Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 09-10-1979 . . . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL September 10, 1979 - 7:00 P.M. (PLEASE NOTE TIME) Mayor: Arve Grimsmo Councilmembers: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Philip White. Meeting to be taped. citizens Comments - 1. Public Hearing for Review and Adoption of the Assessment Rolls on the 1977-3 Street Improvement project. 2. Public Hearing - proposed Use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. 3. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Right Turn Lane for Sandberg South Addition. 4. Consideration of Subdivision Request - Longley Addition. 5. consideration of Application for Subdivision of Lots - Harold Ruff. 6. Consideration of Setting Per Diem Allowance for Fire Department Members to Attend Training Meetings, Etc. 7. Consideration of Approval of Boat Launching Improvement in Ellison Park. 8. Review of Preliminary Budget for 1980. 9. Approval of Minutes - August 27, 1979 Regular Meeting. Unfinished Business - New Business - " ) ,'l ~~ \) " " 5e f1-J \C(:' S -<t> /57 riD r v /,11/<> F,t-l'Je..-Y-.....t I~Mt" (:>/:"' ,.^:'~ ,. ~. "~ . . . ~~/1' AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Public Hearing for Review and Adoption of the Assessment Rolls on the 1977-3 Street Improvement project. All property owners proposed to be assessed on the Street Improvement Project have been notified of the hearing at Monday night's meeting. Purpose of the hearing would be to allow affected property owners an opportunity to comment on the proposed assessments. It would seem that one possible way to proceed would be for John Badalich, the city Engineer, to give a brief overview of the project, followed by the proposed assessment with an opportunity for the Council to ask questions. After this, the public hearing portion of the agenda item could commence with the opportunity to be given to the public for their comment. Some of the significant items on the 1977-3 project are as follows: Scope of Project - primarily, project consisted of construction of storm sewer, permanent street surfacing, along with curb and gutter installation. Additionally, there was some water main reinforcement and construction as well as sanitary sewer construction along with providing 62 individual water and sewer stubs and one (1) sanitary sewer stub. Total Estimated Cost Including Assessable Portion - Total project cost for purposes of preparing assessment rolls is: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL $2,673,719.74 452,754.89* $3,126,474.63 *This includes engineering, legal, bond fees, 1% charge for administrative and 1% charge for public works and other miscellaneous items. Of this total amount, 20% is proposed for assessment. At the initial public hearing, it was estimated the total project costs would be $2,490,800. primary reasons for the increase include: A. Decision to use full strength asphalt. B. Increase in several street widths. C. Addition of sewer and water as a result of a petition along Elm Street and Minnesota Street. D. Inflation. E- ~ef\"t(, ~"'\\)A.W\"1..Ei~ \\~t.\ f. I ~ ,~ "1.. WAlt" S~tS - 1 - . . . COUNCIL AGENDA - 9/10/79 Area to be Assessed - See the enclosed map for area to be assessed for street and storm sewer. Additionally, there are seven (7) parcels along Minnesota and Elm Street which would be assessed for sewer and water as a result of a petition. payment of Assessments - Assessments are scheduled for a 20-year payoff at 6~% interest with first payment due with taxes in 1980. Assessments may be paid in full within 30 days of the assessment adoption without interest (this can be taken care of at City Hall). Assessments - ORIGINAL ESTIMATES PROPOSED ASSESSMENT CURB, GUTTER, STREET $7.32/1in.front ft. $8.965828/lin.front ft. STORM SEWER Residential-single & two family Multiple Residential Commercial/Industrial $.01194/sq. ft. .01758/sq. ft. .024l9/sq. ft. $.014973/sq. ft. .022182/sq. ft. .030501/sq. ft. EXAMPLE - PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS Typical single family residential lot 66' x 165' or 10,890 square feet 66' x $8.965828 10,890 sq. ft. x $.014973 TOTAL $591.74 163.06 $754.80 Compares to original estimate of . . .$613.00 20-Year payoff - Typical Residential Lot 1st Year - $81.88 (interest accrues from hearing date until 12/31/80) Next 19 years - $67.57 per year. This is based on even payments. Compares to original estimate of $59.28 on even payments, or $54.78 average per year based on even principal payments. Council elected even payment method. Extra width Driveways - Council previously indicated there would be no charge for one driveway 18' opening or less per 66 front feet; however, a charge of $2.28 per foot over 18' is proposed for assessment on all residential property and $2.54 for commercial driveway openings over 18'. On county Road 75 (Broadway Street), any property that abutted a side street and wanted a driveway opening was assessed the above per foot charge with no exemption made for the first 18' since there is no street assessment proposed against property abutting county #75. - 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA ~ 9/10/79 . Credit on Storm Sewer Previously Assessed as Part of the 1971-1 Storm Sewer project - previously, the Council reviewed the possibility of granting credit for storm sewer completed and assessed as part of the 1971-1 storm sewer project. This project primarily served the southwest part of the former City limits but also included storm sewer facilities for the Wright County State Bank block and the eastern portion of the Dairy Store block (see yellow areas on map). It was the thinking of the Council that credit would be granted for the portion previously assessed, since some drainage problems still have persisted in these areas and as a result, the assessment rolls have shown a credit for these parcels. For example, a typical residential 66' x 165' lot would receive a credit of $54.45 against the storm sewer assessment of $163.06. Assessment Method - All properties abutting improved streets were assessed for streets with the exception of those corner parcels that front on Broadway. These parcels did receive a storm sewer assessment, however. Corner lots were assessed on the short side, or 66' rather than 165'. POSSIBLE ACTION: After review of the proposed assessment rolls, the Council should adopt the assessments with any revisions thereto. . REFERENCES: Enclosed map indicating area to be assessed, along with August 27, 1979 letter from Orr-Schelen-Mayeron relative to proposed assessments on the project. '(J ') \ of' ~ ; ,,' I ~ ~~. ,~ }. ~~. f 4~'~ rq- ,I if ~\U [,V . <> ~~f- . - 3 - . . \ " ~ ''i' ~ ~~ (r~~' . COUNCIL AGENDA - 9/10/79 2. Public Hearing - proposed Use of Federal Revenue sharing Funds. According to the regulations governing Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, the City Council must hold a public hearing at least seven (7) days before adoption of the proposed budget. A public hearing must be held to allow local citizens and groups an opportunity to present written or verbal comments on how the proposed Revenue Sharing money is to be spent. A notice of this hearing has to be published and a reasonable effort made to have senior citizens and senior citizen groups participate in hearing. It should be noted that the hearing was published as required and a notice of the hearing was sent to the Senior Citizens Center and also to Cedar Crest Apart- ments in Monticello. It is expected that in 1980, the City of Monticello will receive $97,338 in Federal Revenue sharing funds, and at the beginning of 1980, it is expected that the City will have an unappropriated balance of $6,340, thereby making $103,678 available. The Council is not required to have a specific plan for the expenditure of Federal Revenue Sharing funds at the hearing, since the spirit and intent of the proposed use hearing was for the Council to con- sider use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds with the public before final adop- tion of the budget itself. In 1978, the City Council appropriated its 1979 amount of $89,000 towards the City's share of the Wastewater Treatment plant. This could be one possible appropriation of the Federal Revenue sharing funds. At the time of the writing of this agenda, I have only received one written comment, that from the Cedar Crest Apartment manager, George DeMars, relative to the use of Federal Revenue Sharing dollars. A copy of his August 20, 1979 letter is enclosed. It should be pointed out that the law further provides that the actual proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds, along with the entire budget, is subject to a hearing. As a result, therefore, City Council may want to consider some indication after the hearing is over relative to their proposed uses for Federal Revenue sharing dollars which would be subject of another hearing to be held in conjunction with the budget hearing on September 24, 1979. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of input on proposed use of Federal Revenue sharing dollars, and consideration of proposed uses of Federal Revenue Sharing dollars to be made subject of hearing September 24, 1979. REFERENCES: Copy of letter from Cedarcrest Apartments. 3. Public Hearing on the Consideration of a Right Turn Lane for Sandberg South Addition. As you recall, at our last meeting John Badalich made the Council aware of a contact made by the State Highway Department indicating that a right turn lane would be necessary leading into the Sandberg South Addition. At that time, the City Council requested our Engineer further contact the Highway Department to determine if this right turn lane was absolutely necessary. - 4 - . ~ . . COUNCIL AGENDA - 9/10/79 John Badalich has talked with State Department of Transportation and has indicated that the State will require the right turn lane. It is estimated that the cost for construction for the proposed change order #3 with Northdale Construction Company is $4,741.80. Including an indirect fee of 20%, or $948.36, brings the total cost to $5,690.16. It would seem that this cost should be 100% assessed against all property abutting Sandberg South, which includes all of Sandberg South Addition, plus Mel Worth's storage building. Currently there are ten parcels abutting Sandberg south, and if the City were to assess the additional cost evenly among the parcels, it would add approximately $569 in assessment to each parcel. since it was not initially intended to put a right turn lane into the Sandberg South Addition, a public hearing is necessary since it is a change in the scope of the project and all property owners abutting Sandberg South have been notified of the hearing and that it is proposed to assess the improvement against their parcels. It should be noted that the actual assessment policy does not have to be determined until the assessment hearing itself, which is now scheduled for October 8, 1979 on the entire 1978-1 Improvement Project. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of change order #3 with Northdale Construction Company for $4,741.80 to construct a right turn lane into the Sandberg South addition. REFERENCES: August 22, 1979 letter from the Minnesota Department of Transpor- tation relative to the right turn lane, and August 30, 1979 letter from John Badalich plus attachments relative to the proposed change order #3. 4. Consideration of subdivision Request - Longley Addition. Mr. Rick Longley has made application for a subdivision of his lot on South Highway 25. presently, he has one large lot and would like to make six (6) smaller lots of approximately 14,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. Each lot would meet the minimum 100' width requirement, and there are no provisions for minimum lot size in terms of square footage in a B-3 zone. Mr. Longley's purpose behind this subdivision of his larger parcel is to sell off the lots for commercial usage. Since the park dedication fee was previously paid when this land was subdivided by John Sandberg, another fee would not be necessary. It should be pointed out that although some of the blacktop area for the Glass Hut would be lost to some of the proposed abutting lots, parking spaces can be altered to maintain the present amount and Mr. Rick Longley has agreed to do this. For your information, the Glass Hut is situated on Lot 3. Approval should be contingent upon submission and proof of recording of an easement to allow Lots 1, 2 & 3 and the property to the North of the Glass Hut which is owned by Vaughn Veit, to permanent use of the frontage road across Lots I, 2 and 3 and also a maintenance agreement for upkeep and snow removal. It should be noted that this road is not being dedicated to the City and as a result, the City does not have to maintain it. Purpose of - 5 - . . . COUNCIL AGENDA - 9/10/79 obtaining proof of this easement is to assure that subsequent buyers of the Lots 1, 2 & 3 and the Veit property have access onto State Highway 25, otherwise they would be landlocked. Also, approval should be contingent upon the requirement of a permanent 30 foot easement - 15' from the north side of Lot 6 and 15' from the south side of Lot 5 - for servicing the utilities which lie there to serve lots 1 & 2. This easement is necessary since the City is now putting in sewer and water abutting Lots 4, 5 & 6, and in order to service Lots 1 & 2, this easement would be necessary. For your information, the City has already previously received an easement on the North side of Lot 4 that would then in effect allow utilities to service Lot 3 and the Veit property. However, it is also requested and should be contingent upon approval of this plat that Rick Longley grant an additional 20' temporary construction on the north side of Lot 4 in order that the utilities may be put in. This preliminary plat has been reviewed by our engineering firm and a copy of their August 27, 1979 letter is enclosed. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat which was subject of a public hearing and no objections were received from any citizens. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of preliminary plat. REFERENCES: Copy of August 27, 1979 letter from Orr-Sche1en-Mayeron & Assoc., copy of the preliminary plat for Longley Addition, enclosed Planning Commission Minutes. 5. Consideration of Application for Subdivision of Lots - Harold Ruff. Mr. Harold Ruff has made application for a simple subdivision of Lots 4 & 5 of Block S. presently, Lots 4 & 5 are 66' x 165' each and run generally north and south. Mr. Ruff would like to split the lots so they run east and west and make each lot 82~' x 132', as shown on the enclosed certificate of survey. This subdivision does meet the minimum width requirements of 80' and minimum square footage requirement in an R-2 zone of 10,000 square feet. Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Ruff's attorney, Ken Ho1ker, relative to his request for the subdivision. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subdivision contingent upon proof of recording at the County Recorder's Office in Buffalo. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of subdivision request. REFERENCES: Enclosed certificate of survey and plat map and letter from Ken Holker relative to the subdivision, enclosed Planning Commission Minutes. - 6 - . ~ I' 0) \r~ V' {x -if' ~ ~ <:t Fq~ . COUNCIL AGENDA - 9/10/79 6. Consideration of Setting Per Diem Allowance for Fire Department Members to Attend Training Meetings, Etc. previously, the City Council requested the Fire Department to make a recom- mendation relative to the setting of an established per diem allowance for firemen while they attend training sessions, etc. At the present time, the City of Monticello has been paying members $42.00 per day plus expenses incurred. The $42 was based the same as a fire call - $7.00 for the first hour and $5.00 for every additional hour on an 8 hour day. At their last meeting, the Fire Department recommended a per diem allowance of $30.00 plus expenses incurred. It should be noted that this recommendation is made in line with Minnesota Statute 438.011 which allows cities to set a per diem allowance for firemen while they attend training sessions. The Statutes do not allow, as had been discussed previously by the fire department as a possibility, the setting of a per diem based on lost wages since this could be different for every individual involved. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of per diem allowance of $30.00 per day plus expenses incurred while attending fire training sessions. (It should be noted that this recommendation is also going forward to the Monticello Township Board for approval) . 7. Consideration of Approval of Boat Launching Improvement in Ellison Park. At our last meeting, John Simola reviewed with the City Council a proposal for improvement of the boat launch facilities in Ellison Park. At the last meeting, the City Council requested the item be put on the next agenda so that the Council could review proposed boat launch facilities and John Simola has the area staked out. At the meeting itself, there was some concern over the fact that the boat launch access point into the River did not utilize the present extension of Washington Street into Ellison Park. There was some concern that the boat launch facilities which are proposed further east of the extension of washington Street might possibly interfere with other activities in Ellison Park. Additionally, there was some concern over the fact that the proposal was for a 15' wide access point into the River and whether this would be of sufficient width to accommodate such a facility. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval with any revisions of the launch facilities. ~ boat ~"1-\ S~. REFERENCES: plat plan of boat launch facilities enclosed. V L'fl' , ,VV _ ~ r ~ SUr 51/; ~ /\;0 --; J \r-. Itr~)'x " fI , . rjJ~ .\\ 4' >~ {\ \ ~~tJ v'ij ~ \/, l/1 ) - 7 - . . . COUNCIL AGENDA ~ 9/10/79 8. Review of Preliminary Budget for 1980. Enclosed, please find a preliminary budget for 1980. In the past, the pre- liminary budget has been presented to the Council for review and additions or deletions are made. Normally, at the Council's next meeting, the preliminary budget as revised is presented for final adoption with any final revisions and/or adjustments. Of particular concern in 1980 is some possible appropriations the Council will be considering relative to its share of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, con- struction of which could begin in 1980, and also the funding of the purchase of the Oakwood Property. Additionally, there are some other items that our Public Works Director, John Simola, would like to have included in the budget for 1980, and these are outlined in the budget itself for possible consideration and also enclosed is a detailed report from John Simo1a relative to the items requested. For your information, it should be noted that if the City Council decides in 1980 to construct a library, these funds would most likely be generated from a bond fund, and therefore not budgeted in 1980. POSSIBLE ACTION: While the budget has been presented primarily for review at Monday night's meeting, some preliminary decisions could possibly be arrived at relative to the appropriation of the reserve funds and whether to include these in the budget for 1980. Also, the Council may want to make some revisions, adjustments, or amendments to the proposed preliminary budget for presentation of the budget at a hearing scheduled for September 24, 1979, the Council's next meeting. REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of the Preliminary Budget and also John Simola's report relative to Capital Outlay expenditures in the Public Works Department. v~ ~ ~. vr ; I - 8 - . . . f-/o-7'7 ASSESSMENTS - STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Area to be Assessed - See the attached map for area to be assessed for street and storm sewer. Addi- tionally, there are seven (7) parcels along Minnesota and Elm Street which would be assessed for sewer and water as a result of a petition. Payment of Assessments - Assessments are scheduled for a 20-year payoff at 6~% interest with first payment due with taxes in 1980. Assessments may be paid in full within 30 days of the assessment adoption without interest (this can be taken care of at City Hall.) proposed Assessment - Curb, Gutter, Street $8.965828/1inear front foot Storm Sewer - Residential-single & two family Multiple Residential Commercial/Industrial $.014973/sq.ft. or $652.24/acre $.022182/sq.ft. or $966.28/acre $.030501/sq.ft. or $1,328.63/acre EXAMPLE - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT Typical single family residential lot 66' x 165' or 10,890 square feet 66' x $8.965828 10,890 sq. ft. x $.014973 TOTAL $591.74 163.06 $754.80 Compares to original estimate of . . . .$613.00 20-Year payoff - Typical Residential Lot - 1st Year - $81.88 (interest accrues from hearing date until 12/31/80) Next 19 Years - $67.57 per year. This is based on even payments. Compares to original estimate of $59.28 on even payments, or $54.78 average per year based on even principal payments. Council elected even payment method. Extra width Driveways - Council previously indicated there would be no charge for one driveway 18' opening or less per 66 front feet; however, a charge of $2.28 per foot over 18' is proposed for assessment on all residential property and $2.54 for commercial driveway openings over 18'. On county Road 75 (Broadway street), any property that abutted a side street and wanted a driveway opening was assessed the above per foot charge with no exemption made for the first 18' since there is no street assessment proposed against property abutting County Road #75. ,/#-N.1eL (7J ~ ~ ~- '7- /C)- "2 , / ~A....',v? ~ ASSESSMENT ROLL . f)R()JECT 77-3 ASSESSABLE AREA Project 1177-3 C IT Y of MONTICELLO .....,i\,~... ". '....... "',. " ......'" ...., ......-......... ................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ar.. To .. A......~ :~:~:~:~:~:~:>~:}>::::::: - B'o,... B...r B'r..' A........... * Revised 8/31/79 _ {lie''': I JI2ANTEO ,~. P (l(JtO~S /1 ;+sso J~ ~- ~ '" '" 1";7 1- I ~ /..,., ~ ~ ~ ;?UJ;1'~ . I ....... ............... "'-. ......--- , '. -- I-1IC~"'tA I , .....)- i-- I ~ ' I -"" I I I I J I " I . ,', J 'l.::.. '" ~ I ...::-~..... ....... I .....-....""~.... I .......':...... : ~ '~,~ ';;'. t- ~ ~~~ :~ _u~__. .,' v c,>"'~" t_ .....L___J_ ."__ Ii _m_ -~)-'~",-.. I :? O-:j r ----- -, ., -- - -=1' -- --_dO:, "4", I 1'4 / 1',-", ....-7-CORPOR'iiE--lifs------ \ _____ I -, '" /.. .. ,Ii / \ ,I ___ '-" " ~ ' :J -.-" \ f- ... \ ...~~ \\ \ . Monticello, Minn. Aug. 20, 1979 Office of the mena~er Cedar Crest Apartments Dear Arve & Gary, viorthy Sirs: In regards to sharing of Federal Revenue sharing dollars as far as seniors are concerned at Cedar Crest.. These are some of the thinfs we would like to heve in order of their importance. A street light on the corner of 5tn and Ceder, a . Gtop sign on the corner of 4th and Cedar going north onto 4th stl'eet: ( B serious accident took p18ce here" r'1onth 8fO), more transportation facilities to doctors and grocery shopping; a stricter enforcement of dog c~tchin? ~for stray dogs. I w9S attacked and seriously bitten by e German shepard dog and had to go to the emerfency ward of the Monti. hospital, Sat evening, Aug. 18th. Another item we would like very much is 8 good used piAno for our community room. Musicel entertainment is Eood for seniors. We would ~reatly appreciate your effort in helpin~ us out in the above listed sugf8stions. ~ respectfully ~-r.~ ((!r >>Aa~ George De lIfers . C E [) Cedar Crest A Cedar Crest Apartments · 406 South Cedar. Monticello, MN 55362 CRE~T Representing the seniors et --2 ORR.SCHElEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. . 'It !,\'i;// '() l f If jfl!('{'!"S 'Vii!",'; .1/ )(/ t:..ll..~lln t ""'t{, __ J , 1'J 79 !'::r. r~t~~'~):,1~13 \.T. 8c~li'.1.n~' t:o;tt) '.:,) lf~ Cc!n~;'l:ruct,ion Cor.'ipany S 7'~ r.', L~: t}l .'Wb~ tiC NortJ1 ()f1seo, t;inn(~fjot", ~5369 Fp: Pro j(!ct 7\;-1 Pl:'Ol'-:)f.;Cct C'IHlJ1')o Orcler No. 3 ('ity of :~ollti~n11o, Hinnesota :J~111r t".,~\(;Ll: ;.llC:o!'it'(1 }'CX('-\vitll if; ChUH'.}C Ord.~r No. J ro]arding additionctl ',.T' :::1 ('r' :'[()!"',ti:.:;cllo'c Projr)ct 78-1. . ,: ,I) ~,I:(iHll ,~):1 UJ'l t ty~l:f~J :3h~tch, Ch~:" ,in Ord()r No. 3 '_:ill:~on- ';i~;1: ;:: ii:"(),-i-1i:1,; ~1 riJ~lt tur:1 lane on Tru:-.}-:: :Iij~~a:: ~b. 5 in :,'J['~.Lccllo ::~" .:::r. ~12i'roi.:lch ~o Sandherg r:oud. 'rhiv io rc<}uired by j.'m/n0~', tl:-:c1 ~hl) Citr, "lith reluctanc:c, i.~ c..:onpcl1cd to coIn- r:)',' '.;'::i:', t~\i!; r2c:t:in,mc;1t. I td_lk.(.(j t.o Nor'" HOlr,i l)f Hr..S i\sr'halt Co., who no ~buht will he v\i)'.. '~,:i" \\,(,~~l" d(1 :'ol1r surcontractor, .J.nd tl'c ]'l~L~cf! nhoun :!.n tJ.(, c" ,1:I.Jf' ')l.'cr 'l.l", , the pricel:J he quote~l, wrll~L ctr(~ fj1lht,;tant,-;ally hi,-,l-,'r :.:.;,;;\:) tb~ (.:ontract unit prices. 'l'hia is browJht <'lhout \ IIlI.' ;~ (, tlh' 'l(C"'I..l .: ~)r c\ddi lional l.iersonne1 r')(-lui;COI>len ttl on Ul~ job J,PC dlHH,' 0 f l;i'Jh\lUY requir(~m<~ntc, the need to rnove in and on:., c~' ~J:c job rlinc() he completed hin work on Project 70-1, du1 ;:1 (' int:n~d~f' in uil cantp-o 1\ 5~; profi'. u16(; Inn been prl~- vi,;p!i your f.ind <is the prine contractor. F).case- ~~:CCL;tc i..l1 tLree copies of tbo chunye order and rc'Lu.cn tel 1\<.' ,1,H soon IS l:'vssible. '1'hie mtJ.ttcr will 1J0 on the City l\>lI:;co) ~-' tj '''9;':':~ld.::. on Septe.ub('r 10, 1979 for authurL~dtiun tu 1 \ :rlJ (:L(~!"t . . ../ ~. I I'" ,ti;f I A venue . Suite 238 . Minneap~', Minnesota 55413 . 612/ 337 . 8660 . . . ~," ~'~. tl,'11 {yr. (1 <-, \oJ. S {,-:h any i:~'rt-h:'!a~Y ('t:.ywtt.uc:tion Company .i\U~,'.,J'3t :~S, 197: r ~'"') 2 '1'\'10 If ',r".! :~'1V; .J.l,',' ll\HH~tion3 in this rogard, please yivo mc..' <J. (,;.111. Yours very truly, ~. HP-~i(' li};V:'c,-i,';l\!:" FohO':\l ;J cJ. (; tl 1, i ~ II, P. F. . ('. ~~. ~', :," ,:,"~l....~ :. ~~, ~ U14 .r,; 1\.;'; fJC 1<) ':i...1 r"t \~. -"r'- Vi,'\'~~r, City J\.<Jminitlt:r,'ltor .3 . ORR~SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2021 E. HENNEPIN AVE. · SUITE 238 MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55413 CHANGE ORDER NO. ..... J . . . . . . . . . s4 I .~ ~.J, ~ .~ Q . . . . . . . . . RE: MQl1.tj..Ge.J..~p.. 7.~-1 .}foxth<;1a~e. . c.QJ;l.StxUC.ti.QO. .Co...,. .IncContractOr ~ 75.5. . ~9.~. .1?v~.I}1;l~. .I::J9.r.: t-l1. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9?~~~.,. ):ij..I}~~.~<?:t.~.. .~??~~.................. Dcar Sir (5) Under your contract dated .......~!-l:9!-l:~:t:.2.3!............................ 19Z~.. with .~.~. ~~.~Y. .c?~. .~P1f.tiqE?l.l<?............ .................... Owner for $.g.(l.i. t.q:n~. .~ev.:e.r (. .Wa.t-~..r.:. I'1~,i,1f/. . ?~<?~. .~~y.(~~,.. ?f;.~.~~.1;.. ?9-y.i,.(l,g . .o,Oq. App:q+":t:efl.9-(l.t.. . Work we arc authorized by the owner to hereby direct you to r.::onstruct. r.igh t. . turn. . . . . . . . .J,a.n~. .~.t, .?... T....I~.... #.4? . ?-.I19. .~ M9J:?~;r:9.. RQ<i\.c1. .c3,$. .P~.:r; . .a t:.t9-~n~.Q.. p'~an.. .. . . . . . . .an.d .lis.t. .of. .quantities............................................................ ......... -...... + +............................"............................................. ........................................+................. +........................... -........................ ................................ ............................ aad to add to (tIedut.X~ the contract, in accordance with contract and specification. the IWIl of f()\l.r . T.hPlJ.?~I)..d. ?~Y~(l. .I:I.u:!).9.J;'~.c'j.. ;F'o;r::t,y7".on~. .cwo. .7":'77".-:-:":":"":77".-:- 8.0 1100 Dollars There will be an extension of .....2 (} . . . . .. days for completion. The date of completion of contract was 9./ J... 19 7.9. and nOw win be .9./2.1... 197.9..... _.".,~.",~~~~_._--,~------"~-,,.,,-,~........------'._..- Amounf of original contract r' 0 rTotal Additions #1 28,594.00 $1,054,450..00 #2 4,000.00 _~_._J~ 4, I!~.~.80 ~____~m_____. Total Deductions Contract to Date $1,091,785.80 -----,-,~,.~.---~"'--~~,..~~ Approved .......................... 19.... Respectfully Submitted, ............................. .............. .......................................... . Per .. ORR.SCHELEN-MA YERON & bIATr'/'~~' ..~....~............. John P. Bada1ich, P..E. 8/29/79 Owner . Approved .......................... 19.... Contractor 3 . SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAIN, STORM SEWER, STREET PAVING, AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 78-1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 LIST OF QUANTITIES 50 Tons #2331 Base Material @ $ 22.00/ton* = $1,100.00 50 Tons #2341 Wear Material @ $ 25.00/ton* = 1,250.00 26 Gals. Tack Coat @ $ I.OO/gal. * = 26.00 190 Tons Class 5 Base @ $ 5.00/ton* = 950.00 30 Cu. Yds. Excavation @ $ 3.00/c.y.* = 90.00 0.2 Ac. Seeding (Including Necessary Black Dirt, Seed & Mulch) @ $2,500.00/Ac.* = 500.00 300 Cu. Yds. Fill Material @ $ 2.00/c.y.* = 600.00 Total $4,516.00 5% Profit to Northdale Construction Co. , Inc. 225.80 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 $4,741.80 . *Negotiated Prices . 3 ---. I i \ i I I I ! i I I I '. I I I I 10 I I 0 \ I I '- I \ \ , ; I I , I , I j f I I i' i I ! ; ; , I' If : ; \ i i: , I II I I , 1i7'a~ , . , (( W U. _J ::. o 1: 1.11 uJ V t,( _I n.. 2 o Cl ...J lIJ rO t- ....J lIJU lIJ 0 z::> ~_z c::[D:: t-l ....Jt; Z co Zz o I'- a:: Ct: 0 ~ W ::>u Cl t- t- D:: t- W U 0 Ill) ~~ ~O Ow a::t- a:: (!) I ~ ~i~ ~ ~38aN"S GL- "' ~ "l ,. - 5.. lJJ -.. 4 -t A J.- --If) Z rJ -x. - 0=11) ~ C\I ::> - .... / QL I r: II OC '" ~ lU .Q ~ I" - I '10. ~ I 'Z 0 i J '" (( er l.aJ Vl N Q. \Il c( ,~ N , t-m {:! - l.!. o >- II I. <<Xl -.: C \--: -:t ~ ~ i I I ~ I/- o 0 ! (fJ : - I : I I . I Ii I Ii 3 ~ . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 4, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: James Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex-officio) Members Absent: Fred Topel, Dick Martie. The special meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission was called to order at 7:45 P.M. on September 4, 1979, by Jim Ridgeway, Chairman. 1. Approval of Minutes. The Minutes of the July 17, 1979 Regular Meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Please note - there was no Planning Commission meeting in the month of August 1979. 2. Consideration of Subdivision Application - Rick Longley. . Mr.- Rick Longley has made application for subdivision of his lot on South Highway 25. presently, he has one large lot, but would like to make six (6) smaller lots of approximately 14,000 to 15,000 square feet each, each lot meeting the 100' frontage requirement. Since the park dedication fee was previously paid, another would not be necessary. Rick Longley was present to outline his subdivision proposal, ilrld aqn'ed. to the recommendations of the planning Commission to recommend approval of his request contingent upon the following: A. Providing an agreement showing who will be responsible for the maintenance of the frontage road, which is to be provided by a permanent easement by the property owners on who~,e land it crosses to service Longley's lots 1, 2 & 3 and the Vaughn Veit property, for maintenance and snow removal, etc.; and B. To provide a permanent 15 foot easement along the north property line of Lot 6; and c. To provide a permanent 15 foot easement along the south property line of Lot 5. The building setback on these respectiVe easements would be the edge of the easements on items Band C above. . Motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously carried to recommend approval of this subdivision request based upon the above-mentioned contingencies. c.., ~ 5 . . . PLANNING COMM. MINUTES - 9/4/79 3. ~onsideration of Application for Subdivision of Lots - Harold Ruff. Mr. Harold Ruff has made application for a simple subdivision of Lots 4 & 5, Block S. presently, Lots 4 & 5 are 66' x 165' each and run in a north-south direction. Mr. Ruff would like to make two lots 82.5' x 132' each which would run in an east-west direction. Based on a letter from Mr. Ruff's attorney, Ken Holker, it was suggested a clarification about assessments be made. Specifically, that if improvements are ever furnished to the southerly lot created, that lot would be assessed regardless of any petition received. Motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously carried to reconuuend approval of the request contingent upon providing a Certificate of Survey for each new lot and include a specific legal description to be recorded at the time of recording at the County level. .', P.M. ren Klein Building Official LDK/ns LI i 5 . , I'" I v-/ 1/ r" ...1) . " '. ~, i I / ~~I .....> ~' ;' / /' I I I ." f I f f { .......... '-<;~ " I, I "-. .. ~~' "- /v' l": "-. .A/ , ;" j', . / . uq.- 0<,. / , 'r~ , ~. .' I I I i "'-. . " " I I I I 'Y / I / / , / '" / / " / -...... / s~ '- -?~~?' '" "- , ;' I / / / ,,/ ~5 ... ~,I \ .\ h ~~ ~/( ...... / KENNETH M. HOLKER . ATTORNEY AT LAW 711 EAST BROADWAY MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362 (612) 295-3895 Septemher Ii, 1979 Planning Commission Members Ci ty of Monti~el1o Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Appli~ation for S\lbdivi~;ion of Lots lIarold 1\1.lfr/ll"(]nci~; ! i,'i,,' Deal" PLmning Commission I'lemhers: 1 represent Mr. Huff (]nd MT". Eicher in the i r 1'1' i l i 0:1 t \) sullllividl' Lots LI ;md ') Block S. 'I'OWNSTTE OF 1'10I'iTIi'II,IiI. T have providc'd yon IviLh c()pi('~; of a Cel'!,ifi",'Il.t' 'll" ~;lIn'I' rInd l.1](. n(~w legal (k:~('ription fot- the lot whi,'11 ,,'i "II 111' <''''lll'l! I" /Vir. I':i cher. . /Vlr. Eicher's home cU1TC'nt]y 1';1('('8 Minnesot;"j ~";tl"''l't ,In II", Jot ",hieh is described in the survey. Currently L]H'r,-, i~; "11<' ,'" ;md one water stub to the described lot and it i~; I'IJ, JlI~d"r"~";1 ,,'1 thdt any future cleve! ppment of the porti on wh i \'II ]"('111;1 in,; \-'1'11; ,I " handeled by petition as to the Cily provi(ling S('lwr- ,11)(1 10/:11. '" I, that portion. I have diseussed this proposed subd"ivision \,i th bot 11 ~11'. Hieber and Hr. Klein, and hoth are familiar with tile' propcrl\'. Be~;l11se of a conflict in my schedule, I will be unable to ,ilt,;; I, therefore, should qtwstions arise thal you fee] neC'd he :"l!lCilcc-n'd. T would prefer that you table the matter rather than deny tlw req U(~~:; t. c:-/ Y7t:~~~~( b'--t.-7/"l/"~"-I..~ --"._" '('nnet1l ~1. 11(11kel" KMI-!:ph . 5 _\::((0 f"tf;IC:D _~ C)~\-__ L.(~..~,,~_~ ~ o II)' OF rY\oNT; (~I )"C) . I . F X IS II l'Hr 0.5\ Ff\ \ \ ---- ~~T~...: ,,--, E xT. Ti:, l'\ ~ -. r,\ (> k" (\{" " , I:';' _'~'. \-:::', L( II "'. \CI'~L: ...,"- (!: ----.J C "-1 f) CH-=' 'bl.AL r< Th P / . .-/ '" >-10 (',....; R () , .-..1 '- ....------ -...........,- . ,~k '.,': . .' -.. -. #ft L'l\ ,:,l;" .I,~, , I' ._/~r- -_.~" '- -~ ,., ~---- . "- , C"' r,,\ ",,' ~'L\!~- "':::___:" ~,~ " r f) (, clfe C~'\.r ~ " .? c "rc.' N r. p,u~-< K'~~P ) too '101\\<; t C'If't,;"',...'"' ----- ....-' ' I ~ \~ '-.::> .< ...... ':::::t; ~ . ~ , r- I S-~ T ----~----, '.,., i.:.>, ' at , ,I ,... "1 ~ ~ r' '". ." -b~ .n 1l?'J ti <> v ).-- _.4tlVI SI ~ <!> e'" -, l.. 1 ~ ~ ~ l e ,(l ~~... rr..rv'] i,.; nr')Tt...S.~: ~,(/) . ~'j., (") (>< V '-11. ~ ~ .:;./ n ' , - t> I -,~ .J l',;r.....~ w ... 4-- r' ~ ~ l<...('..!' ...~I.i' / t' ~ ~ ~ ...... -,. r 1> .--: ~_:.~ ~ - r- :~;~'",l\\~~''' VJ :-1 f' r- ( I ~'p I~'.- ,:,~ ~, :'. .: N v\;" I, "",:\" r-..~ ~ 'j" ',' <(-.l",/ "," I <v"",," ( · '-; I ( \ -, , -y--.'"-.J " -.\ !~ ,. ~ . ... , " ;". ~ , ""~/. I ~----- / /" PA~ '.'i ,. , ... . ~ , -I 1 --t .'----,. o <._--- _ ..~i. 4';---"- _________ -~::.-_ .".-., - "I- ,-------- I,t~./ -- -- -~t:~~~"fb 0<.0 - ~-~ -- y'--- BOA T I~SOO. -I /h~ /~~~~-~-~- N.C _~__ ,~ - ~~ ~' -,/% I\\~~ -~-- .-- --*"~ lJ.k-;;.., ,// ~ ~ ~._'-- - '~ ~ <_'I iI\~\~ ..., - , " . I \,'''' -' (.o) )j ~ I I }.--'\ , \ ~\\/ (\ 1 -\J'--- '\ , 1 '. t--. _ _ ~ ' '--'\''-.jJ ....--, F. 1'\ I ~/c..C~ l1-e..w 8&15 '7 C-, ,:> r .~" .or.~ ) .. , ~ "" ...,", 'i~'"