vowel
An 84wl Oppunumlr Employer Who Vdun Diversll7 Prmmd on Srlq rayeted paper 1171 po>t conwmn cog^�
�GASSIZ
a system
MOM 11 MzM A r9wM • 1 dpp.W.Mo1
ihme 6, 19%
Chy of Mott kwo
F.O. Box 1147
Mondce9o, MN 53362-9243
AWN: Gary Amlars.n
RE. Gawies
Dear Mr. Anderson.
As per our phaa. cottvaNAM I am Ml&g you this ptopoad on the GMrA the in bioadab.
l lm proposst inchrdea aowptaohtaMnikununmwbbvvdwveYW&Mution ads
complete Remedial invea0paw Report. Sp.d6crma wfit q for the tac=k romorvd nerd Boll
n bidding protest ad aealing of 2-25 mookoriq welt.
COPY
On situ time &r peraanod doing do vgrru terxmg wM beat $40.00 par hasa pion 590.00 per dry
for the PN meta. Mileage wtli be bond than Cbiargo Labs and wf0 bo at 323.00 per baa phu
5.33 per ttdic
1 bave exiosed a scope of zwA m fbr ascavaticat and do a liar of the -.porta regWM by do
Ifyou have any qucttiow or XI can be of f4ttba assistance puw camera tae at my ofSce.
Revec d*1
Agents Batvfrarmrrlad SlrbM llra
Dhroaa of Matbeting
li❑
AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. a Y
Environntemal Contracting and Consulting Services C a/
PROPOSAL
Proposal offered to. Company: City of Mootieeib
'Chem. Address: 250 East Broadway
CitylSL/Zip: Monticd4o, MN 55362-4245
Contact: Gary Anderson
Site: caley's
Agasdz Environmental Systems and the Client hereby agree as follows:
I See attachment A (Scope of Services)
I See attachment B (Petrofiutd Proposal for Consultant Selection)
I See attachment C (Petrofund Proposal for Contractors Selection)
I Sm anacbmem D. (Other): Report Requirements from MPCA
We hereby propose to furnish all labor and materials in accordance with the above spe ns, for the
sum of. 52,400.00 for the Risk Asseamtat, RI report 2nd Spedqmtlen for bMs
S 432.00 for the Well seating
All other services will be on a time and material buii ateatrdtng to the Pesrrofand proposals with
the exception of on site vapor testing which will be at $40.00 per hoar.
Payments are to be made as follows: NET 30 DAYS
Al i material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workman Wee tanner according to
standard practices, Any alteration or deviation from above sped6catiostt involving extra costa, will be executed
only upon written orders, and will become an extra ebarge over and above the estimate.
Authorized Signature:
Terms of agraemem:
1. Cno wO llldrm m p.saq bwe and b, .May .1 a W-
1. C71m win pwwd. i, Pawad add agdpaaa mal t. abed. U. -L
). AgOd .la b1-9—*h0-0--0 pmo.Aitr =--A" 1fft=paaWibt,iP110ia Apob a'm a
mP web mtmd a W MWa w.b m. CUM Apr" ba iba ca=mmWheiA Aa? G=W m vud b7 Apw.0.Kaawa waw t. bftd s cep
cis
t. Cam wap to nnWaaebli Id k%WmW aOa� dams... a 0llaia=b*5 ww. duce, as 4rA$w WIdW wan ba Ww" pled• am cma
abwAn app.lmaaaa 10 Wa a.m m. Clam bel. a Pawl• a. e06mdia0a6 lel sb o 1ftWL lana pea Me 4tp0tmmna d. CUM VW
miwp andtrtid Apload.�nam••7 am dl dace»aasae•s dlCf1.eidb n17 ddld paaY wiltsaldorspywarmaoadwW
Glbnd. n pam0 dei+ i3annw
s. Ary,oiepund daaurm orw.aa.d w.a a aspd a as aw...d Icaod m.aaddaaariY ha. o IO aC4Ltm pltP
i. Aawe ..e aaapt m.P.Pa b Gia co7mlr. ei.9,u1 a.a.r upas aaapwke daw.as laws Awa above alrp bawd m AplOa1 paaaa0 rr aa4daY a
.ear alae cepa kIu► A---- d dapo and b.Gap dice wlt a,..aces d. Casa r."K
7. The dka OW pry dr Wel dad mW anticlmbew dor diel Iwl5a.Attuawm"web4(1J1d%ft data am br.mda dna P.O.Aw Bea d0.
.lkyd r b. nmisi.
a Udo cmpapappm.tv.towad.w*hk%aimP.wao1.dw WOaaapde+aO aCa ilea ds(3a)aerydo7. ianwtia dela mP-&.
.,mea., dr Ctb ora pq . b—dm(..i 11%w mok a ds asm7a.i5pwi bw W, drib... i-
9.
P. "41.11.0 ape dA.0 -VOU cid sew nsa b.sdwd a dor Cam o Ib UXU .bel n b land aa, wm b. nalr4 ma dons .d win r b. wad by Ib.
CUM d P•Pda
10.TA.cu.0 will PY all Ra.t"adlPdla•stdmnaum upawa w.soq 00.n cep des APOW-0a UKft Ori daaaa cid 04r Das Data
lbkm®.d tdddaaa"alta dud pay Iawawddwa.dl.3%pw m@dsawpOaadwbwl
It Yd.CUM baabla. as aapaa Mead wtam. dOaOda P. w%* iadpws.nl 1 ar Ap.M dr CUM .M t Alps a. 00 wow.rd-GP
ebdksama aft cmwi.@s ft. -d tail ao b.dladw.,d. Cas dW MY %=.a U. fft d laK Pa. maa m Or Pd da badaaa
li Tia Cana mY t a m bd ab bH a Waldo mmoft aapo q bo des CLmo.
.d Ap
II AU.04.ora t plPAdd a p o radvLL Sada aced caul u.. aaa ad IPJK a .a" ■ P. .0m, teal.
la Npp Mis .I.-Apw.MaY..M.aaiiel Win dsP-wxy daw.— cid Pd res/ Oi aipaOpY
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prior, speciRcetion3 and conditions ar hereby aoceptod. You aro enhorized to do the work as
spaificd. Payment will be mak a outlined about.
Date: Signature:
�� 1
COPY
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Site: GiBey's
Ap= Enviromnerttai Systems is to provide the following services for the site located in
M-ticetlo. The purpose of these activities is to provide cnduuonatentai services during it
tank nn oval.
The fbilowung m vices ate to be provided by Agerasia Eavcoaatmtal:
Provide a site Health and Safety Plan
-Screw Soils for the presence of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
-Obtain and strbmi2 Laboratory samples
-Provide a tank o=va ion report
Methodologies:
Soil will be collected in accordance with MPCA ihu sheet Ml G (Soil sad Ground
Water Andyaes at Perrolwm Release Sitter) and Fart Sheat f113
(Excavation ofPetroieum Contaminated Sohl). The sail will be screened
for the presence of organic vapors using a photoionisation detector (PID)
equipped with a 10.2 electron volt (eV) lamp and calibrated to read in parts
per mffwn (ppm) vohmoe/volumt as be==. The PLD readings reprstetu a
qualtative indicator of conumWiation by compounds which aro icn i by
the 10.2 tV energy source. The soil — were sc meed for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in accotdan ce with the MPCA doatment `lar
Headspace Analytical Saaaag Procedurta•
-Sod samples collected for laboratory anelysis will be packed in duo laboratory
supplied 2 ounce glass jars equipped with trylon septum Appy
25 grams of soil wi11 be placed in each jar. The samples will be kept in a
cooler an site and during transit to the laboratory. Samples m4med for
diad range organics (DRO) will be preserved in the laboratory. Proper
sample chain of custody will be ntaita fined.
•All data will be complied and written into a tank ekcavatba report,
The beCA mqw a that you compia[e and nrbmit a Peuvla m Teak Rdeaae Report
(VM) if you an the respousba ply (RP) iu the mbm &am a petroleum rmdoWcuod
slanI s teak (UST). The PTR Is amWly conte of aervetd doatmwmti tbo oft Vw&
Aaers detamiaa which of tho reports are included is the PTR. The poaft eeports
bxk de:
o Zzm Wm Jtvp= Iftbtae baa baso no dies o(groundwater
of sufm water and the c- I P asa asp be dkmed up by c=vafmg the
cootuvimed moll dds report is submitted ahmq, no fat m tapotts ane
usually required. Ev avetion tepas whiff iodic = that a RI is nmcmwy
wdt not be reviewed by the MPCA=0 the RI bas bate cmqktW
m If Pxttha Wywdpd= is needed this
report is submitted w doaraemt en RI ttpdvitk& ahew that the objectives
of the brvestotion have beep ma, ad give , � , ibr
coaemtin sWom dist ahold be taim to dem up ad and/or powdwatar
cammo>tm-fi—, if aeccuary.
The acavation report is m attachment to tiro RI report.
o C2mm6&AdWLDMWLRcp= If the Smelt t
soil or gtotmdwpter catamwAgn tbu trust be curreaad a CAD strouid be
m6u ted whb the Ri report.
o PCOMNOM lPaddidn-1 mmmimaimp, demo or trz>dng is weeded
Saar the RI at eaocavedm is m s acted, pmi*& pnMIF rosa reports wm be
COPY
FETROFUND BID FORM FOR CONTRACTORS SERVICES
COWREHENSIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION
oft estimated
costs gift
1. Drilling services:
-sod borings Sift fee to IV
110.00
Stfoot dwad"
11.00
stockpile of contaminated caings
75.00
-sod ww a".-- thru, soa oulf Sift
1.50
tblu sowpucadwater kwfiwe vft
4.00
-wen ifwalintion Vu fee to IV
120.00
$/foot ftnaftr
12.00
6* Protective post wAocking cap
115.00
Send pdd*poudng S/fout
6.00
-well abandonment monitor well
8.00
pmftcdw post
40.00
Bectonite
8.00
caum
8.00
-drilling obstructions: Ow $/ft
5.00
wow. Steech
35.00
mcktodw obsbuctiow V=w
115.00
stand by time VhOUr
15.00
2. Wage: travel cost drfl dg Shaile,
0.75
travel cost support vecbde $/Mae
0.35
trawl cost personnel Sft
25.00
3. Personnel: advai�rativc Sft
25.00
wMervisaq w
SOM
SEE PAGE 6 FOR PLFMOFTJND NOTICES
ELI
COPY
estimated
tow
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
400.00
0.00
0.00
32.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fcam B Page
(D
COPY
Pen tral Propose tar Comum Selecum
CwnerslapplicoM must oMM two proposils whic3 MaWa tttem t0 campers the cams phases.
PHASE 1
CONTAMMTEDSotL MXCAVATtoN
Protywwna! SOrvieaa
a. C00nllnallon with CUM Coraraamr d MPGA
2. Hee" & Sataty Pian Oevelopmem
3. Supervts m Maasgemerri)
4. Sample Coileetbn & ReW Scmenbq (SoiQ
5. Semple Collection S Role Ser -wing (growovew
8. Flela Map Development
7. Soil Treatmem CoorEteatioh (permM 9M)
8. SCAP Preparation
0. Tank Clasrus Report
10. Other (sperlty)
EBT.UMM UNIT COSTS EST.TOTAL
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
40.00
41!.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
I- D(agnosile EwAlurtcnt HNU War
00.00
0.00
2. Fl*W SuppOw
15.00
0.00
1. Travel: Mileage
0.35
0.00
Time
25.00
0.00
4. Per Diem
75.00
0.00
S. Dow (Specify)
Suit Total:
0.00
PKAee 0
RFJ 9MAL WVUTIQATION
ProMtalon.i Savtcn
1. workplan Preparzim 10
50.00
500AU
2. Hearth 6 Safely Pier Moff4wkMu
woo
O.Ot
3. CoorvirtOOott wMh CafibUclar (pemtOs)
50.00
0.01
4. Data Codocilm:
Soli ftin0 Amervtoilyson unvw oawton
$0.00
0.01
I" wdwb g was irk Moeform
50.00
0.0
Groundw slay same oWeadca
40.00
0.0
WOO Cavo5l MW4
40.w
04
Repot wIMWAnayzA 30
50.00
1500.0
MaCpim
50.00
0.0
Field T
40.00
OA
Form A Pop
COPY
PatrofluW Pmposel Por Camuftmt SelactIm
Sub Taft 0.00
Parm A Papa 3
EST.Um m
UNIT COSTS EST.TOTAL
S. Risk Ansyas
Vapor Ask aS9a w mm
2
50.00
1 OD.00
Receptor Ask assessment
2
50.00
100.00
Groundwater receptor wtvey
2
50.00
100.00
Hyde Mkmy tlteracterka0on wxwmet
2
50.00
100.00
exports"
1. DWanosOc ERWpn"m HNU Mister
80.00
0.00
2. Field Suppies
13.00
0.00
3. Travel et ftge
0.35
0.00
Time
25.00
0AM
4. Per Otern
M00
0.00
S. Olher(3pecity) Salim
1&00
0.00
Survey
sa.00
0.00
Subliraflon Etiulpmard
55.00
0.00
Sub Tald
2.400.00
CC11IV8
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
Professional Servkx$
1. Coordbt80on wtth COent. Contrector 8 K93CA
50.00
0.00
2. Recovery Wag IMU4011mU0e3ipn
50.00
0.00
3. Recov¢ay Wog Irtacbctwn Supavhlon
50.00
0.00
4. A411MCr P Tet
30.00
0.00
S. AgW1m Ta$UM AnWysb
50.00
0.00
S. Sod Vats 1nua0attat Supervision
50.00
0.00
7. Sob Vard Pbel To%
50.00
0.00
S. 800 Vere Pitot Tact ArAWb
50.00
0.00
0. SkneAls"W Safah To"
50.00
0.00
W. Permolm OMMS, Atr. act)
50.00
0.00
11. Dma ReductionlEvaWBIlon
50.00
O.W
12. MPCA TateOmMorertm
Sam
0.00
13. CCAP Praparallm
50.00
0.00
14. OUtet (Spec") Report Sw-wy
50.00
0.00
EaPrer> w
I. DWprrastlo EgWprnGM HkU Muer
KOO
0.00
2 Fido Suppites
1S.O0
0.00
3. Travel Mtaapa
0.35
0.00
Time
2LW
0.00
4. Per Ohm
75.00
0.00
5. OOter (SPDOUV)
Sub Taft 0.00
Parm A Papa 3
GILLE AUTO PROPERTY CHARGES
Mowing $1,851.16
Environmental Cleanup $6,851.80
Braun I nlertee Engineering Fees $660.00
Cleanup charges (Ruff Auto) $1,500.00
Misc. penalty & interest & sales tax $726.10
TOTAL $11,589.06
0
�j. \ C7U4 , t %oLa.-k %()V J
O
)4�ko
#6
G 11\irs A,�-a
�,s►ay.d `
Q
f3roo, AW ay
)�,A
1,'
30 SO.
LAS (612)
9-2175
.0, 13OX 349VELANO ST, MIDWEST _NALYTl[Bl_1SllSERVICES METRO (612) 444.9270
CAMBRIDGE, MN 55008 FAX (612) 689.3660
MINNESOTA CERTIFIED LABORATORY
NUMBER 027059.156
C
_4
July 13, 1993
John Landwehr
Agassia Environmental Systems, Int.
at. 1 Box 119
Hancock, NN 56244
Project Name: Gilley's
Project Number: 3045
Chain of Custody: 8787
Date Sampled: 06-28-93
Date Received: 06-28-93
Date Analyzed: See below
Matrix: 8011
Sample identification:
Lab 1D: 93-04247 TH-6 1-4 ft .
93-04248 TS -6 2-4 ft.
93-04249 TB -7 1-4 ft.
93-04250 TB -5 8-10 ft.
93-04251 TB -9 8-10 ft.
93-04252 TB -7 8-10 ft,
Samples were analyzed according to utbods ORO, DRO and 455-D. Samples
were analyzed for the metals by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The
results are reported an the following page.
Since Iy,
Ohl
Lon Jones
Senior Chhoosiaatt
Srian Anderson
Lead forganic Chemist
1�4/�
Chad Nolznagol
Chemist
0
'DWEST ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Page 2
COC 8781
Date Analysed: 07-08-93
Paraaeter:
Total
Percent
Hydrocarbons
Noiature
ae
ORO
DRO
ninaaaaaa�avai6�aaa6aLinaOi'yviai��f veva"�Qaafafaa6C�vaava.-v
aa6�'liiv��-.fIIaa
Units
(aghg)
(mg/kg)
M
Method
Detection
5.0
10.0
Licit
8aaole Nn ber
93-04247
17.0
1530
10.7
TB -5 2-4 ft.
93-04248
10.4
24.1
14.1
TR -8 2-4 ft.
93-04249
BQL
BQL
13.0
TB -7 2-4 ft.
93-04250
BQL
BQL
3.9
TB -5 8-10 ft.
93-04251
BQL
BQL
5.6
TB -5 8-10 ft.
93-04252
BQL
BQL
5.7
TB -7 8-10 ft.
BQL i Below Quantifiable
Level
0
11DWE8TANALYTICAL SERVICE9
.'-..Memo
93-04281
83-04282
Page 3
TB -6
TB -6
TB -7
COC 6787
8-10 ft.
8-10 ft.
8-10 ft.
Lab ID:
93-04247
93-04248
93-04249
Date
07-08-93
TB -6
TB -6
T9-7
Analyzed
07-12-93
2-4 ft.
2-4 ft.
2-4 ft.
0.611
Arsenic (mg/kg)
e.39
8.71
10.4
07-08-93
Barium (mg/kg)
188
116
108
07-12-93
Cadmium (se/kg)
0.226
1.61
0.186
07-06-93
Chromium (mg/kg)
6.86
13.7
6.20
07-09-93
silver (mg/kg)
(0.09
0.08
<0.09
07-02-93
Mercury (mg/kg)
(0.04
(0.04
<0.04
06-30-93
selenium (mg/kg)
(0.466
(0.404
<0.426
07-12-93
Lead (mg/kg)
6.63
264
4.63
07-07-93
Lab ID:
93-04260
93-04281
83-04282
Date
TB -6
TB -6
TB -7
Analyzed
8-10 ft.
8-10 ft.
8-10 ft.
Arsenic (mg/kg)
3.06
3.70
2.64
07-08-93
Barium (mg/kg)
18.9
11.0
18.3
07-12-93
Cadmium (mg/kg)
0.072
0.094
0.611
07-06-93
Chromium (mg/kg)
8.01
4.30
4.97
07-00-93
Silver (mg/kg)
(0.06
(0.08
(0.07
07-02-93
Mercury (mg/kg)
(0.02
(0.02
(0.01
06-30-93
Selenium (mg/kg)
(0.317
(0.398
(0.372
07-12-93
Lead (mg/kg)
6.43
1.96
1.74
07-07-93
NOTE: Samples will
be retained
30 days from
the date of
report. Samples
will be returned if
requested within that time.
�Z
-41DWEST ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Page 4
COC 6787
Date Analysed: 07-08-93
(s6/t6)
(e8/k8)
(mg/kg)
(aK/►i)
LAB ID:
DETECTION
93-04247
93-04248
93-04249
LIMITS
TB -5
TB -6
T134
2-4 ft.
2-4 ft.
2-4 ft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dichlorodifluorosethane
0.100
BQL
BQL
BQL
Chloromethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Vinyl chloride
0.050
BQL
BOL
BQL
Brosomethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Chloraethanc
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Dichlorofluoronethane
0.100
BQL
BQL
BQL
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
Ethyl ether
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
Acetone
0.350
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Methylene chloride
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Allyl chloride
0.070
BQL
BQL
BQL
Trichlorotrifluoromethane
0.070
BQL
BQL
BQL
Methyl tort -butyl ether
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,1-Dlohloroethane
0.060
BQL
BQL
SQL
Methyl ethyl ketone
0.350
BQL
BQL
BQL
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Brosochlorosethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Chloroform
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
2,2-Dichloropropane
0.050
BQL
BOL
BQL
Tetrehydrofuran
0.300
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
DQL
1,1-Dichloropropene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Carbon tetrachloride
0.050
BQL
BQL
BOL
Benzene
0.050
BQL
0.06
BQL
Dibromomethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
ML
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.050
BQL
ML
SQL
Trichloroethene
0.050
SQL
BQL
DOL
Bromodlchloromethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Methyl lsobutyl ketone
0.090
BQL
BQL
BQL
trona-1,3-Dichloropropens
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL - Below Quantifiable Level
0
1IDWEST ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Page 5
COC 6787
Date Analysed: 07-08-93
("/kg)
(mg/kg)
(at/kg)
(ag/ti)
LAB ID:
DBTXCTION
93-04247
93-04248
93-04249
UNITS
TB -5
TS -0
TB -7
2-4 ft.
2-4 ft.
2-4 ft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BOL
Toluene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,3-Dichloropropane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Dibrosochloroeethaee
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2-Dibrosoothane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Tetrachloroethene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.1.1,2-Tetracbloroethane
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
Chlorobensens
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Ethylbenzene
0.050
BQL
ML
BQL
a- and p -Xylene
0.070
BQL
BQL
BQL
Bromofora
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
Styrene
0.100
BQL
BQL
BQL
0 -Xylene
0.070
BQL
BQL
8QL
1.1.2.2 -Tetrachloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
lsopropyl bensene
0.050
BOL
BQL
BQL
Broeoban:ane
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
n -Propyl benzene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
2-Chlorotoluene
0.050
BQL
BOL
BQL
4-Chlorotoluene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.3,6-Triaethylbeasene
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
test -Butyl benzene
0.050
BQL
BQL
8QL
1,2,4-Triaethylbansene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
sec -Butyl bensene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,3-Dichlorobeasene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.4-Dicblorobenaane
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
p-leopropyl toluene
0.050
8QL
BQL
BQL
1.2-Dichlorobensene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
n -Butyl bensene
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2-Dibroao-3-chloropropane
0.100
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
0.050
BQL
BQL
9QL
Naphthalene
0.160
0.248
8QL
841,
Nexachlorobutadieee
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2.3-Trichlarobessenz
0.100
BQL
BOL
BQL
�L
BQL a Below Quantifiable Level
IIDWEST ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Page 6
COC 8787
Date Analyzed: 07-08-93
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/k8)
(m$/k8)
LAB ID:
DETECTION
93-04250
93-04251
93-04252
LIMITS
TB -5
TE -8
TB -7
8-10 ft.
8-10 ft.
9-10 ft.
-----------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dichlorodifluoromsthane
0.100
BQL
BOL
BOL
Chloromethane
0.050
BQL
BOL
BOL
Vinyl chloride
0.060
BQL
BOL
BQL
Bromomethane
0.050
BOL
SQL
BOL
Chloroethane
0.050
BQL
BOL
BQL
Dichlorofluoronthane
0.100
BOL
BOL
DQL
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
Ethyl ether
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Acetone
0.350
BQL
BQL
BQL
l,l-Dichloroethene
0.060
BQL
SQL
BOL
Methylene chloride
0.050
8QL
BQL
BQL
Allyl chloride
0.070
BQL
BQL
BQL
Trichlorotrifluoromsthane
0.070
BQL
BQL
BQL
Methyl tort -butyl ether
0.050
8QL
SQL
BQL
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Methyl ethyl ketone
0.360
BQL
BQL
DQL
ale-1,2-Diehlorosthene
0.050
BQL
9QL
BQL
Bromochloromethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
9QL
Chloroform
0.050
BQL
BOL
BQL
2,2-Dichloropropane
0.050
DQL
BQL
BQL
Tetrahydrofuran
0.300
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2-Dlchloroethans
0.050
DQL
BQL
BQL
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.1-Dichloropropene
0.050
BOL
BQL
BQL
Carbon tetrachloride
0.050
DQL
SQL
BQL
Benzene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Dibromosethans
0.050
BQL
RQL
BQL
1,2-Dlchloropropans
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Trichloroethens
0.050
9QL
BQL
BQL
Bromodichlerosethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
YQL
cis-1,3-Dichloropropeno
0.050
8QL
OQL
8QL
Methyl isobutyl ketone
0.090
BQL
9QL
BQL
trana-1.3-Dlchloropropens
0.050
BQL
9QL
BQL
DOL a Below Quantifiable Level
MIDWEST ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Page 7
COC 878.7
Date Analysed: 07-08-83
(sE/kg)
(mg/kg)
(eg/kE)
(mg/k8)
LAD TD: DBTECTION
93-04250
93-04251
93-04252
LIMITS
TB -6
TB -6
TD -7
8-10 ft.
B-10 ft.
8-10 ft.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Toluene
0.050
BQL
0.079
SQL
1,3-Dichloropropane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Dibroaochloramethans
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,2-Dibrowethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Tetrachloreethene
0.080
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
Chlorobencene
0.050
BQL
BQI,
BQL
Bthylbensene
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
a- and p -xylene
0.070
BQL
BQL
BQL
Brosofors
0.050
9QL
BQL
BQL
Styrene
0.100
BQL
BQL
SQL
0 -Xylene
0.070
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.2,3-Trichlorogropzne
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
Isopropyl bensene
0.060
BQL
BQL
SQL
Broeobensene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
n -Propyl benzene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
2-Chlorotaluene
0.060
BQL
DQL
BQL
4-Chlorotoluene
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,3,5-Triesthylbentene
0.050
SQL
BQL
BQL
tart -Butyl benzene
0.060
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.2,4-Trisethylbentene
0.050
BQL
BQL
BQL
sea -Butyl benzene
0.050
BQL
BQL
SQL
1.3-Diahlorobensene
0.050
BQL
BQL
SQL
1.4-Dichiorobensene
0.050
SQL
ROL
SQL
p -Isopropyl toluene
0.050
SQL
BQL
BQL
1.2-Dichlorobensone
0.050
BQL
BQL
SQL
n -Butyl benzene
0.050
BQL
BQL
SQL
1.2-1)ibrosor3-chloropropane
0.100
BQL
DQL
SQL
1.2.4-Triehiorobensens
0.080
BOL
BOL
SQL
Naphthalene
0.150
BQL
BQL
BQL
Hexachiorobutadien•
0.060
SQL
BOL
BQL
1,2,3-Trichlorobentene
0.100
BQL
BQL
BQL
0
B ORIIG LOG
Job #: Job name:
Date:_f — 7.)Water level: — - Well #: TA -1 (�yJ-
i
Total Depth of Boring:_ f Meter used: -4
depth
I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet
I
0
I Grua, i,ai
4I
+ CCrt7t, dibJv+P.ti� t
._..
io,
••�ois}, Orson -ts � Drawn, .�c� I
s-5 G
10
I a-10
�t�^
--
.P
e:
- Gm..c r�s•� rr�a•- p�t•*f C2YJ I
l5
np
a
I #QD Z 13' r S •G,
•
I.ane,a11.4
= goeiww Q' r..dM.
rc yt6.aa,,.ir.w,
-
1
I
20
i
I
— I I
— I I
- I I
25 I I �.. CIZ
,�. B ORING LOG
Job #: Job name:__r
Dater„_Water level: �Ft • Well #: 8-�-
Total Depth of Boring: 10-1, Meter used:
depth I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet I
y ��sai� �S�d• , bi�� I
Z-4 fit.
a fir►. �+,o c, 6�1 ttik��2 - 5
1
i
i d pp„„
BORING LOG
Job #: Job munc—LIC."',
T
Date: ("(13 Water level: a4, Well #: 1-13- �
Total Depth of Boring: 40,k , Meter used:
depth I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet I
0 *VD/ auk, 444
5
10 -kU
20
25
11-16IMMKOR
Job #: Job name:
Date: Water level: Well #:
Total Depth of Boring: Meter used:
depth Material Descritption Readings
in feet
0 1
10
15
20
BORING LOG
Job #:
Job munc:
Datc:(ajZ(,tj!j Water level: ilit. Well #:-M-z.&w—
Total Depth of Boring: Zo4i, Metcrused:
depth
I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet
I
0
r3:L4-
5
we"St fcn4 4,v, PWLx,
Q,-, 44. 7
10
15
—
L.Y.J.6 4.6 .4, c0.6, wu V3 N
20
25
BORING LOG
Job #: Job name:
Date: Water level: Well
Total Depth of Boring: ao ",Meter used:
depth
I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet
0
/FXLL-
10
k)[) Z -7-104,
-**we, ISO# C406Pwa
z 0 5e "A mi
20
BORING LOG
Job #: Job name:-- ".it.
I
Date:��qa Water level:_3_4, Well #:133&, _
Total Depth of Boring: 10%4. Meter used:
depth I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet I I
0 =
7
Z -4
5
to
15
BORM LOG
Job #: Job name:
Date: Water level: Well #:
Total Depth of Boring: Meter used:
depth I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet I I
0 1 1
5
10
20
BOrIUNG LOG
Job #: Job name:
Date: Water level: Well C
Total Depth of Boring: Meter used:
depth I Material Descritption I Readings
in feet I I
0
10
is
20
i
0 �14T V Qp
WRIGHT COUNTY
office of County Attorney
�°
►TT
o 4
Wright County government Center
p
10 N. IV. 2nd Street
�t d*'
Ruffalo. Minnesota 5.5313-1193
1860
Wyman A. Nelson
Phone: efilD 682-7340 Metro: (612) 3.396881
C ..ly Ao--y
Toll Free: 1-800.362-3667 Fax: !6121 682.6178
Thomas N. Kelly
AAssamna
nn. L. Mohaupt
Chrc! t'nm,na/ (rtrau"n
Thome. C.. rin�
Brian J. Asleson
Tu
xathrcn A. Moat
A. M
CAxJ Cn-,t tn,•:,ron
S.,a ht Snndhr.,t
5 May 1994
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
Monticello City Administrator
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
RE: Gifts Property
Dear Rick:
At your request, I am writing to you regarding the dilemma the City of Monticello is currently
facing with the Gille property. As I understand it, the most practical method for proceeding
with a cleanup of this property would Include removal of the building and above -ground
improvements prior to removal of the underground tanks. you were inquiring about whether
it was proper for the City to undertake an aboveground demolition on the site prior to
acquiring ownership of the parcel.
The Gille property is tax forfeit property, held in trust by the State of Minnesota for the local
taxing districts. Wright County is, in effect, the caretaker for the property. Minnesota
Attorney General's Opinion 59a-35, issued in 1968, indicated that it was proper for a County
Board to consent to the removal of hazardous buildings upon a tax forfeit property. In this
particular instance, the County Board first approved of a site cleanup on June 1, 1993. The
matter has come back before them on subsequent dates, and the plans have changed
slightly, but the consent of the Board to a cleanup of the property has not changed. I am
enclosing copies of the Board Minutes for several different meeting dates when they have
dealt with the Gille property.
0
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
PAGE TWO
5 May 1994
In reviewing the tax forfeit procedures followed by the Wright County Auditor, I have found
that there is no reason to doubt the validity of the tax forfeit status of this property. I
believe I informed you that I did write to an attorney representing the estate of Cortlen
Cloutier over one year ago, responding to his inquiry about these parcels. I have received no
further communication from that attorney or anyone else on behalf of the estate.
Accordingly, I have no reason to believe that any previous owners are claiming any Interest
in the real estate or buildings located thereon.
In conclusion, I believe it is appropriate for the City of Monticello to proceed with demolition
of the structures on the Gills property. I have discussed this with Darla Groshens, Wright
County Auditor, and she is in agreement with that.
If you do have further questions or concerns, please let me know.
Vary truly yours,
N "'e—
Brian
J. Asl so
Assistant W t County Attorney
BJA/Jb
cc: Darla Groshens, Wright County Auditorlfreasurer
0
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
13. Consideration of chance order Al for City Project 93.11C,
Chlorination/Dechlorination aroiect at the wastewater treatment
plant. W.S.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The general contractor for the chlorination/dechlorination project requested
authorization to change the sire of the outlet fitting on the liquid chlorine
tank from 3 inch to 2 inch. USM verified that this would not affect the
performance of the system. The contractor is proposing to credit the City
$362 for the change.
The contractor also failed to meet the expected completion time for this
project, which was February 14, 1994. The contractor did install a
temporary pumping system for the chlorine prior to March 1, so we were
able to meet our permit requirements. But the chlorination and
dechlorination systems were not fully functional until recently. This led to
increased cost for PSC in purchasing and handling smaller amounts of
chemical and also led to increased cost with OSM due to the length of the
project being dragged out and problems with delivery of equipment. The
increased cost for USM and PSC amount to $1,400. The contractor has
agreed to credit the City $1,400 for these cost overruns in lieu of liquidated
damages. Since we can only collect liquidated damages haled upon our
actual damages, this dues seem to he appropriate. The total credit for these
two items amounts to $1,762.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first allernntive is to approve change order 711 for the
chlorination/dechlorination project in the amount of a deduct of
$1,76'2.
2. The second alternative would be not to approve the change order.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Manager that the City Council approve
change order #1 for the chlorinution/dechlorinal,ion project in the amount of
a deduct of $1,762 us outlined in alternative N1.
D. SUPPORTINC DATA:
Copy of change order #1.
16
Olr
r.=:• t t
(/ r :• <hrian :`w1•aii:FucaCenter 612.5951775
rrlay
ctb'+h '7,W.iyem, Coolcmd 6500-753.5775
�•r-=- { T.ivxintit,tnC. .. t,nu<alrilta, htta 554167128
fAX 5955774
Chango Order Nu: _ I —_—
Proiech'-Chlurinatiuli/U_riilUiinr:!bon I'iujeCl
O'v,ncr: City UI ldonticcllo
250 East Broadway
Monticello, UN 1,531'.2
CHANGE ORDER
City Project No.'93.11C
OSfvt Project No, 5133.00
Date of Issuance: October 25, 1993
Contractor: 1`1011hts13Sl Mechunit al Englncer: Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
432 Mill Strgr t and Associates, Inc.
Long Lake, fAN W'irG
You aia direcled to nialte ihu lollu.vi of changes In the Contract Docunients:
(1) use a t'nu im:h arLlpn hypochlorite lank liansltlon lituug in lieu of the three-inch filling shown in tfie
plans, CUrltractur to e1wit City $362.00.
(2) deduce thn o1it„i1n11 %ontlaet plica b'/ $1,400,00 due tudelays in construction completion,
Purpose of Change Older:
The Change Ordir Is n•+w5aniy to conoct payment fur delays In completing the chtodnation/decNorioation
project and i.h.+,nit^S 41 Inoc•=ss piping.
Allachmeols (!izl doruniCnlS bty •tev ui0 Chang,-):
N/A
CI (AtIGU III CCtti(RAf.I PRICE ,—�
"
_ CHANCE fit CONTRACT TIME _
Originaf Cutatact 110co
Original Coniraci Thno:
S50,n00 n0 _ J _�
Fobrunr/ 14, 1994
Previous t;hnnge OIJus bre b, No
Net Change from Provious Change Old6a:
$0
.rI/A 1
COPiract Piir•p Ptial to IN5 CICaluo -+islet'
Cortlract Tlme Pilot to tI43 CKingn OrdCC
150,600.00
February 14, 1994 —_
Not luua.)6n of thi;; 0"1 ige lAder.
Piet Increase (dccreise) ul Change Order,
CCr,ttael P14 -P cath all f+pri'ved Gh roue Ord( rs:
COWIacl lime with Approved Change Ciders:
i 549,038.00
rx+---�. :.....u_:`s.__ :_ •. __ ..:.sc.�•n --r_
N/A
Recommondcd 0yyy:
111
Approved 0y:
Jolt 1). !''car .tai, P.E — _
�-—_—Nenh•vost hinelianlcnf I4
Apptn:ed By:
Appiovod Uy:
y
x
Date cl Council Action:
SAL {Ptrbllc wud.a 01111.1.)
(City Adminlsiratot)
'•t re�•t . A„iul/ll� 17/rf,rt 2•v„Iw1 '
1• rr1.rLi`IIITIM]ytlltClV�i�1�Or,A!•llLit�'.Cpl;IrS'rt.a••7Y1SCP.'llLi'�44sOji`IJYri,1110�+1a�irallr�ot�1�`iftJ�
,rr'••Y
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
14. Consideration of a resolution declaring intent to reimburse uroiect
costs throueh a future bond sale--Proiect 93-12C. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
With the puhlic hearing being held tonight by the Council on the proposed
Meadow Oak lxmd storm sewer Outlet to the Mississippi River, the Council
may want to consider adopting it resolution staling that it may reimburse
itself through a bond sale in the future for any cost associated with this
project. While all actual project has nOt yet been awarded at this time, the
City is incurring expenses relating to this project through our engineer's
involvement, and by adopting this resolution, the City would be protecting
its rights to reimburse itself for any expenditures for engineering or
construction that we have prior to the actual bond being sold.
If this project goes ahead yet this year, it is anticipated that the City will
have to sell honds to finance the project and will likely include some
previous projects we have financed in-house such as the Cardinal Hills 4th
Addition improvement and also the Hart, Boulevard storm sewer project we
did last, year. do far. the City has been using its own cash tlnw to fund
these projects; but it wits assumed that, when the Meadow Oak outlet
prgject wits awarded, (he City would he issuing at bond and harrowing the
money to pay for these cOsts. The City has up to one year after our project
is completed to sell b mtds if it wishes Lit reimburse itself fur Lilly of the cost
associated with those projects. ']'his one-year time period is available if the
City Council adopts the resulutiun attached.
B. AI.TFUNATIVE ACTIONS:
The first alternative would be LO ndopt. the resolution indicating an
intent tO reimburse Ourselves through it future bunt) sale for the
Meadow Uak pond Outlet storm sewer project.
Adopting this resolution does not require the City to sell it bond, it
Only indicates that we have the option tit do so in the future if we find
it necessary to reimburse ourselves fur any project cost. Without
adopting this resolution, the City does not have the ability to sell a
band to reimburse itself fear any cost it incurred prior to the date of
the Iwnd stile.
17
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
2. Do not adopt the resolution.
The only reason you would adopt this option is if you are absolutely
sure you have no intent of selling a bond in the future for this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator that LI -le resolution be
adopted allowing the City to sell a bond in the future if it needs to. Again,
this resolution is not saying we will sell a Ixind for this project, only that it
allows us to do so if we need to sonic day. Due to the esti mated project size
of $350,000 or more, it will probably he necessary to actually sell the bond if
this project is ordered in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution.
18
RESOLUTION 94 -
RESOLUTION RELA'T'ING TO FINANCING OF CERTAIN PROPOSED
PIUMEC'IS TO RE UNDERTAKEN BY'l'HE CITY OF MONTICELLO
ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND
REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
BE IT ItESUI.VED by the City Council (the "Council') of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, (the "City") as follows:
Recitals
(a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued Section 1.103-18 of the Income
Tax Regulations (the "Regulations") dealing with the issuance of bonds,
all or it portion of the proceeds of which are to lie used to reimburse the
City for project expenditures made by the City prior (o the date of
issuance.
(b) The Itegulatons generally require that the City nwke a prior
declaration of its official intent to reimburse itself for such prior
expenditures out of the proceeds of a subsequently issued borrowing,
that the burrowing occur mud Clic reimbursement allocation be made
from the proceeds Ill such Iairrowaig within one year of the payment of
the expenditure or, if lunger, within one year of the dale the project is
placed in service, need that the expenditure he it capital expenditure.
(c) The City desires to comply with requirements of the Itegulatons with
respect to certain projects hereinafter identified.
2. Official Intent Declaration.
lul The (.i(.y proposes to undertake the following projects described on
Exhibit A attached hereto.
(li) Other than (i) expenditures to he paid or reimbursed from sources other
than it borrowing, or (ail expenditures permitted to lie reimbursed
pursuant to the transition provision of Section 1.103-18(192) of the
Regulations, or (iii) expenditures constituting prelimivary expenditures
its defined in Sedion 1.103-IR(i)(2) of the Regulations, no expenditures
for the foregoing pruiects its identified on Exhibit A have heretofore been
made by the City and no expenditures will lie made by the City until
alter the dale of this Resolution.
C
Resolution 94 -
Page 2
(c) The Cit_v reasonably expects to reimburse Clic expenditures made for
costs of the designated projects out of the proceeds of debt (tile "Bonds")
to lie incurred by the City alter the date of payment of all or a portion
of the costs. All reimbursed expenditures shall lie capital expenditures
as defined in Section 1.150 -Wit of the Regulations.
(d) This declaration is a declaration of official intent adopted pursuant to
Section 1.103 -IA of the Regulations.
Budeetary Matters. As of the date hereof, there are nn City funds reserved,
allocated on it lung -term basis, or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected
to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, orolherwise set aside) to provide
permanent financing for the expenditures related to the projects, other than
pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is
determined to he consistent with the City's budgetary and financial
circumstances its they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof,
all within the meaning and content of the Regulations.
hiliiu;. This resolution shall be filed within ,10 days of its adoptiun in the
publicly available official hooks and records of the Ci(.y. '['his resoluCion shall
Ile available for inspection rot the office of the City Clerk tit the City Hall
(which is the main administrative office of the City) during normal business
hours of the City on every business clay until the date of issuance of the Bonds.
Reimbursement Allocations. The City's financial officer shall be responsible
fir making the "reimbursement allocations" desnibed ill the Regulations, being
generally (he transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the Bonds too
reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment
of the prior costs of the projects. Each allocation shall he evidenced by an
entry on the official boults and records of tlae City maintained for the Bonds,
shall specifically identify the actual prior expenditure being reimbursed or, in
Che ease of reimbursement of a fund or account in accordance with Section
1. 103-18, the fund ar Itcaltuit from which (,he expenditure was paid, and shall
he effective to relieve (.Ice proceeds of the Bonds from tiny restriction under the
hood resolution or other relevant legal documents firr the Bonds, and under
any applicable state statute, which would apply to the unspent proceeds of the
Bonds.
Adopted this 13th day of -lune, 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator
1�
Resolution 94 -
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Proiect Description
Estimated Cost
to be Reimbursed
From Bond Proceeds
Meadow Oak Estates storm sewer $329,400
pond outlet connection to Mississippi
River - Project 93-12C
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
15. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE; AND 13ACKGROUND
In the past you have renewed the licenses listed below in a single motion. I
believe that the motion has been a contingent motion such that licenses are
approved depending upon successful completion of the application, approval
at the state level, and submission of proper insurance coverage.
The licenses submi tted for your consideration are as follows
Intoxicatine Liailor. On -sale (fee $3,750)
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Joyner Lanes
4. Robert Eidsvold DBA Comfort Inn
5. J.P.'s Annex
Intoxicating Liuuor, On -sale, Sundav (fee $200--seL by statute)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Joyner Lanes
4. VFW Club
5. American Legion Club
6. J.P.'s Annex
Non-intoxicatine Mult, On -sale (fee $275)
1. Rud and (.un
2. Pizza Factory
:I. Country Club
Non -intoxicating Mult. Off -stile (fee $75)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor
2. Maury Foods
3. Itiver 'Terrace
4. Tom Thumb
5. Holiday Stationslore
19
Council Agenda - 6/13/94
Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (fee $500)
Renewal
1. Dino's Deli
Set-up License (fee $275)
1. Country Club
2. Rod and Gun (steak fry only)
Club Licenses (fee --set by statute based on membership)
1. VFW - $500
2. American Legion - $500
A single motion approving these licenses should read similar to, " 1 move
that the following licenses be approved effective July 1, 1994."
Although July 1 is the effective renewal date, 1 have notified all liquor
license holders that all application frons, certificates of insurance forms,
and payments for Lite license fees need to he submitted to city hail by
Friday, June 17, in order to provide sufficient, time for the City to submit
the applications and insurance certificates (A) the Suite Liquor Control
Division. In the last., most. license holders have been waiting until the end
of June to remit their fees and provide the necessary information for license
renewals, which delayed the State Liquor Control Division from approving
the licenses until way after Lite July 1 deadline. Since Lite State has been
reprimanding the City for turning in this information late, I have notified
all license holders that I expect this information and the appropriate fees to
be turned in to the City by June 17 or their license renewals may lapse on
July 1, and they could he subject to violating Lite liquor laws by selling
without it license. If the required information is not supplied to city hull in
a timely manner, I will infirm Lite Sheriffs Department and the Liquor
Control Division that. the appropriate liquor licenses have expired .July 1
and let those agencies take whatever action they feel is appropriate.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None.
20
COUNCIL UPDATE
June 10, 1994
U udate on Krauthauer oroncrty. (J.0.)
This is to inform Council that. the City has received a petition from Robert
Krautbauer for annexation of a 38 -acre parcel to coincide with development of a
7l -acre tract of land located between East County Road 39 and the freeway and
east of Hawks Bar/Restaurant.. In conjunction with the annexation request, the
developer of the site, Rick Murray of Residential Development Inc., has submitted
a concept plan to the Planning Commission for preliminary review. The concept
plan outlines a general land use configuration and traffic circulation system.
At the Planning Commission meeting on .lune 6, the Commission reviewed the
concept plan and authorized it public hearing for the purpose of reviewing possible
amendments to the zoning ordinance making a restaurant/bar a conditional use in
a B-3 zone. Under the concept presented by Rick Murray and supported by Joe
Abbott, owner of Hawks liar, it is proposed that a small commercial area he
established including and adjacent to the Hawks Bar/Restauranl site. This area
would be buffered from the adjoining townhome development by separating
roadway access and through installation of berming and landscaping, etc. The
halalue of the site would be developed for lownhomes on the freeway side and for
single family development throughout the balance of the site. The total housing
units projected for this area are estimated at 131 units.
A relatively large area is proposed as it city park.
Again, Planning Commission review has been limited to hand use concepts only.
Specific details pertaining to plat design will he discussed at the Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for July 5.
As it final note, Mr. and Airs. Krautbauer, along with the developer, have also
submitted as petition for annexation to the township and have requested
annexation under the urbanization plain. Township officials hove voiced
preliminary support fur the annexation based on the fact that the property is
located within the a ren identified its being in the urban service area and,
therefore, appears to meet, the criteria for annexation under the City/Township
agreement.
If you should have tiny questions regarding the development of this property at
this stage, please give ole it call.
rdi
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
15 Choc taw Circle, Chanhassen, Nin. 55317- (612) 934-6238- FAX (612) 934-2423
June 3, 1994
Mr. Rick Wolfstellar, Mr. Franklin Denn,
City of Monticello Town of Monticello,
250 E. Broadway, 8550 Edmunson Ave.,
Monticello, MN Monticello, MN
Re: Annexation of a tract of land into the City of Monticello per Joint Resolution 90-52.
Gentlemen;
Residential Development, Inc. has under option, a tract of land in the West half of
Sec 18, Twp 121, Rge 24 South of County Road 39 and North of County Road 75/1-94,
commonly referred to as the "Krautbauer Property". The tract consists of approximately 71
acres, the northern half of which lies within the City of Monticello, and the southern half remains
in the Township of Monticello. The Township parcel is essentially surrounded by properties
previously annexed Into the City. Petition for annexation of the portion of the tract lying outside
the limits of the City of Monticello, executed by Robert G. and Betty Ann Krautbauer as owners
thereof is attached.
The Krautbauer Property meets the criteria established in the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Plan, approved by both governing bodies as Resolution 90-52.
The purpose of this letter is to present our request for annexation, conceptual
development plans, and to identity the timing requirements in effecting annexation. Preliminary
meetings with staff members from the City of Monticello have been favorable as regards the
proposed project.
With respect to item 4 of the resolution:
A. The property is within the 'Urban Service Area" as defined.
B. Petition of the property owner is attached.
C. The entire property will be served with city water and sewer.
D. The developer has coordinated its Initial plan with Mr. Stephen W. Grittman,
City's Consultant, City Staff, and is on the City Planning Commission agenda
for Tuesday. June 7, 1994.
E. Construction will begin within 30 days of final plat approval by the City of
Monticello. The initial construction program includes the installation of utility
services from the existing sewage lift station on County Road 39 into the
annexed parcel.
F. This will be the only annexation request for this tract.
Your favorable action on this request is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
rRiES TIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Ick D. Murray
U President
REIWrm
Encl.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
TOWNSHIP OF MONTICELLO
The undersigned Robert G. Krautbauer and Betty Ann Krautbauer, being the owners of a tract
of land consisting of 71 acres more or less, generally described as tying within the west half of
Section 18, Township 121, Range 24 south of County Road 39 Right of Way and north of the
County Road 75/Interstate 94 Right of Way, approximately one-half of which tract lies within
the City of Monticello and the remainder within the Township of Monticello, hereby request
annexation by the City of Monticello of that portion of the tract lying outside its current City
Limits.
The entire tract is under contract to Residential Development, Inc., of Chanhassen, Minnesota
for a phased development project upon annexation. Residential Development, Inc. will be
processing all documents including surveys and effecting all improvements in accordance with
applicable ordinances.
This petition is executed in duplicate originals.
ATTEST'.
OWNER: v
®r -'a' z;
Robert G. Krautbauer
'Betty Anh Krautbauer
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245 MEMO
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295-&404
TO: Township Board Members
FROM: Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator
DATE: June 6, 1994
RE: Proposed Krautbauer annexation
This letter is written to inform you that the City of Monticello has been contacted regarding
the possible annexation of the Krautbauer property for development of a small commercial
area, townhomes and single family housing. In the next few weeks, the Planning
Commission and City Council will be reviewing the land use concepts in detail for
consistency with the comprehensive land use and utilities plan. If acceptable, these concepts
will become the basis for a subsequent development plan. Following is additional
information about the site in terms of the criteria for annexation as identified in our joint
agreement.
1. The area proposed for annexation is within the area identified as the "Urban Service
Area"; therefore, it is eligible for annexation under the Urbanization Plan.
2. City facilities providing sewer and water have been sized to serve the area.
3. This is a concept plan being presented for your comments. Further information
regarding phasing will be available upon completion of the development plan.
4. Upon completion of the concept review stage, it is anticipated that a development plan
will be completed that provides the level of detail to show how it will meet the
standards and requirements of the comprehensive plan or utilities plan. City staff
will provide you with a copy of the development plan as soon as it is available. No
action will be taken by the City on the annexation question until your comments on
the development plan have been received by the City.
Memo
Township Board Members
— June 6, 1994
Page 2
5. Development of single family and townhornes is consistent with the comprehensive
plan for the city. The City Planner is advising the City to annex Hawks
RestaurantBar as a conforming use within a small commercial area as proposed
under the developer's concept plan.
Please let me know if there are particular issues or concerns regarding the development of
the property that should be included in the development plan.
Finally, attached is the information provided to the Planning Commission regarding
preliminary land use concepts. Also included is correspondence outlining the proposed
timeline for development.
If you should have any questions, please call.
1
INFORMATIONAL ITEM
June 8. 1994
Board of Review vroaerty adiustmenta. (R.W.)
Attached you will find a copy of the six parcels that were adjusted by our
Assessor, Jerry Kramber, and were approved by the Council at the last meeting.
The summary outlines the original proposed market value of each property and
the resulting reduction or, in one case, no change to the value proposed. This
information has been forwarded to the County Assessor for inclusion on next
years tax records.
)Cramer & gssocr'ales, .9nc. FWALC4rA78AVVRAMEWASSE980R9
May 24, 1994 P.O. BM 56
mvb=e fl41 97363
(612)67!3748
Doug Gruber
Wright County Assessor
Wright County Courthouse
10 2nd Street NW
Buffalo, Minnesota
55313
Dear Doug,
The following properties were reviewed as requested by the Board
of Equalization:
155-012-001050 Richard Tigue
1994 EMV $96,100.00 Reduced to $92,900.00
155-016-000010 Douglas Stokes
1994 EMV $79,600.00 Reducad to $74,000.00
155-010-067100 D. Pitt
1994 EMV $54,500.00 Reduced to $42,400.00
155-010-058010 Roman Brauch
1994 EMV $116,300.00 Reducad to $112,400.00
155-044-004120 Michael Beck
1994 EMV $123,700.00 NO CHANCE
155-015-011030 Frederick Hickman
1994 EMV $83,900.00 Reduced to $70,600.00
If you have any questions regarding the above properties, please
give me a call.
Reap fully,
ry ramber
nticello City Asaesaor
cc: Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
COUNCIL UPDATE
June 10, 1994
Update on installation of NO PARKING signs in accordance with vathwav Alan.
IJ.O.1
This update is to inform Citv Council that the public works department and the
county public works department will be placing NO PARKING signs at certain
locations in accordance with the bike plan approved by the City Council in May of
1993. Staff recognizes that. the approval of the plan was granted sonic time ago;
therefore, we feel it is important to update You on placement of the signs prior to
installation.
The first location is placement of NO PARKING signs along bast County Road 39
from the entry to the city at Gillard all the way to Riverroad Nana. The signs will
simply state NO PARKING --BIKE ROUTE. The county highway department will
place the signs at intervals defined by the County. The cost of the signs and
installation will be borne by the County. This segment of East 39 is considered to
be part of the county bikeway system.
Restricting parking :long this route should not be a problem because the road
shoulder is rarely used for parking by local residents due to the deep setbacks.
There is one exception: Fishermen using the Battle Rapids Park area often park
on the shoulder, which would conflict with the no parking designation. In order to
avoid this conflict., users of the park will he encouraged through signage to park
oil the gravel surface just off the paved shoulder.
The other location for NO PARKING signs is 7th Street between Washington and
Highway 'lb. As you know, there ore it number of apartments on the north side of
7th Street. Unfortunately, many of the residents that live in the apartments
facing 7t,h Street use the road right-of-way for parking rather than the parking lot
provided. The vehicles that are parked on 7th Street add to the congestion find
hamper movement of hicyclists and pedestrians along 7th Street,. Itis the view of
the public works department that. placement of No PARKING signs along both
sides of 7th Street. between Ilighway 25 and Washington is lung overdue. This is
it city street: therefore, City crews will install the signs.
Again, designation of these roadways its on -street hike and pedestrian routes is
included in the pathway plan approved by Council in May of 199.1. If any Council
member objects to tile placement of signs ut. the locutions mentioned, or if tiny
Council member would like to review the pathway plan, please let me or the
public works department know.
COUNCIL UPDATE
June 10, 1894
Undate on senior housing nroiect. (J.0.)
This memo is to inform Council that the Monticello Hospital District will be
reviewing proposals from four different development companies interested in
developing a senior housing project adjacent to the expanded clinic facility. The
presentations will he made on June 22 at 6:30 p.m. According to Barb
Schwientek, City stair and Council are invited.
COUNCIL UPDATE
June 10, 1984
Uadate on variance request eranted to Mr. and Mrs. Leeman. (J.0.)
This is to inform Council that at the previous meeting of the Planning
Commission, Planning Commission granted a 6 -ft variance to Mr. and Mrs.
Leeman, which would allow them to develop a 16 -ft wide attached garage to their
existing single family structure. Please review the information relating to the site
and let City staff know if you have any objection to the variance as recommended
by the Planning Commission. If so, the item will be placed on the Council agenda
for June 27, 1994. If no objections are mentioned, the variance stands as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Agenda - lqa
b. Public Hearing -Consideration of a variance of 8 ft to the 10 -ft side
vard setback reouirement in coniunction with construction of an
attached garage. Applicant. Jack and Barb Leeman_ (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jack and Barb Leeman request that the Planning Commission approve an
8 -ft variance which would allow them to build an 18 -ft wide attached. The
situation is similar to the condition commonly found in the Balboul and
Anders Wilhelm development areas in that the home was centered on the
lot, thereby providing little room on either side for development of an
attached garage. Due to the tight distance between the house and the
property line (20 ft), it is impossible to expect that the two -car garage could
be constructed; however, there does appear to be sufficient room to allow
development of a single car garage.
As you recall, under similar circumstances, the City has granted variances;
however, the extent of the variance has been limited to 6 ft to coincide with
standard easement requirements on side yard lot lines. In the past, the
City has been reluctant to grant variances that would place the garage 6 ft
or closer to the side lot line. Therefore, as an alternative to the requested
8 -ft variance, it is suggested by staff that the Planning Commission consider
a 4 -ft variance_
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve granting of a variance of 4 ft to the 10 -ft side yard
setback requirement. Motion to grant the variance based on the
finding that a variance is necessary for the property owner to obtain
reasonable use of the property, the variance will not result in a
negative impact on the adjoining property, mid because variances
have been granted in the past under very similar ci rcumstances.
Under this alternative, the attached garage would be limited to a 14 -
ft wide single stall gnrage, and a 6 -ft side yard setback would be
maintained.
Motion to deny the variance request.
This motion could he based on it finding that u unique situation or
hardship has not been demonstrated. it has been argued in the past
that placement of the structure in the center of the property should
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94
not be considered a hardship. The presentowner bought the property
in its present condition under existing ordinances and cannot claim a
hardship.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1 for reasons as outlined in the proposed
finding.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Location map; Variance request application; A video will be provided at the
meeting if necessary.
Consideration of a variance of 8 ft to the
W
10 ft side yard setback requirement in
S conjunction with construction of an attached
garage.
�•�=—� \�,� ?� APPLICANT: Jack and Barb Leeman
I , _ � ,,moi , !�✓ �,.��f/�:/ , "F��`1 ���.
W"N" kol
CITY OF MONTICELLO
VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICATION
PEE: $50 for setback or $125 for others + necessary consulting expenses*
NOTE: Necessary consulting fees Include the cost to have the City Planner analyze
variance, rezoning, and conditional use permit requests at the rate of $75/hr.
Generally, the level of City Planner involvement corresponds with complexity of
request and/or the potential Impact of the request on the City. The need for City
Planner assistance Is determined solely by City staff. ��++
APPLICANT'S NAME/ADDRESS: Ti:k>i&t,-/i �Cee,77a)i Y27 G.'�5f llf:.)Z-da./
PHONE t HOME: '] - .1 31) / YORK: 1--)'� y -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION
OTHER
DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST: %eI11/K- e -
i
What are the unique circumstances that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing
the property in a manner customary and legally permissible?
1 is haus e ,'n F.(t LP -77 oua 1Js`.;4ba,-S
a /7 d' GJ Q /1.117k AP /I �i 7`U h4, /-e -1/��p f � C7 �)�� 4'ale-a,;
/' J
DATE: "`�/.-i C- /S?� SIGNED:
•..............1.............►...u�u.�uu•�i�u ��....u................uu.....•
(-If Pee paid: Receipt Number: /7/(, 3 Currently Zoned: (•O(//
Planning Cass+ Nnmbwr: �J'/- n,-.�Q Data ApplicatLon Rocolved: �1�:%�d/`i�/
Date of Planning Commission Public Hearings Time)
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING
Hae a hardship been demonstrated? (J Yee (J No
Will approval of the variance request:
A. impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property? (J Yea
(J No
B. create an unreasonable congestion Increase in the public street? (J Yes
(J No
C. increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety? (J Yee
(J No
D. unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood? (J Yee
(J No
E. be contrary to the Intent of the ordinance? (J Yee
() No
Summary of Planning Consaieeion Findings
Was there an appeal? (J Yee (J No If so, attach a copy of the appeal.
Date of Council considerations Time)
Decision of Councils
(J moo attached
Coementas
(J see attached
Publication Data: Halling Data: Video? (J Yea Is (( No
VARREQ.PRMt 7/1/97 CIS