The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 08-12-2019AGENDA REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 12, 2019 — 6:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Academy Room 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Budget Discussion 5:20 p.m. Budget Workshop - Fire - MCC 7:30 p.m. Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting - Concept Stage Planned Unit Development proposal for a mixed use development including a multi -unit residential multi -family apartment complex and future commercial development. Applicant: Dale Buchholz Construction Mayor: Brian Stumpf Council Members: Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart 1. General Business A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance B. Approval of Agenda — Councilmembers or the City Administrator may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or approval. The City Council may or may not take official action on items added to the agenda. C. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Special Meeting Minutes from July 22, 2019 • Regular Meeting Minutes from July 22, 2019 D. Citizen Comments — Individuals may address the City Council about any item not contained on the agenda. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes with a maximum of five speakers. The Mayor may allow for additional time and/or speakers. The City Council generally takes no official action of items discussed, with the exception of referral to staff for future report. E. Public Service Announcements/Updates • Movie in the Park — August 16 at Montiview Park F. Council Liaison Updates • Parks & Recreation Commission • BCOL • IEDC • Planning Commission • I-94 Coalition G. Department Updates • City Administrator Update • Construction Update • Safe Routes to School Update — Gabe Hackett 2. Consent Agenda — All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered standard or may not need discussion prior to approval. These items are acted upon by one motion unless a councilmember, the city administrator, or a citizen requests the item by removed from consent for additional discussion. A. Consideration of approving payment of bills B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property D. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-53 accepting donations from Monticello Fire Relief of $1,084 for a grill for the fire station and from the Ellison Family of $75,000 for various Fire Department items — upgrade to 1929 Chevy Fire Engine, dress uniforms, advanced driving road course training, portable radios, firefighter rehabilitation trailer, technology for fire apparatus, and stokes basket for ATV E. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-54 accepting a grant from CenterPoint Energy of $2,500 for the purchase of pool rule signage for Monticello Community Center and Wildland firefighter boots for Fire Department F. Consideration of approving appointment of Meghan Hanson to Industrial/Economic Development Committee (IEDC) for a term to expire December 31, 2020 G. Consideration of approving an application for a temporary charitable gambling permit for a raffle to be conducted by the MN Deer Hunters Association — Wright County/West Metro Chapter H. Consideration of approving a Special Event Permit for outdoor entertainment and use of city resources at American Legion Post 260 on Saturday, September 7, 2019. Applicant: American Legion Post 260 I. Consideration of approving an application for a one -day temporary on -sale liquor license for a special event at the American Legion Post 260 on September 7, 2019 J. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-55 calling for a public hearing establishing an Economic Development Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District 1- 41 K. Consideration of accepting the Monticello Safe Routes to School plan for future planning purposed L. Consideration of approving purchase of four new portable radios for Fire Department from Motorola/Ancom in the amount of $20,676 M. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-56 calling for a public hearing to receive comments on the draft ADA Transition Plan 2A. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion 3. Public Hearings 4. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of approving a request for Conditional Use Permit for a 92 unit Multi-family/Assisted Living Facility in the R-4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District. Applicant: Monticello Senior Housing Owner, LLC — Michael Hoagberg B. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-57 accepting a petition and authorizing a Feasibility Report for the extension of Fallon Avenue north of the Fallon Avenue and 7th Street intersection at an estimated cost of $20,000 C. Consideration of establishing the Technical and Community Advisory Committees for the 2040 Monticello Community Vision & Comprehensive Plant and to appoint City Council representatives to the committees 5. Added Items 6. Adjournment 7:30 p.m. Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting - Concept Stage Planned Unit Development proposal for a mixed use development including a multi -unit residential multi -family apartment complex and future commercial development. Applicant: Dale Buchholz Construction AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 12, 2019 — 5:00 p.m. Academy Room, MCC AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. 5:00 p.m. Budget Discussion (Finance Director) 3. 5:20 p.m. Budget Workshop (Fire and MCC) 4. Adj ournment MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 22, 2019 — 5 p.m. Academy Room City Hall - Monticello Community Center Present: Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart Absent: None Others: City staff. Jeff O'Neill, Wayne Oberg, Jim Thares, Ron Hackenmueller, Mat Stang, Ann Mosack, Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Matt Leonard, Sarah Rathlisberger, Tom Moores, Tom Pawelk, and Jennifer Schreiber Others: EDA members Steve Johnson, 011ie White, and Jon Morphew 1. Call to Order Mayor Brian Stumpf called the special meeting to order at 5 p.m. 2. 5 p.m. 2020 Budget Discussion Wayne Oberg, Finance Director, gave a presentation which began with a review of the debt service levy and CIP priorities. CIP priority for projects is based on ratings of Priority 1 — imperative, Priority 2 — essential, and Priority 3 — important. Some projects are delayed due to their priority. Increases that are currently included in the General Fund are: Police contract inflation, wage and benefit inflation, visioning/comprehensive plan, Capital Equipment Fund annual charge back, Bertram Chain of Lakes park supplies, election, workers compensation, and staffing/pay equity study. There will need to be an additional revenue source for any other items that are added. Wayne Oberg mentioned that the city is looking at the old McDonalds site for a new DMV. 3. 5:15 p.m. Budget Workshop Public Works/Enaineerina/Utilities Matt Leonard, City Engineer/Public Works Director, gave a presentation on the 2020 budget increases and decreases for Engineering, Parks & Recreation, Streets, and Sewer & Water Utilities operating budgets. Specific additional requests for each division were highlighted. The increase in park acres and miles of trails was also noted. Mr. Leonard stated that they are requesting an additional FTE to help withy added facilities including Bertram Chain of Lakes Athletic Complex and right-of-way landscaping. The total 2020 Capital Improvement budget for Public Works/Streets totaled $3,495,000, Parks & Recreation totaled $405,000, Stormwater totaled $350,000, Sewer Utility totaled $1,225,000 and Water Utility totaled $715,000. 4. 6 p.m. Consideration of a land exchange between the City of Monticello and Economic Development Authority Jim Thares, Economic Development Manager, presented a proposed land exchange between the city and the EDA. This exchange is to facilitate an economic development City Council Special Meeting Minutes —July 22, 2019 project in the community. The EDA owns a 13.6 acre parcel of land in the Otter Creek Business Park (OCBP). The city owned parcel that is being proposed for an exchange with the EDA is a 20 -acre tract of land on the southern edge of the city. This property is not in the city limits at this time. The parcel was purchased by the city as a potential location for an expanded public works facility. This parcel, once in ownership of the EDA, would be conveyed in exchange for the privately held parcel. The support for the project is based on the economic development that creates new tax base and new jobs to the community. This exchange, if authorized, will be completed by late August or early September. Councilmember Hilgart moved to have staff continue to proceed with the land exchange process. Councilmember Fair seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Adjournment By consensus the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Recorder: Jennifer Schreiber Approved: Attest: City Council Special Meeting Minutes—July 22, 2019 City Administrator REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 22, 2019 — 6:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Mayor Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, and Lloyd Hilgart Absent: None. 1. General Business A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Stumpf called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. B. Approval of Agenda Agenda was approved by consensus. C. Approval of Minutes Special Meeting Minutes from July 8, 2019 Councilmember Gabler moved approval of the special meeting minutes of July 8, 2019. Councilmember Fair seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Regular Meeting Minutes from July 8, 2019 Councilmember Gabler moved approval of the regular meeting minutes of July 8, 2019. Councilmember Davidson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Citizen Comments County Commissioner Darek Vetsch announced that Wright County has mailed out their predetermination of benefit letters to residents in regard to Ditch 33. There will be an informational meeting on Tuesday, July 30 at the Monticello Community Center. E. Public Service AUouncements • 2019-2020 Monticello Royalty Introductions — Miss Monticello Lauren Pankow and Princess Myranda Turner were present to introduce themselves. Princess Piper Zimmer -Gilman was unable to attend. • Music on the Mississippi is scheduled for Thursday, July 25 in West Bridge Park. F. Council Liaison Updates • EDA — Councilmember Davidson noted that the EDA meeting included a presentation on a co -work space concept in Monticello, reviewed a GMEF loan from Ausco Design (tabled), and approval of a preliminary development agreement with the Beard Group. • I-94 Coalition — Councilmember Gabler noted that the Coalition met to prepare for their trip to Washington D.C. City Council Minutes —July 22, 2019 Page 1 1 6 • Mayor Stumpf noted that the Highway 25 Coalition has changed its title to the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership. Jeff O'Neill noted that the group is leaning more to regional planning with transportation being a significant portion. G. Department Updates • City Administrator Update — Jeff O'Neill provided an update on: 1. The funds were secured from the State for the extension of I-94 from Monticello to Clearwater. 2. Wright County Planning meeting discussed allowing two bituminous pit locations. Both of these requests were approved. City is working on coordinating efforts in regard to the increase in truck traffic because of these facilities. • Construction Update — Matt Leonard, City Engineer/Public Works Director, provided an update: 1. 2018 Pedestrian Improvements — approval of easement with Speedway on the agenda. 2. Bertram Chain of Lakes — contractor has found a clay source and plans on finishing the grading of the pond and start hauling in clay in the next few weeks. 3. Walnut Street — Molitor will begin construction Friday, July 26. Walnut Street is expected to be closed between 3rd Street and Broadway on July 29 and July 30 for stormsewer work. Throughout the project there will be intermittent lane closures on Walnut Street and Broadway. • Wright County Sheriff Office Quarterly Update — Lieutenant Erick Kunkel presented the quarterly update which was included in the agenda packet. • FiberNet Quarterly Update — Mark Birkholz, Arvig, provided the FiberNet quarterly update which was included in the agenda packet. • Trailblazer Transit Update — Gary Ludwig, Executive Director, provided a summary of the transit system. The summary included information on ridership, operating revenue, and local share of WCAT expenses. 2. Consent Agenda: Councilmember Fair moved approval of the Consent Agenda excluding item G. Councilmember Davidson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. A. Consideration of approving the payment of bills. Recommendation: Approved the bill and purchase card registers for a total amount of $1,657,329.44. B. Consideration of approving new hires/departures. Recommendation: Approved the hire for the liquor store and terminations for Fire and MCC. C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property. Recommendation: No report this cycle. City Council Minutes —July 22, 2019 Page 2 1 6 D. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-48 accepting donations from the Fire Relief Association - $5,913 for Wildland Gear fire boots and $1,593 for boat lights and a Buffalo Heart Safe grant award from Wright County Area United Way for a Physio CR2 AED (value of $880). Recommendation: Approved Resolution accepting the donations. E. Consideration of appointing Paul Konsor to the Monticello Planning Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2021. Recommendation: Approved the appointment. F. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 726 amending the City Code, Title 2, Chapter 1 — Planning Commission meeting time and amending Regular Meeting Schedule of Council and Commissions to begin Planning Commission meeting at 6:15 p.m. effective August 6, 2019. Recommendation: Adopted Ordinance 726. G. Consideration of authorizing a payment to the Coalition of Utility Cities for city share of CUC membership dues in the amount of $30,439. Recommendation: ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA. H. Consideration of renewing membership in the Highway 25 Coalition for 2019 in the amount of $15,000. Recommendation: Approved the membership payment of $15,000 to the Highway 25 Coalition. I. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 724 for rezoning to B-2 (Limited Business) from B-2 (Limited Business) and B-3 (Highway Business) and preliminary and final plat and development agreement for River Mill 6th Addition for a proposed office building. Applicant: Stacy Thielman-Jost. Recommendation: Approved Resolution 2019-49 and Resolution 2019-50 for preliminary and final plat of River Mill 6th Addition and associated development agreement, and adopt Ordinance 724 rezoning or Outlot B, River Mill, to B-2, Limited Business, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z, and based on finding in Resolution 2019-49 and 2019-50. J. Consideration to table action on a request on a request for Conditional use Permit for a 92 unit multi-family/assisted living facility in the R-4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District. Applicant: Monticello Senior Housing Owner, LLC — Michael Hoagberg. Recommendation: Tabled action on the request conditional use permit to allow an assisted living facility in an R-4 to the City Council meeting of August 12, 2019, as requested by the applicant. K. Consideration of approving a revised easement agreement in the amount of $5,537 with Realty Income (Speedway) for the 2018 Pedestrian Improvement Project, City Project 18C001. Recommendation: Approved the revised easement agreement. L. Consideration of approving Change Order No. 1 with Michels Corporation contract to install FiberNet facilities at the Featherstone 4th Addition Development in an amount of up to $31,115. Recommendation: Approved Change Order #1 with Michels Corporation. M. Consideration of approving a memorandum of understanding between the City of Monticello and Wright County for the installation and maintenance of a City Council Minutes —July 22, 2019 Page 3 1 6 pedestrian activated flasher system on County State Aid Highway 75 at Washington Street. Recommendation: Approved the MOU with Wright County. N. Consideration of authorizing advertisement of bids for replacement of the Monticello Community Center waterslide. Recommendation: Authorized advertisement of bids for MCC waterslide. 2A. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion G. Consideration of authorizing a payment to the Coalition of Utility Cities for city share of CUC membership dues in the amount of $30,439. Councilmember Gabler removed the item to question the increase. Jeff O'Neill responded that the increase is due to the needed lobbying efforts at the Capitol. Councilmember Gabler moved approval of the CUC membership dues in the amount of $30,439. Councilmember Hilgart seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearings: 4. Regular Agenda: A. Consideration of annrovina a reauest for brelinlinary plat for Haven Ridge, a 335 unit residential development, includ — single-faaily and townhome unit development Steve Grittman, NAC, gave a brief overview of the request for preliminary plat approval. The PUD zoning aspect and the development agreement would be approved with the final plat approval. This property in question will also need to be annexed. To ensure that the city does not annex land that cannot sustain development, the property owner proceeds through preliminary plat consideration prior to annexation. Mr. Grittman then reviewed the phases of the project. The project has proposed 2.02 acres of wetlands impacts. The wetland impacts and mitigation are required to be permitted under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits. Wright County is responsible for reviewing and approving the WCA permit and approval is anticipated in July or August. The city will be responsible for ensuring that permit conditions are met once the orderly annexation process for development is completed. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat unanimously with conditions as noted in Exhibit Z. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Minimal discussed ensued among councilmembers. Councilmember Hilgart moved approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions listed in Exhibit Z and based on findings in the accompanying resolutions for preliminary plat. Councilmember Fair seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes —July 22, 2019 Page 4 1 6 B. Consideration of a request for Sewer Access Charge waiver by Monticello RV Inc. Angela Schumann, gave a brief overview and noted that Monticello RV has requested a waiver of the sewer access charges associated with the proposed installation of a sanitary dump station facility for their recreational vehicle sales use. Staff does not recommend waiver of the charge as there is an impact on the city's sanitary sewer system. Mayor Stumpf invited the property owner to address the City Council. Scott Kunz, Monticello RV, commented on the dump station and the fact that it won't produce the amount of waste to reach the cost of the SAC charge. He added that he has invested approximately $50,000 and that the station will be free to the public. Discussion ensued among City Council minutes. There was a question on what constitutes one SAC unit. Angela Schumann responded that the calculated rate is based on the Metropolitan Council system. Councilmember Gabler commented that she would like the property owner to track the number of users. Councilmember Fair commented that there is a cost to the city and these costs should be allocated to the user. Councilmember Gabler moved approval of waiving half of the Sewer Access Charge. Councilmember Stumpf seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-2; Councilmembers Davidson and Fair voted against. Both Davidson and Fair feel the full SAC fee should be paid. C. Consideration of approving a request for amendment to Planned Unit Development for Vehicle Sales & Rental for addition of an accessory Dump Station Facilitv, Citv Ordinance 725. Applicant: Kinahorn Construction — Tucker Osterberg Angela Schumann provided a brief overview and noted that the applicant has modified the proposed design. The facility will now connect directly into the city's sanitary sewer system. No underground holding tank will be necessary. The applicant would like the facility be available 24 -hours. These types of facilities are common accessory uses to Recreational Vehicle Dealership and the overall site impact is minimal. There was minimal discussion among Council. Councilmember Fair moved approval of Ordinance 725 for an amendment to PUD for the Groveland 5t" Addition — Monticello RV PUD District, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z as recommended by the Planning Commission, including the comments of the City Engineer. Councilmember Hilgart seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Consideration of aivrovin2 Chante Order #1 for the Walnut Street Improvements Project in the amount of $64,231 Matt Leonard, City Engineer/Public Works Director, provided an overview of the change order. The change is to include the pedestrian improvements at Washington and Broadway. This intersection is important to the school district in City Council Minutes —July 22, 2019 Page 5 16 regard to safety. The cost of the change order is $64,231. Wayne Oberg noted that there are sufficient funds in the Capital Improvement Fund. Councilmember Fair moved approval of Change Order No. 1 for the Walnut Street Improvement Project in the amount of $64,231. Councilmember Fair seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Adiournment: By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Recorder: Jennifer Schreiber Approved: Attest: City Administrator City Council Minutes —July 22, 2019 Page 6 1 6 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2A. Consideration of amrovinLy vavment of bills (WO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City staff submits the attached bill registers and purchasing card registers for approval by Council. The bill registers contain all invoices processed and the purchasing card registers contain all card purchases made since the last Council meeting. Subject to MN Statutes, most invoices require Council approval prior to releasing checks for payment. The day following Council approval, payments will be released unless directed otherwise. A credit purchasing agreement and policy was approved by Council initially and card purchases must comply with the policy. If Council has no questions or comments on the bill and purchase card registers, these can be approved with the consent agenda. If requested, this item can be removed from consent and discussed prior to making a motion for approval. Al. Budget Impact: None A2. Staff Workload Impact: No additional work required. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the bill and purchase card registers for a total amount of $1,760,030.61. 2. Motion to approve the registers with changes directed by Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1 or #2, per direction of Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • Bill registers and Purchase Card registers Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Debbie.Davidson Printed: 08/01/2019 - 9:28AM Batch: 00215.07.2019 - 215.07.2019 Xcel/CPE Moiiii6effo Y Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 1102 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: True 5863599-6 - Animal Shelter 14.80 07/31/2019 101-42700-438100 8235331-9 - Prairie Center 28.16 07/31/2019 101-41941-438100 5828859-8 - Storage Garage 15.56 07/31/2019 101-41940-438100 5864452-7 - Library 84.81 07/31/2019 101-45501-438100 5837384-6 - Publc Works 79.93 07/31/2019 101-43127-438100 6401745330-5 - 349 W Broadway 31.77 07/31/2019 101-45204-438100 5788570-9 - Hi Way Liquor 58.52 07/31/2019 609-49754-438100 5804618-6 - Parks (Fallon) 14.91 07/31/2019 101-45201-438100 8235333-5 - P.C. (U Fab) 21.53 07/31/2019 101-41941-438100 5843395-4 - DMV 15.00 07/31/2019 217-41990-438100 5768542-2 - MCC 3,008.10 07/31/2019 226-45126-438100 5768542-2 - City Hall 130.08 07/31/2019 101-41940-438100 5820786-1 - Public Works 34.83 07/31/2019 101-43127-438100 5799425-3 - Public Works 117.50 07/31/2019 101-43127-438100 5821009-5 - Fire Station 65.52 07/31/2019 101-42200-438100 5768542-2 - National Guard 65.04 07/31/2019 101-42800-438100 5768542-2 - Senior Center 48.78 07/31/2019 101-45175-438100 8000015233-2 - WWTP 1,674.91 07/31/2019 602-49480-438100 5806932-9 - Parks 15.56 07/31/2019 101-45201-438100 5799427-9 - Public Works 25.11 07/31/2019 101-43127-438100 Check Total: 5,550.42 Vendor: 4394 DAXKO, LLC Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: True 56495 PWC CC Gateway Fee - June 162.10 07/31/2019 226-45122-443980 59447 Spectrum - Software Fee 9,805.78 07/23/2019 226-45122-430900 59569 Key Tag Style - Membership Scan Cards for Ke} 1,075.00 07/23/2019 226-45122-421990 Check Total: 11,042.88 Vendor: 5188 HEALTHY CONTRIBUTIONS Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: True 7/31/2019 AARP Supplement/At Your Best - May 2019 7.80 07/31/2019 226-45122-430900 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:28 AM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Check Total: 7.80 Vendor: 1585 XCEL ENERGY 51-6572904-0 - WWTP 6/4-7/4/2019 14,374.02 51-9391437-3 - Prairie Center 280.65 51-6505909-4 - DMV/Food Shelf 206.36 51-6505915-2 - Parks 648.76 51-6505911-8 -MCC 8,553.85 51-6505912-9 - Animal Shelter 117.30 51-4271112-2 - Library 1,084.07 51-6505907-2 - Park Lots- auto protective lights 68.23 51-6505907-2 - Parking Lots 29.64 51-6505905-0 - Water 6,216.00 51-6505915-2 - Ice Rink 33% 85.17 51-6505911-8 - City Hall 1,888.51 51-6505914-1 - Shop/Garage 487.14 51-6505913-0 - Fire Station 459.77 51-7780310-4 - Bldg. Inspec. G 40.89 51-0623082-8 - MontiArts 10.46 51-6505915-2 - NSP- Softball Assoc. 219.37 51-6505910-7 - Liquor Store 1,624.75 51 -6505906 -1 -Sewer 695.04 51-0395766-0 - Ramsey Pumphouse 4,267.43 51-6505911-8 - Senior Center 444.36 51-6572904-0 - WWTP 5/5-6/4/2019 14,995.42 51-6505915-2 - NSP Blfld.- consc/sec. 28.53 51-6505916-3 - Street Lights 11,867.92 51-0371645-4 - SwanCam 18.73 51-6505911-8 - National Guard 222.18 Check Total: 68,934.55 Total for Check Run: 85,535.65 Total of Number of Checks: 4 Payment Date Acct Number Check Sequence: 4 07/31/2019 602-49480-438100 07/31/2019 101-41941-438100 07/31/2019 217-41990-438100 07/31/2019 101-45201-438100 07/31/2019 226-45126-438100 07/31/2019 101-42700-438100 07/31/2019 101-45501-438100 07/31/2019 101-43160-438100 07/31/2019 101-43160-438100 07/31/2019 601-49440-438100 07/31/2019 601-49440-438100 07/31/2019 101-41940-438100 07/31/2019 101-43127-438100 07/31/2019 101-42200-438100 07/31/2019 101-41940-438100 07/31/2019 101-45204-438100 07/31/2019 101-45203-438100 07/31/2019 609-49754-438100 07/31/2019 602-49490-438100 07/31/2019 601-49440-438100 07/31/2019 101-45175-438100 07/31/2019 602-49480-438100 07/31/2019 101-45203-438100 07/31/2019 101-43160-438100 07/31/2019 101-45201-438100 07/31/2019 101-42800-438100 Reference ACH Enabled: True The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment. Date: 8/12/19 Approved by Mayor Brian Stumpf AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:28 AM) Page 2 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Debbie.Davidson Printed: 08/01/2019 - 9:46AM Batch: 00202.08.2019 - 202.08.2019 Liquor Invoice No Description Vendor: 3491 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3360014 resale - beer 3361023 resale - beer 465164 resale - beer credit inv. # 3359442 79322800 Check Total: Vendor: 1065 BELLBOY CORPORATION 77563700 resale - liquor 77563700 freight 78165000 resale - liquor 78165000 resale - wine 78165000 freight 79320500 resale - liquor 79320500 freight 79322800 freight 79322800 resale - liquor 99842600 resale - mix 99842600 freight 99859000 freight 99859000 resale - mix 99859000 resale -juice 99859000 asst. bags 99897100 asst. bags 99897100 asst. bags 1,810.31 Check Total: Vendor: 1067 BERNICK'S 95656 resale - beer credit 95657 resale - soda pop 95657 resale juice 95658 resale - beer Moiiii6effo Y Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference -20.13 08/01/2019 Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: False 86.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 57.10 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 -43.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 100.10 Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: True 469.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 10.80 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2,315.66 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 88.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 45.31 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1,810.31 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 26.10 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 3.60 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 186.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 126.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 0.58 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 0.97 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 115.35 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 21.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425500 75.00 08/01/2019 609-49754-421990 107.20 08/01/2019 609-49754-421990 0.49 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 5,401.87 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 1 Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False -20.13 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 150.40 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 32.80 08/01/2019 609-49750-425500 1,430.15 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 1 Invoice No Description 98689 resale - soda pop 98689 resale -juice 98690 resale - beer Check Total: Vendor: 4328 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIF 1081001746 resale - liquor 1081001746 resale - wine 1081001746 freight 1081001747 resale - beer 1081005428 resale - liquor 1081005428 resale - wine 1081005428 resale - mix 1081005428 freight 1081005429 resale - beer 2080238305 resale - liquor credit 2080238306 resale - liquor credit 57.65 Check Total: Vendor: 4646 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P. 2292986 resale - beer 2292986 resale - beer n/a 2296210 resale - beer 2296210 resale - beer n/a 2296601 resale - beer Check Total: Vendor: 1095 CARLOS CREEK WINERY INC 17662 resale - beer Amount Payment Date Acct Number 208.80 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 16.40 08/01/2019 609-49750-425500 2,122.10 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 3,940.52 Check Sequence: 4 2,832.11 Check Total: Vendor: 1129 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC 112-0006-2 resale - beer - correct credit applied twice 4-15-1 112-0795 resale - beer 112-0795 resale - beer n/a 112-0821 resale - beer 112-0821 resale - beer n/a 112-0842 resale - beer 112-0842 resale - beer n/a 116-0400 resale - beer Amount Payment Date Acct Number 208.80 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 16.40 08/01/2019 609-49750-425500 2,122.10 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 3,940.52 Check Sequence: 4 2,832.11 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 496.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 40.22 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 255.20 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 4,688.39 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 48.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 57.65 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 56.93 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 171.85 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 -76.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 -40.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 8,530.35 Check Sequence: 5 16,242.90 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 162.80 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 19,124.35 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 105.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 1,728.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 37,363.55 Check Sequence: 6 135.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 135.00 Check Sequence: 7 48.75 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 3,411.83 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 79.05 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 31,392.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 192.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 2,125.76 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 27.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 28,166.79 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 2 Invoice No Description 116-0400 resale - beer n/a 872229 resale - beer 874935 resale - beer Check Total: Vendor: 5201 DICK FAMILY, INC. 5250134 resale - beer 5250135 resale - beer credit Check Total Vendor: 1259 Check Total: Vendor: 4218 HOHENSTEINS, INC 151451 resale - beer 151451 resale - beer n/a 151721 resale - beer Check Total Vendor: 1259 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING 2956731 resale - beer 2956731 freight 2996875 resale - beer 2996875 resale - beer n/a 2996875 freight 440.00 Check Total: Vendor: 1263 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 1338147 resale - liquor 1338147 freight 1338148 freight 1338148 resale - wine 1340555 resale - liquor 1340555 freight 1340556 freight 1340556 resale - wine 1340556 resale - wine n/a 1341208 resale - liquor 1341208 freight 1341209 freight 1341209 resale - wine 1342130 resale - liquor 1342130 freight Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference 138.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 383.20 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 440.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 66,404.38 Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: True 1,748.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 -6.88 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 1,741.62 Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: False 1,299.30 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 90.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 230.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 1,619.30 Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: False 1,558.35 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 3.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1,906.18 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 96.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 3.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 3,566.53 Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: False 878.13 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 10.80 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 22.72 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 989.11 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 4,989.57 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 73.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 16.39 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 558.70 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 35.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 450.75 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 5.96 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 7.45 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 193.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 1,441.01 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 14.90 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number 1342131 freight 46.56 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1342131 resale - wine 1,290.89 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 1342131 resale - wine n/a 150.70 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 1342131 resale - beer 58.60 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 1343441 freight 47.05 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1343441 resale - liquor 4,043.05 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 1343442 resale - wine 2,329.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 1343442 resale - mix 132.45 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 1343442 freight 53.64 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1345952 freight 43.09 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1345952 resale - liquor 3,746.59 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 1345953 resale - wine 788.40 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 1345953 freight 25.33 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1346630 freight 69.04 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1346630 resale - liquor 5,275.73 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 1346631 resale - wine 64.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 1346631 freight 2.98 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 555185 resale - liquor credit inv. #1331647 -28.75 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 555185 freight credit inv. #1331647 -1.49 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 555535 resale - liquor credit inv. # 1330346 -113.53 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 555536 resale - wine credit inv. # 1330347 -19.30 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 555808 resale - liquor credit inv. # 1308505 -10.17 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 555809 resale - liquor credit inv. # 1330346 -10.17 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 556708 resale - liquor credit inv. # 1332575 -41.45 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 556708 freight credit inv. # 1332575 -0.25 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 556709 freight credit inv. # 1336894 -2.98 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 556709 resale - wine credit inv. # 1336894 -88.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 557661 resale - liquor credit inv. #1340555 -366.10 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 557661 freigtht credit inv. #1340555 -2.98 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 27,168.92 Vendor: 1273 KIWI KAI IMPORTS, INC. Check Sequence: 12 58488 resale - wine 230.35 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 58488 freight 5.25 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 235.60 Vendor: 4456 LUPULIN BREWING LLC Check Sequence: 13 22399 resale- beer 455.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 22526 resale- beer 651.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 Check Total: 1,106.00 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 1303 M AMUNDSON CIGAR & CANDY CO, LLP Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: True 284406 resale - cigarettes; juice 2,031.91 08/01/2019 609-49750-425500 284406 resale - tobacco; barware; pop; etc 534.70 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 Check Total: 2,566.61 Vendor: 5301 MILK AND HONEY CIDERS Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: False 5422 resale - beer 330.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 Check Total: 330.00 Vendor: 1913 NEW FRANCE WINE Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: False 145724 resale - wine 392.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 145724 freight 5.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 397.00 Vendor: 1427 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS CO Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: False 2588425 freight 23.11 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2588425 resale - liquor 2,236.88 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 2588426 resale - wine 822.25 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 2588426 freight 20.86 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2590275 resale - liquor 856.95 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 2590275 freight 10.43 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2590276 freight 5.96 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2590276 resale - wine 53.75 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 2590276 resale - mix 121.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 2590683 resale - liquor 3,009.76 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 2590683 freight 31.66 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2592222 freight 21.86 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2592222 resale - liquor 1,958.74 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 2592223 resale - liquor 108.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 2592223 resale - wine 1,351.67 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 2592223 resale - mix 64.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 2592223 freight 38.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2594071 freight 64.86 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2594071 resale - liquor 3,204.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 2594072 resale - beer 117.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425200 2594524 resale - liquor 2,126.08 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 2594524 freight 28.31 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2594525 freight 7.45 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 2594525 resale - mix 211.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 2595116 freight 34.27 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 5 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference 2595116 resale - liquor 2,715.15 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 337303 resale - liquor credit inv. # 2506196 -30.08 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 337304 resale - mix credit inv. # 2582886 -40.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 337304 freight credit inv. # 2582886 -1.49 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 337532 resale - liquor credit inv. # 2583814 -214.05 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 337532 freight credit inv. # 2583814 -1.74 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 337533 resale - liquor credit inv. # 2585754 -82.95 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 337533 freight credit inv. # 2585754 -1.89 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 337919 resale - liquor credit inv. # 2584504 -188.25 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 337919 freight credit inv. # 2584504 -1.49 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 338502 resale - liquor credit inv. # 2588425 -188.25 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 338502 freight credit inv. # 2588425 -1.49 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 18,492.32 Vendor: 3309 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS. Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: False 1844296 resale - liquor 2,176.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 1844296 freight 27.23 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1844297 freight 4.20 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1844297 resale -wine 192.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 1847034 freight 43.91 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 1847034 resale - liquor 3,912.79 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 1847035 resale - wine 1,316.22 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 1847035 freight 25.55 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 7,698.40 Vendor: 1188 TWAIT WINES, INC Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: False 3233 resale - wine 126.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 Check Total: 126.00 Vendor: 1552 VIKING COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: True 2375940 resale - soda pop 460.80 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 2386040 resale - soda pop 410.05 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 Check Total: 870.85 Vendor: 1684 VINOCOPIA Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: True 237412 resale - liquor 213.50 08/01/2019 609-49750-425100 237412 resale - mix 48.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 237412 freight 14.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 237412 resale - wine 320.00 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 6 Invoice No Vendor: 1572 114473 114473 Vendor: 1573 7244073 7244073 7244073 7245061 7245061 7245061 Description Check Total THE WINE COMPANY resale - wine freight Check Total: WINE MERCHANTS INC resale - wine resale - wine n/a freight resale - wine resale - wine n/a freight Check Total Total for Check Run: Total of Number of Checks: Amount Payment Date Acct Number 595.50 220.00 6.30 226.30 82.00 19.75 2.98 80.00 19.75 2.98 207.46 188,824.18 23 Check Sequence: 22 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Sequence: 23 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 08/01/2019 609-49750-425300 08/01/2019 609-49750-425400 08/01/2019 609-49750-433300 Reference ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: False The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment. Date: 8/12/19 Approved by Mayor Brian Stumpf AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/01/2019 - 9:46 AM) Page 7 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: Julie.Cheney Printed: 08/07/2019 - 1:01PM Batch: 00203.08.2019 - 203.08.2019 AP Invoice No Description Vendor: 5034 IAN ALEXY 7/29/2019 ACH Performance @ Farmers Market 8/22/19 True 466.75 Check Total: Vendor: 2407 ALL ELEMENTS 6691 Repaired Multiple Water Leaks @ Library Check Total: Vendor: 1018 ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY 3709 (206.10 gallons road oil 3812 ACH (181.60) gallons road oil False 783.18 Check Total: Vendor: 1977 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 89118 18C003-CONSTR - (2) MCD deskset wall mour 08/13/2019 Check Total: Vendor: 1036 APEC AQUISITIONS INC 123203 Filters - Various Sizes (12) Check Total: Vendor: 1039 AQUA LOGIC INC 49047 Check Sequence: 4 Purex Whisperflo Seal Kit (2) 49065 False Change Out 3 Way Actuator Valve on Lochinvar 08/13/2019 Check Total: Vendor: 3491 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 33625586 resale - beer Amount Payment Date Acct Number Check Sequence: 1 100.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 100.00 Moiiii6effo Y Reference ACH Enabled: False AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 1 Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: True 466.75 08/13/2019 101-45501-440100 466.75 Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False 783.18 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 690.08 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 1,473.26 Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: False 64.00 08/13/2019 400-43300-452010 64.00 Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: True 281.90 08/13/2019 226-45126-422990 281.90 Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: True 70.83 08/13/2019 226-45126-422990 751.48 08/13/2019 226-45126-440100 822.31 Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: False 81.60 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number 81.60 253.55 253.55 -315.00 -5.40 367.95 50.00 10.80 108.35 182.70 -15.20 -29.52 80.45 65.60 2,244.60 -210.00 261.50 129.80 -23.36 258.58 2,945.15 1,662.00 1,662.00 2,320.00 1,250.00 1,132.46 1,132.46 Check Total: 5,834.92 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Check Sequence: 8 08/13/2019 101-42200-421120 Check Total: Vendor: 5117 ASPEN MILLS 240387 oxford shoes; pants; (2) shirts; belt; etc. 08/13/2019 Check Total: Vendor: 1065 BELLBOY CORPORATION 79320500-2 resale - liquor credit inv. pd. 8-1-19 79320500-2 freight credit inv. pd. 8-1-19 79711600 resale - liquor 79711600 resale - wine 79711600 freight Check Total: Vendor: 1067 BERNICK'S 102055 resale - pop, water, 102056 resale - soda pop credit 102057 resale - beer credit 102058 resale - soda pop 102058 resale -juice 102059 resale - beer 3217 Return Mt Dew 95655 Pop, water, 95655 resale - pop, water, 98687 resale - Return Outdated Pop 98688 resale - pop, Gatorade, juice, water Check Total: Vendor: 5234 BITZER GARAGE DOORS, LLC 14200 BCOL Park shop -12x10 TF 11 Wind Code Zone Check Total: Vendor: 1074 BOLTON AND MENK INC 0236402 18C001 - 2019 Pedestrian Improvements 0236403 18C009 - Walnut Street Improvements 0236404 19C003 PRELIM - Monticello/SCADA System 0236404 19C003 PRELIM - Monticello/SCADA System Amount Payment Date Acct Number 81.60 253.55 253.55 -315.00 -5.40 367.95 50.00 10.80 108.35 182.70 -15.20 -29.52 80.45 65.60 2,244.60 -210.00 261.50 129.80 -23.36 258.58 2,945.15 1,662.00 1,662.00 2,320.00 1,250.00 1,132.46 1,132.46 Check Total: 5,834.92 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Check Sequence: 8 08/13/2019 101-42200-421120 Check Sequence: 10 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 08/13/2019 609-49750-425500 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 226-45123-421990 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 Check Sequence: 11 08/13/2019 101-45201-440100 Check Sequence: 9 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Sequence: 10 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 08/13/2019 609-49750-425500 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 226-45123-421990 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 Check Sequence: 11 08/13/2019 101-45201-440100 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False Page 2 Check Sequence: 12 08/13/2019 400-43300-459013 08/13/2019 400-43300-459015 08/13/2019 601-49440-430300 08/13/2019 602-49490-430300 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 1080 BRAEMAR MAILING SERVICE INC Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: False 60047 UB July 2019 Invoices (3690) Print, Fold, Stuff. 746.68 08/13/2019 601-49440-431800 60047 UB July 2019 Invoices (3690) Print, Fold, Stuff. 746.68 08/13/2019 602-49490-431800 60047 Inserts for Billing (3800) 211.90 08/13/2019 217-41990-434990 60047 Stormwater Inserts for Billing (3800) 211.90 08/13/2019 263-49200-431990 Check Total: 1,917.16 Vendor: 3632 BRIAN BRAMLEY Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: True 13471 labor- (24) SCBA Flow Test; (9) face pc. fit test 104.00 08/13/2019 101-42200-440440 13471 parts - (24) SCBA Flow Test; (9) face pc. fit test 1,785.00 08/13/2019 101-42200-440440 1538 dba ERS - (6) FireHawk M7 Carrier & Harness/( 494.00 08/13/2019 101-42200-421990 Check Total: 2,383.00 Vendor: 4328 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIF Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: False 1081008724 resale - liquor 3,642.28 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 1081008724 resale - wine 708.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 1081008724 freight 53.78 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1081008725 resale - wine 56.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 1081008726 resale - liquor 1,303.44 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 1081008726 freight 18.15 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 5,781.65 Vendor: 1791 BULLSEYE COLLECTION AGENCY INC Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: False 7/18/2019 Collection Services - Total Commission 36.60 08/13/2019 226-45122-431990 7/18/2019 Collection Services - Net Due -15.00 08/13/2019 226-00000-115031 Check Total: 21.60 Vendor: 4646 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P. Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: True 2299312 resale - beer 10,765.95 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 2299312 resale - beer n/a 181.60 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 Check Total: 10,947.55 Vendor: 1106 CENTRAL MCGOWAN INC Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: True 00057034 Monthly Tank Rental 65.00 08/13/2019 226-45124-421600 00295002 Bulk Carbon Dioxide (694 lbs) 181.68 08/13/2019 226-45124-421600 Check Total: 246.68 Vendor: 1120 CONCRETE PRODUCTS NEW LONDON Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: True AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference 217436 ZPARKS-COLUMB - (7) rebar38 31.36 08/13/2019 651-49010-453010 Check Total: 31.36 Vendor: 1746 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: True 19060 Engine 4 door handle 500.84 08/13/2019 101-42200-422110 Check Total: 500.84 Vendor: 1129 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: True 112-0861 resale - beer 6,511.92 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 112-0861 resale - beer n/a 86.05 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 112-0915 resale - beer 25,755.07 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 112-0915 resale - beer n/a 191.05 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 837059 Resale - Beer for Ballfield Concession 131.00 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 875515 resale - beer credit -216.25 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 877731 resale - beer 486.20 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 877731 resale - beer n/a 82.20 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 877884 resale - beer 70.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 Check Total: 33,097.24 Vendor: 1141 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT Check Sequence: 22 ACH Enabled: False 813142204 (8) 5 gal. white paint 703.20 08/13/2019 101-43120-421510 813142287 (10) 5 gal. white paint 879.00 08/13/2019 101-43120-421510 Check Total: 1,582.20 Vendor: 5201 DICK FAMILY, INC. Check Sequence: 23 ACH Enabled: True 5250143 resale - beer 279.20 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 Check Total: 279.20 Vendor: 4010 MARILYN DIRKSWAGER Check Sequence: 24 ACH Enabled: False 154 April- May Programs (4) 140.00 08/13/2019 101-00000-220150 Check Total: 140.00 Vendor: 5271 RONALD DROPIK Check Sequence: 25 ACH Enabled: False 7/29/2019 Performance @ Farmers Market 8/8/19 125.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Total: 125.00 Vendor: 5306 ANDREW DUSZYNSKI Check Sequence: 26 ACH Enabled: False 8/5/2019 Performance at Farmers Market on 8/5/19 as "Pc 300.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number 300.00 316.94 975.00 1,291.94 101.53 313.82 110.76 G9-T:�fl 705.00 705.00 119,888.19 119,888.19 2,632.04 2,632.04 105.00 105.00 112.00 112.00 99.00 99.00 Check Sequence: 27 08/13/2019 101-42200-422110 08/13/2019 101-42200-440440 Check Sequence: 28 08/13/2019 101-41910-435100 08/13/2019 400-43300-459014 08/13/2019 101-41910-435100 Check Sequence: 29 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Sequence: 30 08/13/2019 400-43300-459018 Check Sequence: 31 08/13/2019 601-49440-422710 Check Sequence: 32 08/13/2019 101-00000-220150 Check Sequence: 33 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Sequence: 34 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: True Page 5 Check Total: Vendor: 1793 E.A.T.I. EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH MP072319-55 2011 Spartan- super auto eject 20 amp- weatherp SVC27407 Fire Boat - install lighbar; ecco go -light w/ joysti Check Total: Vendor: 1153 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 712538 Zone Amendment PH - Ad# 958260 714292 19C001 - Pedestrian Improvement Bids - Ad# 9( 715237 201903 - CUP Parking Stall Design PH - Ad# 95 Check Total: Vendor: 4191 ELK RIVER GREENHOUSE LLC 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/18, 7/2` Check Total: Vendor: 5003 EUREKA CONSTRUCTION INC Pay Voucher #7 16C006 - Fallon Overpass - Pay Voucher #7 Check Total: Vendor: 2561 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2516 334050 resale - 3 T/F Ecdr meter usage pit Check Total: Vendor: 4051 MICHELE FORSMAN 153 Programs (3) Check Total: Vendor: 3748 JEFFREY D GARDNER 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/25/19 Check Total: Vendor: 3762 GARRETTS DIAMOND CITY BREAD 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/18, 7/2` Check Total: AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Amount Payment Date Acct Number 300.00 316.94 975.00 1,291.94 101.53 313.82 110.76 G9-T:�fl 705.00 705.00 119,888.19 119,888.19 2,632.04 2,632.04 105.00 105.00 112.00 112.00 99.00 99.00 Check Sequence: 27 08/13/2019 101-42200-422110 08/13/2019 101-42200-440440 Check Sequence: 28 08/13/2019 101-41910-435100 08/13/2019 400-43300-459014 08/13/2019 101-41910-435100 Check Sequence: 29 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Sequence: 30 08/13/2019 400-43300-459018 Check Sequence: 31 08/13/2019 601-49440-422710 Check Sequence: 32 08/13/2019 101-00000-220150 Check Sequence: 33 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Sequence: 34 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: True Page 5 Invoice No Description Vendor: 1413 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC 9070599 acct. # MN01738 - (188) tickets July 2019 Check Sequence: 35 Check Total: Vendor: 1205 GRAINGER INC 9237681375 601-49440-432770 Washable Metal Air Filters (2) 9241227280 Ceiling Sealing Paint (2) 9249210098 O Ring Assortment Check Total: Vendor: 5108 GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY 19-0291 Enabled: Engine 4 & 1 -(7) flashers mounted; (7) flange k 43.06 08/13/2019 Check Total: Vendor: 5275 TANYA HARMS 8/7/2019 08/13/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/18, 7/2` Check Total: Vendor: 1223 HAWKINS INC 4548005 Aluminum Sulfate Liquid - WWTP 4553289 Pool Chemicals Check Total: Vendor: 5276 BRIA HILLUKKA 8/7/2019 Enabled: Farmers Market Token Collection Log - 7/18, 7/: 1,434.34 08/13/2019 Check Total: Vendor: 4218 HOHENSTEINS, INC 154247 resale - beer 154248 resale - beer Check Total: Vendor: 1242 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFICE 07/18/2019 08/13/2019 acct. # 1400-017-223-399 fuel slips 6/19-7/18/21 Check Total: Vendor: 3971 INTL UNION OF OPER ENGINEERS LOCAL Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Sequence: 35 ACH Enabled: True 253.80 08/13/2019 601-49440-432770 253.80 Check Sequence: 36 ACH Enabled: False 43.06 08/13/2019 226-45126-422990 11.32 08/13/2019 226-45126-422990 36.63 08/13/2019 226-45126-422990 91.01 Check Sequence: 37 ACH Enabled: True 1,434.34 08/13/2019 101-42200-440500 1,434.34 Check Sequence: 38 ACH Enabled: False 50.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 50.00 Check Sequence: 39 ACH Enabled: True 6,397.59 08/13/2019 602-49480-421990 929.70 08/13/2019 226-45124-421600 7,327.29 Check Sequence: 40 ACH Enabled: True 57.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 57.00 Check Sequence: 41 ACH Enabled: False 1,765.20 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 154.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 1,919.20 Check Sequence: 42 ACH Enabled: True 309.23 08/13/2019 101-42200-421200 309.23 Check Sequence: 43 ACH Enabled: False AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 6 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Sept 2019 September - Health Insurance - Union 17,360.00 08/13/2019 101-00000-217061 Check Total: 17,360.00 Vendor: 5245 JERRY KONZ Check Sequence: 44 ACH Enabled: False Pay Voucher #3 16C006 - Pay Voucher #3 = Fallon Ave Landscal 12,975.29 08/13/2019 400-43300-459018 Check Total: 12,975.29 Vendor: 1259 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING Check Sequence: 45 ACH Enabled: False 2996930 resale - beer 2,004.14 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 2996930 resale - beer n/a 152.70 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 2996930 freight 3.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 2,159.84 Vendor: 1260 JME OF MONTICELLO INC Check Sequence: 46 ACH Enabled: True SYS49341 Ladder - repair -air shift not moving 468.03 08/13/2019 101-42200-440500 Check Total: 468.03 Vendor: 1263 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. Check Sequence: 47 ACH Enabled: False 1347636 freight 67.80 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1347636 resale - liquor 4,629.17 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 1347637 freight 69.28 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1347637 resale - beer 29.30 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 1347637 resale - beer n/a 32.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 1347637 resale - wine 2,224.80 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 1348879 freight 55.11 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1348879 resale - liquor 3,880.98 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 1348880 resale - wine 3,169.05 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 1348880 resale - wine n/a 54.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 1348880 freight 72.26 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1348881 resale - beer 359.20 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 1351607 freight 55.13 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1351607 resale - liquor 2,757.86 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 1351608 resale - mix 35.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 1351608 freight 1.49 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1352308 freight 38.74 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1352308 resale - liquor 3,864.69 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 1352309 resale- wine 988.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 1352309 resale - mix 29.60 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 1352309 freight 37.25 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 1353185 freight 8.94 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 7 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference 1353185 resale -liquor 1,006.15 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 1353186 resale - wine 906.55 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 1353186 freight 27.57 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 558570 freight- credit inv. # 1342130 -1.49 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 558570 resale- liquor credit inv. # 1342130 -151.65 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 558571 resale- wine credit inv. # 1342131 -112.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 558571 freight credit inv. # 1342131 -2.98 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 Check Total: 24,131.80 Vendor: 1270 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN CHARTERED Check Sequence: 48 ACH Enabled: False MN190-00101 General EDA Matters - June 2019 520.00 08/13/2019 213-46301-430400 MN190-00159 Block 52 Redevelopment - June 2019 1,900.00 08/13/2019 213-46301-430400 MN325-00040 Business Facade Grant Program - June 2019 320.00 08/13/2019 213-46301-430400 MN325-00041 GMEF Loan - Monticello RV Center - June 2015 40.00 08/13/2019 213-46301-430400 Check Total: 2,780.00 Vendor: 5220 KUE CONTRACTORS, INC. Check Sequence: 49 ACH Enabled: False Pay Voucher 2 18C003-CONSTR- Fire Hall - Pay Voucher #2 12,569.45 08/13/2019 400-43300-452010 Check Total: 12,569.45 Vendor: 5220 KUE CONTRACTORS, INC. Check Sequence: 50 ACH Enabled: False Pay Voucher 3 18C003-CONSTR- Fire Hall - Pay Voucher #3 143,755.90 08/13/2019 400-43300-452010 Check Total: 143,755.90 Vendor: 5220 KUE CONTRACTORS, INC. Check Sequence: 51 ACH Enabled: False Pay Voucher 4 18C003-CONSTR- Fire Hall - Pay Voucher #4 126,011.80 08/13/2019 400-43300-452010 Check Total: 126,011.80 Vendor: 3829 STEVE LANGANKI Check Sequence: 52 ACH Enabled: True 1191 May 27 -June 23 porta toilet rental 1,261.00 08/13/2019 101-45201-431901 1193 June 24 -July 21 porta toilet rental 1,296.00 08/13/2019 101-45201-431901 Check Total: 2,557.00 Vendor: 2626 HARRY LANTTO Check Sequence: 53 ACH Enabled: True 7/23/2019 Planning Commission Meeting Recording 7/2/15 72.50 08/13/2019 101-41910-431990 7/23/2019 EDA Meeting Recording 7/10/19 60.00 08/13/2019 213-46301-431990 7/23/2019 City Council Meeting Recording 7/8/19 & 7/22/: 122.50 08/13/2019 101-41110-431990 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 8 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 9 Check Total: 255.00 Vendor: 3933 CHARLES LONG Check Sequence: 54 ACH Enabled: False 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/18, 7/2` 613.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Total: 613.00 Vendor: 3745 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY Check Sequence: 55 ACH Enabled: True 21381669 (694) gal. unleaded @ $2.34 1,622.29 08/13/2019 101-43120-421200 21381683 (650) gal. diesel @ $2.46 1,595.95 08/13/2019 101-43120-421200 21393374 (686) gal. unleaded @ $2.29 1,568.82 08/13/2019 101-43120-421200 21393391 (797) gal. diesel @ $2.47 1,965.10 08/13/2019 101-43120-421200 Check Total: 6,752.16 Vendor: 1726 MARCO TECHNOLOGIES Check Sequence: 56 ACH Enabled: False INV6551224 Contract Overage Charge for 7/10/18 - 7/9/19 607.52 08/13/2019 702-00000-441500 INV6551224 7/10/19 - 8/9/19 Contract Payment 235.72 08/13/2019 702-00000-441500 INV6551224 Supply Freight Fee 10.00 08/13/2019 702-00000-441500 INV6572285 7/10/18 - 7/9/19 Contract Usuage Charge 281.91 08/13/2019 702-00000-441500 INV6572286 7/10/19 - 8/9/19 Base Contract Payment 1,029.14 08/13/2019 702-00000-441500 INV6572286 Supply Freight Fee 36.00 08/13/2019 702-00000-441500 Check Total: 2,200.29 Vendor: 1309 MARTIE'S FARM SERVICE INC Check Sequence: 57 ACH Enabled: False 139035 Cat Litter for Animal Shelter 13.99 08/13/2019 101-42700-421990 Check Total: 13.99 Vendor: 5309 MHSRC/RANGE Check Sequence: 58 ACH Enabled: False 8/2/2019 Ellison Donation- MN Hwy Safety & Research- 2,700.00 08/13/2019 101-42200-433100 Check Total: 2,700.00 Vendor: 4667 MILLNER VINEYARD, LLC Check Sequence: 59 ACH Enabled: False 28519-4 resale - wine 387.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 Check Total: 387.00 Vendor: 1330 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Check Sequence: 60 ACH Enabled: True 400451003158 June 2019 - Monti Pawn Transactions (90) 175.50 08/13/2019 101-42100-431990 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 9 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 10 Check Total: 175.50 Vendor: 1370 MONTICELLO DEPUTY REG #002 Check Sequence: 61 ACH Enabled: False 15000 VIN MN Sales Tax; Penn Reg. 2019 Teske Trailer- P; 112.94 08/13/2019 101-45201-443990 Check Total: 112.94 Vendor: 2512 MONTICELLO PLBG HTG AC LLC Check Sequence: 62 ACH Enabled: False 19651 parts- install thermostat lockable box 38.65 08/13/2019 101-42200-440100 19651 labor - install thermostat lockable box 40.00 08/13/2019 101-42200-440100 Check Total: 78.65 Vendor: 1379 MONTICELLO UMPIRE ASSOCIATION Check Sequence: 63 ACH Enabled: True 8/5/2019 Umpire Mens Softball League (37 Games) 1,258.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431990 8/5/2019 Reimburse for Umpire Mats 45.37 08/13/2019 226-45127-421740 Check Total: 1,303.37 Vendor: 4549 ANN MOSACK Check Sequence: 64 ACH Enabled: True 8/2/2019 Mileage Reimbursement - (8.2 miles) 4.76 08/13/2019 226-45124-433100 Check Total: 4.76 Vendor: 1390 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC Check Sequence: 65 ACH Enabled: True 1224857 (6) rotary blade; (100) tine-hd; (2) plug; (2) wasl 840.58 08/13/2019 101-45201-422100 1225853 seat asm; rod- starter; v -belt starter 254.41 08/13/2019 101-45201-422100 1227353 (4) sperical bearling; (2) stud- tapered; (4) spaces 416.63 08/13/2019 101-45201-422100 1227357 (3) rotary bladel 58.23 08/13/2019 101-45201-422100 Check Total: 1,569.85 Vendor: 5305 NCL OF WISCONSIN, INC. Check Sequence: 66 ACH Enabled: False 426152 F-29, Tisab III Buffer; (2) 3.81tr. Flouride Stand 204.88 08/13/2019 601-49440-421990 426152 Orion StarA214 Meter; Orion Comb. Flouride IS 1,931.07 08/13/2019 601-49440-424100 Check Total: 2,135.95 Vendor: 2518 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST Check Sequence: 67 ACH Enabled: False 8/4/2019 Postage 39.00 08/13/2019 101-41310-443990 8/4/2019 Postage for Pkgs - July (43) 320.54 08/13/2019 217-41990-432200 8/4/2019 Postage for Pkg to Collection Agency 7.42 08/13/2019 226-45122-432200 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 10 Invoice No Description Check Total: AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Amount Check Total: Vendor: 5255 NEW LOOK CONTRACTING INC Pay Voucher #2 18C001 - 2018 Pedestrian Improvements - Pay N Pay Voucher #3 16C001 - BCOL Phase 1 Improvements - Pay Vc 13899 Check Total: Vendor: 4838 NORTH RISK PARTNERS 7/26/2019 HR Bootcamp Seminar - St. Cloud 13925 Check Total: Vendor: 4472 NOVAK FLECK INC 8/7/2019 19D001 -Escrow Reduction - Featherstone 4th Check Total: AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Amount Check Total: Vendor: 1412 OMANN BROTHERS INC 13861 (13.65) SPNWB230B 13871 (12.36) SPWEB33013; (2) AC Fines mix 13899 (5.01) AC Fines mix 13907 (4.02) AC Fines mix 13917 (5.01) AC Fines mix 13925 (2) AC Fines mix 13934 (4.01) AC Fines mix 13945 (3.01) AC Fines mix 13955 (5.03) AC Fines mix 13966 (3.01) AC Fines mix 13977 (5) AC Fines mix 13987 (3) AC Fines mix Check Total: Vendor: 1421 PARK SUPPLY OF AMERICA INC 87039 Symmons Complete Cartridge Check Total: Vendor: 5307 PAXMAR 8/6/2019 Refund - Grading Escrow Check Total: AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Amount Payment Date Acct Number 366.96 Check Sequence: 68 74,934.57 08/13/2019 400-43300-459013 117,522.60 08/13/2019 229-45202-453011 192,457.17 25.00 25.00 349,250.00 349,250.00 746.25 839.80 411.02 329.80 411.02 164.08 328.98 246.94 412.66 246.94 410.20 246.12 4,793.81 281.29 281.29 150.00 150.00 Check Sequence: 69 08/13/2019 101-41800-433100 Check Sequence: 70 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 Check Sequence: 71 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 Check Sequence: 72 08/13/2019 226-45126-422990 Check Sequence: 73 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: False Page 11 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 1427 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS CO Check Sequence: 74 ACH Enabled: False 2596032 resale - liquor 3,181.49 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 2596032 freight 43.88 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 2596033 resale - wine 328.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 2596033 resale - liquor 108.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 2596033 freight 13.41 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 2597998 resale - liquor 190.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 2597998 freight 2.98 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 2598421 freight 8.94 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 2598421 resale - liquor 1,031.40 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 2599075 resale - liquor 474.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 2599075 freight 2.98 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 2599076 freight 29.80 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 2599076 resale- wine 763.50 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 337533 freight- correct credit taken in error 8/1/19 1.89 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 337533 resale - liquor - correct credit taken in error 8/1/1 82.95 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 338813 freight credit inv. #2590683 -1.49 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 338813 resale - liquor credit inv. #2590683 -188.25 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 Check Total: 6,073.48 Vendor: 4991 BERNARD PIATZ Check Sequence: 75 ACH Enabled: True 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/18 & 8/ 126.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Total: 126.00 Vendor: 1450 RAILROAD MANAGEMENT CO III LLC Check Sequence: 76 ACH Enabled: False 400689 11/17/19 - 11/16/20 - Water Pipeline Crossing 235.41 08/13/2019 601-49440-431990 400690 11/17/19 - 11/16/20 - Sewer Pipeline Crossing 235.41 08/13/2019 602-49490-431990 Check Total: 470.82 Vendor: 4022 REINHART FOODSERVICE LLC Check Sequence: 77 ACH Enabled: True 810294 REFUND - Return Chips & Relish -31.33 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 811005 Food for Concession Resale 469.99 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 811330 REFUND - Return Juice -34.34 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 812168 REFUND - Return Pretzels -54.98 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 812182 REFUND - Return Hot Dogs, Muffins, Pizzas, k -183.09 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 823856 REFUND - Return Pizzas -184.84 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 824003 Food for Concession Resale 477.61 08/13/2019 226-45125-425410 Check Total: 459.02 Vendor: 4962 RENGEL PRINTING COMPANY, INC Check Sequence: 78 ACH Enabled: True AP-Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 12 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference 112966 (40) Bylaws booklets - Fire 48.60 08/13/2019 101-42200-421990 Check Total: 48.60 Vendor: 1874 RES SPECIALTY PYROTECHNICS Check Sequence: 79 ACH Enabled: False 22977 Fireworks Riverfest 2019 8,300.00 08/13/2019 609-49754-443990 Check Total: 8,300.00 Vendor: 2568 PATRICK A SAWATZKE Check Sequence: 80 ACH Enabled: False 7/31/2019 Sign Rental - Music on the Mississippi & Farmei 260.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431990 Check Total: 260.00 Vendor: 4981 STEVE SCHILLEWAERT Check Sequence: 81 ACH Enabled: False 61934 June Blight Maintenance (1) 107.38 08/13/2019 101-42400-431050 Check Total: 107.38 Vendor: 3751 CHRISTINE SCHYMA Check Sequence: 82 ACH Enabled: False 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/18, 7/2` 94.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Total: 94.00 Vendor: 4990 PATRICIA J SCOTT Check Sequence: 83 ACH Enabled: True 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/25/19 9.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 Check Total: 9.00 Vendor: 5308 TAMMY SEEGER Check Sequence: 84 ACH Enabled: False 07/30/19 VW Beetle - Art Car split Hi -Way Liquor 250.00 08/13/2019 609-49754-424100 07/30/19 VW Beetle - Art Car -split DMV 250.00 08/13/2019 217-41990-424100 Check Total: 500.00 Vendor: 1490 CYNTHIA R SIMPSON Check Sequence: 85 ACH Enabled: False 965235 July 2019 cleaning service - Fire 100.00 08/13/2019 101-42200-431100 Check Total: 100.00 Vendor: 5211 RANDI ANN SMELSER Check Sequence: 86 ACH Enabled: False 7/19/2019 Reimbursement - Misc Supplies: Soap, Bowl Bn 58.59 08/13/2019 101-42700-421990 August 1st Semi Monthly Contract Payment 1,575.00 08/13/2019 101-42700-431200 Check Total: 1,633.59 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 13 Invoice No Description Vendor: 3309 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS. 1849662 resale - liquor 1849662 freight 1849663 Enabled: freight 1849663 resale - wine 609-49750-425100 Check Total: Vendor: 4672 SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LLC I49050 609-49750-433300 (400) 501b. - 22-0-6 Lawn Mmc 100% SRN w/ r Check Total: Vendor: 4513 AARON STAEHNKE 8/7/2019 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 7/25/19 596.00 Check Total: Vendor: 1507 STREICHERS INC I1379267 4,515.07 (10) Firefighter badges Check Total: Vendor: 1516 TASC IN1553902 9/1/19 - 9/30/19 - Admin Fees Check Sequence: 88 ACH Check Total: Vendor: 5035 THE BLUFFS LLC 8/7/2019 101-45201-421600 Farmers Market Token Collection Log 8/1/19 Check Total: Vendor: 1059 TILLER CORPORATION 190731 dba- Barton Sand & Gravel- (27.71) Tons Class Check Total: Vendor: 3910 TRAILBLAZER JOINT POWERS BOARD 2019-06-5D1 Daycare Provider Transportation to Friendship L 08/13/2019 Check Total: Vendor: 4248 ALEAH TUCKER 7/29/2019 Performance @ Farmers Market 8/1/19 Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Sequence: 87 ACH Enabled: False 3,868.54 08/13/2019 609-49750-425100 37.81 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 12.72 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 596.00 08/13/2019 609-49750-425300 4,515.07 Check Sequence: 88 ACH Enabled: False 7,610.00 08/13/2019 101-45201-421600 7,610.00 Check Sequence: 89 ACH Enabled: True 61.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 61.00 Check Sequence: 90 ACH Enabled: False 595.00 08/13/2019 101-42200-421120 595.00 Check Sequence: 91 ACH Enabled: False 70.69 08/13/2019 101-41800-413500 70.69 Check Sequence: 92 ACH Enabled: True 38.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 38.00 Check Sequence: 93 ACH Enabled: False 324.21 08/13/2019 101-43120-422400 324.21 Check Sequence: 94 ACH Enabled: False 60.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431991 60.00 Check Sequence: 95 ACH Enabled: False 100.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 14 Invoice No Description 9/24/2015 Performance at Farmers Market 9/10/15 Amount Payment Date Check Total: Vendor: 4774 SALLY VANBROCKLIN 8/5/2019 10/13/2015 Performance @ Farmers Market 8/15/19 Check Total: Vendor: 1550 VEOLIA WATER N AM OPERATING SERV L. 80205233 2018 Reconciliation - Overages 90205826 Aug 2019 WWTP Operations & Maintenance Check Sequence: 96 Check Total: Vendor: 1552 VIKING COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 2386154 08/13/2019 resale - soda pop Check Total: Vendor: 1684 VINOCOPIA 237829 resale - beer 237829 freight Check Sequence: 97 Check Total: Vendor: 1555 VONCO II LLC 50677 08/13/2019 (.57) IN waste removal - Parks Check Total: Vendor: 4008 SANDRA WELTON 155 April - August Programs (14) 129,696.62 Check Total: Vendor: 1567 WES OLSON ELECTRIC LLC 9163 Labor- GFI's in park- fixture pole top; photo cell 9163 Parts- GFI's in park- fixture pole top; photo cell ; 9172 Enabled: Parts- Work on Multiple Fixtures 9172 Labor - Work on Multiple Fixtures 9179 Labor - Installed Auto Controls on Pumps for Po 9179 460.10 Parts- Installed Auto Controls on Pumps for Poo] Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference 100.00 10/13/2015 226-45127-431990 200.00 Check Sequence: 96 ACH Enabled: False 125.00 08/13/2019 226-45127-431992 125.00 Check Sequence: 97 ACH Enabled: True 69,571.62 08/13/2019 602-00000-202010 60,125.00 08/13/2019 602-49480-430800 129,696.62 Check Sequence: 98 ACH Enabled: True 460.10 08/13/2019 609-49750-425400 460.10 Check Sequence: 99 ACH Enabled: True 82.50 08/13/2019 609-49750-425200 2.50 08/13/2019 609-49750-433300 85.00 Check Sequence: 100 ACH Enabled: False 81.60 08/13/2019 101-45201-443990 81.60 Check Sequence: 101 ACH Enabled: False 490.00 08/13/2019 101-00000-220150 490.00 Check Sequence: 102 ACH Enabled: False 200.00 08/13/2019 101-45201-440100 103.07 08/13/2019 101-45201-440100 324.40 08/13/2019 226-45126-440100 130.00 08/13/2019 226-45126-440100 160.00 08/13/2019 226-45126-440100 25.78 08/13/2019 226-45126-440100 AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 15 Invoice No Description Vendor: 1584 Check Total: Vendor: 4766 SUSAN WESTLEY July 2019 dba Sue Seeger - July 2019 Monti Arts R010663-000 13 Check Total: Vendor: 1577 WRIGHT CO AUDITOR-TREAS - ACH August Aug 2019 - Deputies Contract R011923-000 8 Check Total: Vendor: 1581 WRIGHT CO RECORDER 201900000068 Record Vacation - Carlisle 6th Addition #A 1400 R013121-000 8 Check Total: Vendor: 1584 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 002596-400 29 16C006 - Fallon Ave Improvements- June 2019 R010438-000 24 17C001 - Chelsea Road Utility & Street Improve R010663-000 13 18D003 - Carlisle Village 6th Addition - June 20 R011473-000 17 18C001 - 2018 Pedestrian Improvements- June 2 R011744-000 15 16C001 Phase 1 - BCOL Phase 1 Design - June R011923-000 8 201920 - Haven Ridge Plan Review - June 2019 R012792-000 8 201910 - Headwaters Senior Living Plan Revie)A R012967-000 7 201925 - Lake Region RV Plan Review - June 2 R013121-000 8 19D001 - Featherstone 4th Addition - June 2019 R013322-000 6 2019 Economic Development Services - June 20 R013358-000 6 2019 General Engineering Services - June 20191 R013358-000 6 2019 General Engineering Services - June 20191 R013358-000 6 2019 General Engineering Services - June 20191 R013368-000 2 2019 Monticello WCA - June 2019 R013396-000 4 2019 Maps - June 2019 R014044-000 2 WRMP Update 2019 - June 2019 R014163-000 2 19C002 - Community Center Plaza Concept- Jur R014320-000 1 201922 - Gateway Music/River Mills 6th Additic R014321-000 1 201924 - Buchholtz Concept PUD/Monti Apartn Check Total: Amount Payment Date Acct Number 943.25 2,083.33 2,083.33 117,834.17 117,834.17 46.00 46.00 13,500.25 1,976.00 3,552.00 9,735.25 18,390.38 9,207.50 640.00 747.00 10,731.75 1,011.00 470.33 470.33 470.34 984.00 460.50 7,271.25 3,743.00 166.00 273.75 83,800.63 Check Sequence: 103 08/13/2019 101-45204-431990 Check Sequence: 104 08/13/2019 101-42100-430500 Check Sequence: 105 08/13/2019 101-41310-435100 Check Sequence: 106 08/13/2019 400-43300-459018 08/13/2019 400-43300-459019 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 08/13/2019 400-43300-459013 08/13/2019 229-45202-453011 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 08/13/2019 213-46301-431990 08/13/2019 101-43111-430300 08/13/2019 601-49440-430300 08/13/2019 602-49490-430300 08/13/2019 101-43111-430300 08/13/2019 101-43111-430300 08/13/2019 101-43111-430300 08/13/2019 226-45126-431990 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 08/13/2019 101-00000-220110 Reference ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True ACH Enabled: False ACH Enabled: True AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 16 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Total for Check Run: 1,485,945.78 Total of Number of Checks: 106 The preceding list of bills payables was reviewed and approved for payment. Date: 8/12/19 Approved by: Mayor Brian Stumpf AP -Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (08/07/2019 - 1:01 PM) Page 17 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2B. Consideration of avvrovin2 new hires and departures for Citv deuartments (TE) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Council is asked to ratify the hiring and departures of employees that have occurred recently in the departments listed. It is recommended that the Council officially ratify the hiring/departure of all listed employees including part-time and seasonal workers. Al. Budget Impact: (positions are generally included in budget) A2. Staff Work Load Impact: If new positions, there may be some training involved. If terminated positions, existing staff would pick up those hours, as needed, until replaced. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to ratify the hire/departures of the employees as identified on the attached list. 2. Motion to deny the recommended hires and departures. C. RECOMMENDATION: By statute the City Council has the authority to approve all hires/departures. City staff recommends Alternative #1, for the Council to approve the hires and/or departures as listed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • List of new/terminated employees Name Melissa Hoernemann Nita Ceron Terae DeMarais *Amanda Erikson *Leah Dahnert Name Dylan Fyle Myles Root Milissa Holland NEW EMPLOYEES Department Involuntary Title Department Hire Date Voluntary Clerk Liquor Store 7/17/19 PT Clerk Liquor Store 7/20/19 PT WSI MCC 8/2/19 PT Asst. DMV Mgr. DMV 8/3/19 PT DMV Clerk DMV 8/5/2019 PT TERMINATING EMPLOYEES Reason Department Involuntary MCC Involuntary MCC Voluntary MCC New Hire and Terms City Council 2019: 8/7/2019 Class Last Day Class 6/24/19 PT 7/23/19 PT 7/2919 PT City Council Agenda 08/12/2019 2C. Consideration of approvinu the sale or disposal of surplus Citv property (WO) There is no report this City Council cycle. City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2D. Consideration of auuroving Resolution 2019-53 acceuting donations from Monticello Fire Relief of $1,084 for a grill for the fire station and from the Ellison Familv of $75,000 for various Fire Deuartment items — uugrade to 1929 Chevv Fire Engine, dress uniforms, advance driving road course training, portable radios, firefighter rehabilitation trailer, technologv for fire auuaratus, and stokes basket for ATV (JS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council is being asked to approve donations for the Fire Department. The donations include: 1) $1,084 From Fire Relief Association for a grill for new fire station. 2) $75,000 from Ellison Family a. Upgrading the 1929 Chevy Fire Engine. This includes adding brake lights and mirrors and do a few repairs. The engine will be displayed in the new fire station. ($10,000) b. Dress uniforms for all officers which would be used for funeral and other official functions. ($4,200) c. Annual attendance at an advanced driving road course at the training facility in St. Cloud where members learn advanced safe driving techniques for city's fire apparatus. ($7,800) d. Replacement of four portable radios. The current radios are out of date and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. Funds have been obtained for three of them. A grant has submitted to FEMA for replacement of firefighter radios but status is unknown. ($21,000) e. Purchase equipment for creation of a firefighter rehabilitation trailer. The trailer would house equipment that would allow firefighters to rehab at a scene. This would include items such as beverages, chairs, cooling fans, heaters, etc. ($20,000) f. Additional technology for fire apparatus that includes two mobile wireless routers and six additional helmet cams. This allows for access to wireless network at any scene to view the helmet cams and have internet access. ($10,000) g. Stokes basket for the ATV. This piece of equipment would allow for the safe transport of a patient out of a remote area. ($1,000) h. Miscellaneous department items. ($1,000) As required by state statute, if the city accepts a donation, the City Council needs to adopt a resolution specifying the amount of the donation and its use. Al. Budget Impact: The donations will be used toward the mentioned events. A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the Resolution 2019-53 accepting the contribution and authorizing use of funds as specified. 2. Motion to not approve the contribution and return the funds to the donors. City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • Resolution 2019-53 CITY OF MONTICELLO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-53 RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895. WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute contributions or gifts to the City as listed: DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION VALUE Fire Relief Association Grill $1,084 Ellison Family Cash $75,000 WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing facilities, operations or programs within the city's jurisdiction either alone or in cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the contributions offered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as follows: 1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of Monticello. 2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose: DONOR/ENTITY PURPOSE/AMOUNT Fire Relief Association Grill/$1,084 Ellison Family Upgrade to 1929 Chevy Fire Engine/$10,000 Ellison Family Dress Uniforms for Firefighters/$4,200 Ellison Family Advance Driving Road Course Training for Firefighters/$7,800 Ellison Family Four Portable Radios for Fire Department/$21,000 Ellison Family Equipment for Firefighting Rehabilitation Trailer/$20,000 Ellison Family Two Mobile Routers and Six Helmet Cams for Fire Apparatus/$20,000 Ellison Family Stockes basket for Fire Department ATV/$1,000 Ellison Family Miscellaneous Fire Department Items/$1,000 Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 12th day of August, 2019. Brian Stumpf, Mayor Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2E. Consideration of accepting a Lyrant/donation from CenterPoint Energv of $2.500 for the purchase of pool rule signage for Monticello Communitv Center and Wildland firefighter boots for Fire Department (AM) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Council is being asked to accept the grant donation from CenterPoint Energy in the amount of $2,500. A representative from CenterPoint Energy presented the check to the Community Center Director. An expression of thanks was extended to CenterPoint Energy. The City Council must formally accept the grant. The city received the grant in the amount of $2,500 from CenterPoint Energy for the purchase of pool rule signage ($804) and Wildland firefighter boots for the Fire Department ($1,696). The community center will be replacing all of the pool rule signs to match the new state pool code requirements, once the requirements are released. The Fire Department will be purchasing new boots that meet current NFPA code. Al. Budget Impact: The CenterPoint Energy grant requires the city to match the funds on the purchases. The MCC has budgeted funds for signage replacement and the Fire Department has funds for boot replacement. A2. Staff Workload Impact: City staff will make the purchases. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve accepting the grant donation and authorize use of funds as specified. 2. Motion to not approve the grant donation and return the funds to the donors. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution accepting the contributions. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resolution 2019-54 B. CenterPoint Energy grant application CITY OF MONTICELLO RESOLUTION NO. 2019-54 RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT/CONTRIBUTION WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is generally authorized to accept contributions of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 465.03 and 465.04 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Said gifts may be limited under provisions of MN Statutes Section 471.895. WHEREAS, the following persons and or entities have offered to contribute contributions or gifts to the City as listed: DONOR/ENTITY DESCRIPTION 1 VALUE CenterPoint Energy Grant $2,500 WHEREAS, all said contributions are intended to aid the City in establishing facilities, operations or programs within the city's jurisdiction either alone or in cooperation with others, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that it is appropriate to accept the contributions offered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Monticello as follows: 1. The contributions described above are hereby accepted by the City of Monticello. 2. The contributions described above will be used as designated by the donor. This may entail reimbursing or allocating the money to another entity that will utilize the funds for the following stated purpose: DONOR/ENTITY PURPOSE/AMOUNT CenterPoint Energy Monticello Community Center Pool Signage/$804 CenterPoint Energy Wildland Firefighter boots/$1,696 Adopted by the City Council of Monticello this 12th day of August, 2019. Brian Stumpf, Mayor Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk Community Partnership Grant 4D CenterPoint 2019 Guidelines Energy CenterPoint Energy offers matching grants to cities served by the company through the Community Partnership Grant Program. In 2019, the program will award grants up to $2,500, giving priority to applications focusing on safety equipment or safety-related projects. Priority will be given to franchised cities that have not received a grant in the last year. CRITERIA Eligibility Proposed equipment or special project must be initiated or sanctioned by a city served by CenterPoint Energy. Each application must be signed by the City Manager, Administrator or Clerk. We will only accent one reauest from each citv. Number and amount of grants The company will award grants up to a maximum amount of $2,500 until the 2019 funds are depleted. The funding request cannot exceed 50 percent of the total equipment or project cost. Eligible projects The equipment or project must be used for safety initiatives in the community. Grant program funds will be used to leverage local funds. Examples of eligible safety equipment include: • Multi -gas breathing apparatus • Fire fighting equipment • Thermal imaging cameras • Extraction tools • Self-contained breathing apparatus • Portable positive pressure oxygen kit • Specialized rescue vehicles and equipment • Emergency communication equipment • Defibrillators • Civil defense outdoor warning sirens • Traffic control equipment Exclusions • Supplemental, routine and/or ongoing city budget expenses • Law enforcement weapons or restraints • Events • Memorials HOW TO APPLY Complete application on page 2 and email to: CPG@CenterPointEnergy.com If you have questions contact: Beth Brown at 612-321-4899. Timeline • May 6: Grant applications due • Week of May 20: Notification of grant status to cities • June -August: Check deliveries scheduled and completed NOTE: All grants are at the sole discretion of CenterPoint Energy. CNP 1304 (3-2019) Page 1 of 2 Community Partnership Grant Application Applicant city City of Monticello City Hall address 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN Requestor name Ann Mosack Phone (763) 271-3268 Email address ann.mosack@ci.monticello.mn.us What equipment or special project are you asking us to help fund? Pool Rule Signage Fax CenterPoint Energ ZlPcode 55362 Title Community Center Director Equipment/special project description (brief) We would like to replace all of our pool rule signs to make sure they are up-to-date and match the new state pool code requirements. The fire department would like to purchase wild land firefighting boots. Total equipment/special project cost $ 5,000.00 Amount of funding request $ 2,500.00 (Maximum is $2,500. Funding request cannot exceed 50 percent of total equipmenVproject cost.) How will your request benefit the community? We want all of our pool rule signs to be clear and match the new state pool code requirements to keep our patrons safe. The new boots will replace old and worn boots. The new boots will protect our firefighters and meet current NFPA code. Signature (required) Administrator, manager or clerk (print name) Jeff O'Neil Signature Title City Administrator Date 5-1-2019 Email application to: Questions? CPG@CenterPointEnergy.com Contact: Beth Brown 612-321-4899 CNP 1304 (3-2019) Page 2 of 2 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2F. Consideration of avvrovin2 anointment of Meehan Hanson to the IEDC for a term ending December 31, 2020 (JT/JaT) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Per the IEDC's Organizational and Membership Guidelines, members approved for appointment to the IEDC are to be ratified by the City Council. Meghan Hanson submitted an application and interviewed with city staff on July 31, 2019. At the August 6, 2019 meeting, the IEDC passed a motion recommending City Council accept the appointment of Ms. Hanson as a new member of the IEDC. If Ms. Hanson is approved for the IEDC board, her term would expire on December 31, 2020. Al. Budget Impact: There is no budgetary impact from the consideration of appointing Ms. Hanson to the IEDC. The IEDC members do not receive a meeting stipend at this time. A2. Staff Workload Impact: None B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the appointment of Meghan Hanson to the IEDC with a term ending date of December 31, 2020. 2. Motion to not approve the appointment and recommend other action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the appointment of Meghan Hanson to the IEDC. If the Council appoints her to the IEDC, the membership will rise to 18 which is the limit allowed in the IEDC Organizational Guidelines. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. IEDC Ordinance 715, Title 2, Chapter 10 By Laws B. IEDC Organizational and Membership Guidelines (see Section VII) C. Meghan Hanson Application available upon request TITLE 2 - CHAPTER 10 INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SECTION: 2-10-1: Name of Committee 2-10-2: Authorization 2-10-3: Membership 2-10-4: Term of Office 2-10-5: Attendance 2-10-6: Vacancy 2-10-7: Officers 2-10-8: Meetings 2-10-9: Quorum 2-10-10: Duties of the Committee 2-10-11: Amendments 2-10-1: NAME OF THE COMMITTEE: The name of the organization shall be the Monticello Industrial and Economic Development Committee (IEDC). 2-10-2: AUTHORIZATION: Duties are delegated to the IEDC by the City Council of Monticello by this ordinance dated June 28, 2010, and by Resolution No. 2008-44 approved the 27th day of May, 2008. 2-10-3: MEMBERSHIP: The Monticello IEDC shall consist of sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) regular members to be appointed by the City Council of Monticello. Said Committee members shall consist of Monticello business representatives or residents of the City of Monticello. One Council member shall be appointed annually to serve on the IEDC. The Director of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry shall be an ex -officio member of the IEDC. (Ord 637 4/25/16) 2-10-4: TERM OF OFFICE: The term of the regular members shall be for three (3) years and shall be staggered so that no more than one-half of the terms expire in a given year. All regular terms shall expire at the first City Council meeting of the new calendar year. 2-10-5: ATTENDANCE: It is the City Council's intention to encourage IEDC members to attend all IEDC meetings. It is desired that IEDC members attend at least 75% of meetings in a calendar year. Members may be subject to replacement by the City Council in the event attendance does not meet this standard. 2-10-6: VACANCY: Any vacancy in the regular or at large membership shall be filled by the City Council, and such appointee shall serve for the unexpired term so filled. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE II/CHAPTER 10/PAGE 1 2-10-7: OFFICERS: (A) Elections. The Monticello IEDC shall elect at its Annual meeting from its membership a chair, vice chair, and a secretary who shall serve for a term of one year and shall have such powers as may be prescribed in the rules of said Committee. (B) Duties of Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the IEDC and shall have the duties normally conferred and parliamentary usage of such officers. (C) Duties of Vice Chair. The vice chair shall act for the chair in his absence. (D) Duties of Secretarv. The secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the Committee with the assistance of City Staff. 2-10-8: MEETINGS: (A) Regular meetings shall be held on a date established by the IEDC. In the event of a conflict with a holiday or special events, a majority at any meeting may change the date and location of the meeting. The meeting shall be open to the general public. 2-10-9: QUORUM: A majority of the total IEDC members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 2-10-10: DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE: It shall be the duty of the Committee, with staff assistance, to advocate and make recommendations to the Economic Development Authority and City Council, relative to and including influencing industrial and economic development in and for the City of Monticello, with an emphasis on industrial land, increase tax base and number of livable wage -level jobs by promoting industrial and economic growth, and working to maintain a desirable business environment. 2-10-11: AMENDMENTS: This ordinance may be amended as recommend by the majority vote of the existing membership of the IEDC and only after majority vote of the City Council. (#519, 8/23/10) MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE II/CHAPTER 10/PAGE 2 MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (IEDC) ORGANIZATIONAL AND MEMBERSHIP GUIDELINES I. Meeting Time and Place: Regular meetings are held the first Tuesday of each month at 7:00 a.m. at the Monticello Community Center. Special meetings may be called by the Chair. II. Mission Statement and Objectives: As written and adopted by the Monticello IEDC in the Annual Action Statement. III. Committee Size: While there is no set or definite size established, it is generally understood that the committee will not exceed 16-18 members. IV. Make-up of the Committee: Committee members must either work or reside in the community of greater Monticello. Individuals who are involved in an occupation or profession that provides services to the community of Monticello but is not headquartered within the community may also serve as members of the committee. Standing Committee Members: The City Council shall appoint a representative of either the Mayor or a Council Member to the IEDC as a non-voting member. The Board of Directors of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce & Industry shall appoint a voting member to the IEDC. These members shall be considered in committee size. Citv Staff Members: Non-voting Administrator of the City of Monticello Economic Development Manager of the City of Monticello (serves as the EDA Executive Director) Community Development Director of the City of Monticello (in the absence of the Economic Development Manager) V. Officers: The Chair, the Vice Chair, and the Secretary shall be appointed annually at the January meeting. Length of office term shall not exceed three consecutive years. Minutes of each meeting are the responsibility of the Secretary. Committee correspondence is the responsibility of the Economic Development Manager. VI. Lenizth of Membership Term: Members shall serve for three year terms on a three year rotating basis so that approximately one-third of the membership expires each year. Individuals wishing to continue serving on the committee may so indicate prior to the expiration of their term. Any member wishing to relinquish his/her position on the IEDC may do so by submitting a letter of resignation. 20161EDCORG&GUIDELINES IEDC ORGANIZATIONAL/MEMBERSHIP GUIDELINES PAGE 2 VII. Filling a Vacant Position: A list of potential committee members shall be kept by the Executive Director. The IEDC must recommend approval of new members by a majority vote. The City Council must ratify the appointment of new members to the IEDC. VIII. Membership Attendance: In order to make a positive contribution to the committee, each member is expected to attend at least 75% of the meetings in any given year. A year is defined as beginning on the 1st of January and ending the 31th of December. Amended: 01/05/16,12/06/2016 20161EDCORG&GUDELINES City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2G. Consideration of amrovinLy an application for a temporary charitable gambling permit for a raffle to be conducted by the MN Deer Hunters Association — Wri2ht Countv/West Metro Chapter on September 7. 2019 (JS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The MN Deeer Hunters Association — Wright County/West Metro Chapter has applied for a temporary charitable gambling permit for a raffle to be held on September 7, 2019. The event is being held at The Nordic Brewing Co., 530 Cedar Street. To receive a permit from the State, the City must approve the application. In the past the City has not opposed these exempt gambling license applications for charitable events. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the application for a charitable gambling permit for a raffle conducted by the MN Deer Hunters Association — Wright County/West Metro Chapter on September 7, 2019 at Nordic Brewing Co., 530 Cedar Street. 2. Motion to not approve the application for a charitable gambling permit. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports Alternative #1 and requests Council to approve the application which will be submitted to the State Gambling Control Board. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • Copy of Application for Exempt Gambling Permit MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING LG220 Application for Exempt Permit An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and • awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to your county by calling 651-539-1900. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION 11/17 Page 1 of 2 Application Fee (non-refundable) Applications are processed in the order received. If the application is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. w��C: {Iv sr Mme- �V\T� Organization e i Gambling Name: (1 oriJl ��C;c1 011 U�II Permit Number: Minnesota Tax ID Federal Employer ID Number, if any: Number (FEIN), if any: Mailing Address: r 1 - 1�C1r0le-, ' V� City: _D-rselct p State: 'N1N Zip: 5150county: M _ Name of Chief Executive Officer (CEO): I? CEO Daytime Phone: _ b 15, �55 7CEO Email: .-Po i (AWoc, - cc, AA (permit will be em led to this email address unless otherwise indicated below) Email permit to (if other than the CEO): NONPROFIT STATUS Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): Fraternal Religious= Veterans � Other Nonprofit Organization Attach a copy of one of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) F-1 A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767 F__] IRS income tax exemption (501(c)) letter in your organization's name Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500. F-1 IRS - Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: 1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling; and 2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted r (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): �� e yviY-) �- - -` Physical Address (do not use P.O. box): Check one: mCity: onfi 1 (P» o Zip: 553 2- County: V v r#I0\YNt F]Township: Zip: County: Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: = Bingo = Paddlewheels = Pull -Tabs = Tipboards ®Raffle Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffle boards, paddlewheels, pull -tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo ball selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under the List of Licensees tab, or call 651-539-1900. LG220 Application for Exempt Permit 11/17 Page 2 of 2 LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before submitting application to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board) CITY APPROVAL for a gambling premises located within city limits COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises located in a township The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30 -day waiting -The application is acknowledged with a 30 -day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after (60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days. The application is denied. Dhe application is denied. Print City Name: Signature of City Personnel: Title: Date: The city or county must sign before submitting application to the Gambling Control Board. Print County Name: Signature of County Personnel: Title: Date: TOWNSHIP (if required by the county) On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application, per Minn. Statutes, section 349.213.) Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer: Title: Date: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE (required) The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will be completed and returned to the�...t#i #e,gvt d te.. Chief Executive Officer's Signature: - Date: l (Signature rhust)efKo' signs ;des nee ay n ign) Print Name: REQUIREMENTS MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENTS Complete a separate application for: • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days; or • all gambling conducted on one day. Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are conducted on the same day. Financial report to be completed within 30 days after the gambling activity is done: A financial report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Board. Mail application with: a copy of your proof of nonprofit status; and application fee (non-refundable). If the application is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. Make check payable to State of Minnesota. To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 Questions? Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 3-1/2 years (Minn. Statutes, section 349.166, subd. 2(f)). 651-539-1900. Data privacy notice: The information requested on this form (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine your organization's qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. Your organization has the right to refuse to supply the information; however, if your organization refuses to supply this information, the Board may not be able to determine your organization's qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. If your organization supplies the information requested, the Board will be able to process the application. Your organization's name and address will be public information when received by the Board. All other information provided will be private data about your organization until the Board issues the permit. When the Board issues the permit, all information provided will become public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all information provided remains private, with the exception of your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data about your organization are available to Board members, Board staff whose work requires access to the information; Minnesota's Depart- ment of Public Safety; Attorney General; Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota Management & Budget, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order; other individuals and agencies specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this notice was given; and anyone with your written consent. This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. An equal opportunity employer City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2H. Consideration of avvrovinLY a Special Event Permit for outdoor entertainment and use of Citv resources at American Legion Post 260 on Saturday. September 7. 2019. Applicant: American LeLyion Post 260. (JS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The city received a special event permit application from the American Legion for live entertainment activities after 10:00 p.m. and a request to permit a street right of way closure for activities on September 7, 2019. This event is the same as the permit issued last year. Special event permits are brought to the City Council if there is the potential that the activity proposed could impact the city's regulations pertaining to noise, and if any city resources are required for the event. The outdoor event takes place in the Legion's north parking lot and portions of Yd Street West with music playing from 4:00 — 11:30 p.m. While the American Legion may be classified as a Restaurant, the site is located in an R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) District. The site is surrounded by primarily residential uses. The Special Event Permit Ordinance allows council to approve special event permits for restaurants as related to outdoor entertainment activity after 10:00 p.m. The proposed 11:30 p.m. timeframe for live music has the potential to create an adverse impact on adjacent residential properties. To help avoid conflict, staff is recommending that all property owners within 350 feet be notified of the event. The Legion has provided a site plan which illustrates the closure and use of the 3rd Street West right of way from Elm Street east to the edge of the Legion site. The applicant has contacted the Streets Department on planning for the street closure. Street barricades, although not requested, may also be required for the closure. The Wright County Sheriff's Office has received a copy of the permit application. They have not expressed concern nor have they received any complaints in the past. Al. Budget Impact: None. A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal staff time was necessary to review the request and prepare this report. Additional staff time on the part of the Streets Department for continued assistance in site planning and street closure details is estimated at four hours is anticipated for this request. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the Special Event Permit for the American Legion for outdoor entertainment and partial closure of 3rd Street for September 7, 2019 as described in the application materials and subject to the following conditions: a. Closure of 3rd Street West shall be permitted from 12:00 p.m. (noon) until 12:00 a.m. (midnight). b. Compliance with the recommendations of the Street Superintendent regarding the application. c. Notification of residential properties within 350 feet of the Legion property regarding the event. 2. Motion to deny the Special Event Permit. City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the City Council elects to approve the permit, staff's recommendation would be that the permit be approved with the conditions as noted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • Application and Maps Pa CITY OF MONTICELLO ---'�. Community Development 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticeflo Monticello, MN 55362 (763) 295-2711 . info(&ci.monticell o.mn.us PROPERTY INFORMATION Property Address 304 Elm Street, Monticello, MN 55362 Property Legal Description Property ID Number Owner Name Owner Address Owner Phone Owner Email L Applicant Name Applicant Address Applicant Phone Applicant Email Name of Event Location/Address of Event Dates & Times of Event 155010026090 PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION American Legion Post #260 304 Elm Street, Monticello, MN 55362 763-295-2574 Special Event Permit Application Checklist Romadu27@yahoo.com APPLICANT INFORMATION Kim Brant 304 Elm Street, Monticello, MN 55362 763-295-2574 Kbrant811 @yahoo.com End of Summer Party 304 Elm Street, Monticello, MN 55362 September 7, 2019 2:OOPM until Midnight Complete Application Required The review and consideration of an application submitted shall only occur if such application includes all items that are required in support of the application and is deemed complete by the City Clerk's Office. Application Submission Schedule Application, required information, and payment must be submitted no later than 30 working days prior to desired approval date. Application Information Applicants shall note that in addition to a special event permits, any liquor license or permit, sign permits and building permits for tents may also be required and are not included within the special event permit application and approval. Any requested use of City facilities, City staff resources, City equipment, and/or City property (including rights of way) and/or any requested waiver of application fee or park rental fees requires review and approval by the City Council. In addition, events which occur after 10 PM may requires review and approval by the City Council as related to noise ordinances. Please provide clear information in the application regarding these requests. 07/25/16 American Legion Post 260 304 Elm Street, PO Box 806 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 August 15, 2019 Dear American Legion Neighbor, This letter is being written to inform you that the Legion will be having an outside music event. It will be on Saturday, September 7, 2019. The music will start at 4:00 PM and will end at 11:30 PM. The activity will all be in the north parking lot and part of 3rd Street, as we are asking the city if we can block a short section of the road. This will not interfere with anyone's entrance to their property. There will be security to keep people from wandering into nearby yards. Please feel free to contact us with any concerns either before or after the event. Thank you, Kim Brant Club Manager 763-295-2574 Randy MacLeod Post Commander 1 LEGEND: , o= ROAD CLOSED AHEAD S �, _tr_i = BARRICADE 75) Q .. t 144% 4 1' r f 40 I � i ikin f >: 46 10 !• --1 r ,� y ,QP/ �r T Wright g County, MN Overview .40 spa �evz i � D-9 we AAA q Le f ' �1e• �� -. eqr gend Roads CSAHCL CTYCLi ;�O MUNICL .a PRIVATI`CL -- TWPCL Highways — interstate � State Hwy '� +f� .� 7�►&� US Hwy f ; Ai' City/Township limits t Parcels . Parcel ID 155033 Alternate ID n/a SOwner Address n/a eclrwp/Rng n/a Class n/a Property Address Acreage n/a District n/a Brief Tax Description n/a (Note: Not to be used on legal documents) Date created: 8/5/2016 Developed by c�hnaidei The Schneider Corporation Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2I. Consideration of approvinL, an application for a one-dav temvorary on -sale liquor license for a special event at the American Legion Post 260 on September 7. 2019 (JS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The American Legion Post 260 is requesting approval of an application for a one -day temporary on -sale liquor license in conjunction with a special event to be held in the north parking lot at their location at 306 Elm Street and portions of 3rd Street West on September 7, 2019. Currently the Legion holds a club liquor license which is applicable to the building. They will need to have a temporary license to serve in their parking lot and to serve non -club members. The Legion has provided a certificate of insurance demonstrating liquor liability insurance coverage for the date of the event. The City must approve the application prior to submitting the application to State Alcohol and Gambling Division for approval. Al. Budget Impact: NA A2. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal staff time to process application for City and State licensing approval B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the application for a one -day temporary on -sale liquor license for the American Legion on September 7, 2019 contingent upon approval of the special event permit. 2. Motion to deny the application. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1 for approval of the application. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • Application for 1 -day temporary on -sale liquor license MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Name of organization Address Name of person making application Date(s)� of event--� p Organizatio officer's name __ GSD �I Organization officer's name Organization officer's name Organization officer's name Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 222, St. Paul, MN 55101 651-201-7500 Fax 651-297-5259 TTY 651-282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 DAY TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE Date organized Tax exempt number ja"L i, I I) 8 I Igo -Dl Ltq $5 o City State Zip Code (Monticello I I Minnesota 1155362 Business phone Home phone Type of organization Club ❑ Charitable ❑ Religious La'Other non-profit City State IMinnesota Zip Code I I�� City State Zip Code I I I (Minnesota I I City State Zip Code I I 1 I Minnesota I I City State Zip Code Minnesota Location where hermit will be used. If an outdoor area, describe. Po 1--t-i 0 ki a Faa&to.+- -to ti,%z (.c.q L w t" c*C If-%ztggi " pa" /0� D✓l t l A.L &r D £� kotdo If the applicant will contract for intoxicating liquor service give the name and address of the liquor license providing the service. NA If the applicant will carry liquor liability insurance please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. Self insured through the Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis, Administrated by Catholic Mutual Relief Society of American, Liquor Liability of $500,000 APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT moYt h ce(w City or County approving the license Date Approved A 10 q-7--tc) Fee Amount Permit Date g t°I enni�er. SCAgretergCi . mDvv�icetto• wm. u.S Date Fee Paid City or County E-mail Address U3 2,-11 -32ot1E' City or County Phone Number Signature City Clerk or County Official Approved Director Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement CLERKS NOTICE: Submit this form to Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 30 days prior to event. ONE SUBMISSION PER EMAIL, APPLICATION ONLY. PLEASE PROVIDE A VALID E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE CITY/COUNTY AS ALL TEMPORARY PERMIT APPROVALS WILL BE SENT BACK VIA EMAIL. E-MAIL THE APPLICATION SIGNED BY CITY/COUNTY TO AGE.TEMPORARYAPPLICATION@STATE.MN.US City Council: 08/12/2019 2J. Consideration of Adopting Resolution 2019-55 calling for a public hearing establishing an Economic Development Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District #141 (JT) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item is for consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-55 calling for a public hearing required to establish Economic Development TIF District #1-41. Project Novus is seeking financial support to develop a new 40,000 square foot precision machining facility on a 7.39 - acre site along Chelsea Road. The developer would begin construction of the site as soon as the TIF District is approved by the City Council. According to the attached TIF review schedule, the anticipated public hearing date is scheduled for September 23, 2019. Project Novus' proposed development consists of land acquisition, new construction and purchase of equipment. The 40,000 square foot building is estimated to cost $4,000,000. With new equipment installed in the facility, the total project cost rises to approximately $8,600,000 +/-. Project Novus anticipates creating approximately 60 new FTE jobs over the next 3 years. Wage rates for the new hires is expected to average in the range of $22 to $25 per hour. Based on the initial information provided by the developer, it is understood that the project would not be able to move forward without the use of TIF assistance to help write down the land costs. To that end, at a special EDA meeting on July 31, 2019, staff was able to provide preliminary overview of the development proposal, financial structure and a schedule for all TIF process steps. The EDA then adopted Resolution 2019-06 recommending the City Council set a public hearing date to consider approving the new Economic Development TIF District. A schedule of the entire TIF review process is attached along with aerial photos indicating the proposed TIF District location and overall Municipal Development District. Due to the complexity of the development proposal, as each review and approval step occurs over the next 75 days, the City Council will be asked to consider additional supportive actions for the project. Those steps include but are not limited to: land acquisition, a proposed land exchange/sale, consideration of grant applications submittals to MN -DEED and the use of an economic development property tax rebate program known as ED -Tax Abatement. The development proposal meets several community and economic development objectives. Two broad goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan include: 1) Attracting and Retaining Jobs; and 2) Expanding the Tax Base. Further, in early 2019 the EDA adopted its annual Workplan which states that the EDA will "Market industrial development opportunities with a focus on firms extending -impacting the local and regional supply chain factor". Since Project Novus has a goal of starting construction this fall (October -November 2019), the EDA is taking the unusual step of recommending the City Council call for a TIF Public Hearing prior to receipt and review of the relevant application submittals. Staff is working closely with the developer to ensure that all required materials and review steps are completed as this expedited process gets underway. With that in mind, Project Novus will be asked to provide a more detailed review of its proposal to the EDA at the August 14, 2019 meeting. At a meeting later in the schedule, the EDA will receive a more detailed review of the project and be asked to consider the "but -for" determination. The City Council is the nexus of decision points on the proposed development and financing structure in that creating a new Economic Development TIF District requires City Council City Council: 08/12/2019 support to move forward. Specifically, the City Council will need to "Call for a Public Hearing and Notice" to review the financial plan (proposed expenditures) and the fiscal and economic impacts associated with the TIF District in connection with Project Novus' proposed development. Al. STAFF IMPACT: Project Novus' proposal will involve time commitments from the Economic Development Manager, Community Development, EDA Attorney, Financial Advisor, City Finance Director and others. The review and organization of the application materials that occurs during the creation of the staff reports for consideration by the City Council and the EDA is part of in-house staff duties. A2. BUDGET IMPACT: The $10,000 TIF application fee is used to cover the involvement of consulting staff from Northland Securities and Kennedy & Graven (EDA Attorney). A3. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT: The proposed development meets the Strategic City Goal and Objective #4 "Support a Vibrant Economy" in that the development will create more quality jobs and expand the local tax base. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2019-55 calling for a public hearing and notice to establish an Economic Development TIF District # 1-41 in connection with the proposed development of a 40,000 square foot precision machining facility and creation of 60 new FTE jobs. 2. Motion to deny. 3. Motion to table. 4. Motion of other as determined by the City Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The developer has asked that the TIF review process be expedited to allow it to begin construction of a new facility this fall (October -November 2019). With that in mind, staff recommends that the City Council proceed per Alternative #1. Affirmative action on this request will set a TIF Public Hearing date of September 23, 2019. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resolution 2019-55 B. TIF #1-41 Calendar C. Aerial Photos showing Proposed TIF District location (lime green site) CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-55 RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-41 WITHIN CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-41 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on Monday, September 23, 2019, at approximately 6:30 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-41 (the "TIF District") within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating to the TIF District, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.108 1, as amended, and Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as amended (collectively, the "Act"). 2. Notice of Hearing; Filing of TIF Plan. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a notice of the hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published as required by Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 of the Act, to place a copy of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF District on file in the City Clerk's Office at City Hall, and to make such copies available for inspection by the public. 3. Consultation with Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mail a notice of the public hearing and a copy of the proposed Tax increment Financing Plan for the TIF District to Wright County and Independent School District No. 882, informing those taxing jurisdictions of the estimated fiscal and economic impact of the TIF District. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, this 12th day of August, 2019. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 604933v1MN190-160 Exhibit A CITY OF MONTICELLO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 23, 2019, at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, relating to the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-41 (the "TIF District") within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the proposed approval of a Tax Increment Financing Plan relating to the TIF District, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 and Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as amended. Copies of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan will be on file and available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk at City Hall. The property included within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 is described in the Redevelopment Plan on file in the office of the City Clerk. The property to be included within the proposed TIF District is described in the Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the office of the City Clerk. The boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed TIF District are shown in the following map. [insert map] All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views orally or in writing prior to the hearing to City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN 55362. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ City Clerk 2 604933v1MN190-160 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22M 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City of Monticello Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-41 Economic Development TIF District Project Novus Public Hearing on September 23 July 31 EDA request City Council call for hearing August 12 City Council calls for public hearing August 23 Last day for notice and TIF plan and fiscal implications to County and School District August 24 First day to publish hearing notice September 3 Planning Commission review September 9 Last day for notice to newspaper September 11 EDA approval of TIF, subject to Council approval September 12 Actual publication date September 23 Public hearing and establishment of TIF District October 7 Request certification by County October 7 Submit plan to State June 30, 2020 Certification of TIF District by this Date Notes: 1. Inspection of property and findings of substandard report was completed on December 9, 2015. 2. Denotes city council meeting dates. 3. Denotes EDA meeting dates 4. City publication dates need to be confirmed and added to calendar. NORTHLAND PUBLIC hll'7%11N1t TIF for Economic Development `r. 7/22/2019 Date: 7/21/2016 CITY OF Monticello TIF Districts Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Area #1 Monitcello, MN WSB Proposed Econ. Dev. TIF District #1-41 August 8, 2019 ai City Boundary CITV OF � Monticello T' 4 4 _ i y t r .- _.._� ----. A -„M,�..«'. yfl5•;i.;a'IIi�ait'�C.�,TtYs Bryan Pittman 1 inch = 376 feet Map Powered by DataLink from WSB &Associates City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2K. Consideration of acceptinLy the Monticello Safe Routes to School Plan for future planning purposes (AS/JaT) A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND The City Council is asked to accept for planning purposes the Monticello Safe Routes to School Plan. Although the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan is officially the Monticello School District's plan document as the recipient of the SRTS Planning Assistance grant, Council is asked to accept the document for planning purposes. The Safe Routes to School Plan was presented to and adopted by the Monticello School District on July 22, 2019. The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program focuses on increasing opportunities for students to walk and bicycle to school safely. MnDOT currently administers the Safe Routes to School program for the state, with funding for the program coming from federal transportation dollars. The Safe Routes to School funding program has two primary funding components, Non -Infrastructure and Infrastructure. In 2017, the Monticello School District applied for and received a Safe Routes to School Planning Assistance Grant. Safe Routes to School Plans are included within the Non -Infrastructure funding component. The City of Monticello authorized a letter of support for the grant application and authorized staff participation in the plan project. During the 2018-2019 school year, staff from Live Wright, the City of Monticello, CentraCare, CentraCare BLEND; and the Monticello School District participated in plan research and preparation with MnDOT's selected plan consultant, ALTA. The planning effort involved a number of engagement activities and events for parents, caregivers, students, teachers, administrators and other stakeholders. These activities helped identify barriers and opportunities for students to walk and bicycle to each of Monticello's public school locations. As noted, while the Monticello Safe Routes to School plan is officially the work product of the School District as the grant recipient, the City Council is asked to review and accept the plan for planning purposes. Implementation of many of the infrastructure recommendations will rely on city participation. Council will note that the plans does not just focus on built improvements. Rather, the plan focuses on the "6 E's" of safer routes — Evaluation, Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, and Equity — helping to create a complete plan for safe access. The SRTS plan is a critical first step for communities to begin working on both infrastructure and non -infrastructure solutions for safe routes. In addition, in order to qualify later for Safe Routes to School Infrastructure grants, communities must have a SRTS Plan in place. Adoption of the plan by the School District and acceptance of the plan by the City will set the stage for these grant applications. Al. BUDGET IMPACT: None. Acceptance of the SRTS Plan does not obligate the city to specific improvements or projects. Acceptance for planning purposes does allow the city to incorporate plan recommendations into future CIP and budget documents, as well as future grant applications. It should be noted that as a City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 collaborative project, the city will continue to reach out to the partners involved in the plan when considering funding for specific improvements or projects. A2. STAFF IMPACT: The Safe Routes to School Plan was a true community effort, requiring the participation of teachers, parents, students and administrators, as well as input and participation of city staff, including Community Development, Engineering, Parks, Streets and Communications staff. Staff time for the planning process is estimated at 60-70 hours in total. A3. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT: Acceptance of the SRTS Plan effort meets the following Strategic Plan goals: 1. Creating & Preserving Sustainability — Supports efforts to create a more walkable and bikeable community. 2. Building a Connected Community — Participation in the plan strengthens the city's partnership with the School District, as well as other community partners such as Live Wright, CentraCare and the Wright County Sheriff's Office. 3. Invest in People— SRTS Plans support the city's objective of working to meet the needs of citizens for safer routes to school. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to accept the Monticello Safe Routes to School Plan. 2. Motion to deny acceptance of the Monticello Safe Routes to School Plan. 3. Motion to table action, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1 for acceptance of the Monticello Safe Routes to School Plan. The SRTS Plan has identified opportunities and prioritized potential improvements with the broad support and involvement of the impacted community. The SRTS Plan also provides a more complete program for providing safer walking and biking alternatives by outlining strategies for all 6 E's, not solely infrastructure solutions. D. SUPPORTING DATA • Monticello Safe Routes to School Plan 2 )PROGRAMS Educotion, encouragement, and evaluation WALKING SCHOOL BUS/ BIKE TRAIN A group of students walking or biking to school togeth- er with the help of a trusted adult or older student. Lead: School staff, PTO, partners SAFETY CAMPAIGN A safety campaign builds awareness around safe walk- ing, biking, and driving behavior. A campaign could be student -led in partnership with law enforcement. Lead: City of Monticello, law enforcement, partners ==I(4 SAFEI BIKE $AFE1 �i� n[FARTMENT or r � � ■ TRA....RUMN -... COMMUNICATION School communication can inform and educate parents and families about transportation options, traffic safety, and the benefits of walking and biking. Lead: School administration and district staff ROUTE MAPS A walking or biking route map shows safe and com- fortable routes and crossings for students and families walking or biking to school. Lead: School district, City of Monticello BIKE CLUB A bike club is a group of students with a shared inter- est in bicycling. They can go on rides, fix bikes, and act as role models for younger students. Lead: School staff, student groups WALK/BIKE FIELD TRIPS Field trips made by walking or biking give students a supportive environment to practice skills and show- case benefits of walking and biking. Lead: School and district staff WALK & BIKE DAYS Walk/Bike to School Day celebrates and encourages active trips to school. Minnesota celebrates Walk/Bike to School Day in October, February, and May Lead: School and district staff WALK/BIKE EDUCATION Walking and biking safety education can be shared through class curriculum or special events. Lead: School and district staff, City of Monticello, Wright County, youth mentors p� GET INVOLVED Plan your walking or biking route with your student, watch for students and respect school zone speed limits, and show your support by volunteering! Contact your school principal to learn how you can get involved. Learn more about Safe Routes to School in Minnesota at: www.mnsaferoutestoschool.org CONTACT Gabe Hackett PARK & WALK During a park and walk, buses and parents drop students at a designated off -campus location so that students can walk the rest of the way to school. Lead: School and district staff, Hoglund Bus Company Little Mountain Elementary gabe.hackett@monticello.k12.mn.us 763-272-2601 MINNESOTA !SAFE ROUTES -O SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE HIGH PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS These locations are identified as high priorities for infrastructure improvements. Monticello Middle School OHigh traffic speeds/volumes; long crossing dis- tance; poor yielding. Upgrade beacon to RRFB; install median refuge and yield/stop markings. OLimited separation between people walking and driving; sidewalk gaps. Install sidewalks, boulevards, curb extensions. Adjust lighting. Pinewood Elementary OLong crossing distance; unpredictable yielding behavior. Upgrade curb ramps. Consider curb extensions, median refuge, and/or RRFB. OSidewalk gap. Install sidewalk where missing and provide enhanced pedestrian crossings. Consider upgrading shoulders to bike lanes. OSidewalk gaps. Fill sidewalks gaps with priority to connection on north side to provide continu- ous link on 6th. OSidewalk gap. Fill sidewalk gaps with priority to connection on north side. Consider additional streetscape enhancements with sidewalk infill. ©Sidewalk gap; high traffic speeds/volumes. Install sidewalk and/or trail with priority to con- nection on north side. Little Mountain, Monticello High, Eostview OHigh traffic speeds/volumes; no pedestrian connection on east side. Provide sidewalk or trail on east side of Fallon. OHigh traffic speeds/volumes; long crossings; no trail on south side; poor yielding. Install trail on south side; enhance key crossings. OHigh traffic speeds/volumes; no pedestrian connection. Install trail along Fenning; consider pedestrian realm enhancements. OHigh traffic volumes; long crossing distance. Minimize turning radii; consider curb exten- sions, enhanced lighting, LED STOP signs. ©High traffic volumes; long crossing distance. Minimize turning radii; upgrade ADA ramps; consider curb extensions or median island. OConsider pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly street design as part of future development including connectivity and dedicated facilities. Routes, crossings, and street projects JUNE 2019 MONTICELLO, MN Monticello High School Monticello Middle School Pinewood Elementary School Little Mountain Elementary Eastview Education Center itDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I&q MINNESOTA i}r: SAFE I. ROUTES TO SCHOOL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the participation of the following individuals and organizations in the development of this Safe Routes to School Plan. GABE HACKETT, Local SRTS Co -Leader Principal Little Mountain Elementary ANNABOHANON Health Promotion Coordinator Wright County Public Health CLAY NORMAN Assistant Principal Pinewood Elementary MELISSA PRIBYL Community Health and Wellness Specialist CentraCare - Monticello ANGELA SCHUMANN Community Development Director City of Monticello MIKE CARR Principal Monticello High School a MINNESOTA } SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JACOB THUNANDER Community and Economic Development Coordinator City of Monticello JOE DOCKENDORF Principal Eastview Education Center HANNAH DOCKENDORF Community Wellness Specialist CentraCare - St. Cloud MATT LEONARD Public Works Director/Engineer City of Monticello MATT COALWELL Assistant Principal Monticello Middle School RYAN MELHOUSE Engineer City of Monticello alta Z/.�N ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS of INTRODUCTION + CONTEXT ................................ 4 The Vision ..........................7 Monticello Schools in Context ........8 Community Engagement.............11 CIL PROGRAMS ............................ 12 Introduction to Programs .......................... 13 Recommended Programs .........................13 r�a Introduction to A. For More Information.............43 Infrastructure ......................21 B. SRTS Facts for School Existing Issues and Conflicts ........22 Communication ....................44 Monticello Middle School C. Summary of Planning Process ..... Infrastructure Recommendations ..... 27 Pinewood Elementary E. Student Residences ..............52 Infrastructure Recommendations ..... 29 Little Mountain Elementary, G. Student Hand Tally .............. Monticello High, and Eastview H. Environment & Policy Education Center Infrastructure Assessment ...................... Recommendations ................. 31 04 HOW TO GET INVOLVED..... 34 Using this Plan .....................35 Final Thoughts.....................39 APPENDICES .......................... 41 A. For More Information.............43 B. SRTS Facts for School Communication ....................44 C. Summary of Planning Process ..... 47 D. Existing Conditions ..............49 E. Student Residences ..............52 F. Parent/Caregiver Survey .......... 57 G. Student Hand Tally .............. 112 H. Environment & Policy Assessment ...................... 127 I. School Zone Hazard Observation Tool..................129 J. Engagement Summary........... 174 K. Infrastructure Toolbox ...........180 L. Bike Parking for Schools .........188 M. Maintenance Planning ........... 190 N. Equity in SRTS Planning ......... 191 4 f a. �Kfit�9�:•'Y' m Why Safe Routes to School? ...................................................................... 48% THE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WALKING OR BIKING TO SCHOOL HAS DROPPED PRECIPITOUSLY WITHIN ONE GENERATION KIDS WHO WALK OR BIKE TO SCHOOL: Arrive alert and able to focus on school Are more likely to be a healthy body weight Are less likely to suffer from depression and anxiety MOST KIDS ARE NOT GETTING ENOUGH PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ROADS NEAR SCHOOLS ARE CONGESTED, DECREASING SAFETY AND AIR QUALITY FOR CHILDREN Get most of the recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity during the trip to and from school Demonstrate improved test scores and better school performance* THE VICIOUS CYCLE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC LEADING Fewer students More parents TO REDUCED WALKING walking & biking driving children AND BICYCLING: to school to school Rising concern Increased about safety of traffic at and walking & biking around school O O O O *More information, including primary sources, can be found at http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org THE SIX E'S Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs use a variety of strategies to make it easy, fun, and safe for children to walk and bike to school. These strategies are often called the "Six E's." EQUITY Equity is an overarching concept that applies to all of the E's. Equity in SRTS means that the SRTS program is inclu- sive, celebrates the diversity of students, allocates resources to overcome inequities, and supports a community where walking and biking is safe, comfortable, and convenient for every student. EDUCATION ENFORCEMENT Programs designed to teach children about Law enforcement strategies aimed at traffic safety, bicycle and pedestrian skills, improving driver behavior near schools and and traffic decision-making. ensuring safe roads for all users. Y ENCOURAGEMENT EVALUATION A Programs that make it fun for students to O Strategies to help understand program walk and bike, including incentive programs, effectiveness, identify improvements, and regular events or classroom activities. ensure program sustainability. eENGINEERING Physical projects that are built to improve walking and bicycling conditions. NAVIGATING THIS PLAN Below is a roadmap for navigating the way through this plan. Use it to find all the information you need for helping students be safer and more active! PROGRAMS _ HOW TO GET INVOLVED Getting children to walk and bike to school = The more people involved with a local requires fun and engaging programs for Safe Routes to School process, the more schools and families. Turn to this section successful it will be! Use this section to find for recommended events, activities, and out how you can be a part of this important strategies that will get students moving. AYN INFRASTRUCTURE 10 Ensuring the safety of students on their trips to and from school means upgrading the streets. See this section for suggestions to improve the safety, comfort and convenience of walking and biking, including paint, signage, and signals. initiative. APPENDICES There is more information available than could fit in this plan. For additional resources. turn to this section. The Vision Walking and biking to school is safe, comfortable, and fun for all students in Monticello. In the summer of 2018, Monticello Public School Dis- trict #882 was awarded a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Safe Routes to School (SRTS) planning assistance grant to hold a planning workshop and create a plan for all five schools in the City of Monticello: Monticello Middle School, Monticello High School, Eastview Education Center, Little Mountain Elementary, and Pinewood Elementary. This plan pro- vides recommendations for all five schools. In the grant application, the District discussed the partnership with the City of Monticello and their shared commitment to active transportation citywide. In 2011, the City created the Parks & Pathway System Plan and is currently identifying and prioritizing sidewalk and trail connections throughout the community. Addi- tionally, the 2017 Monticello Strategic Plan identifies a goal to make Monticello a more walkable and bikeable community by connecting places and investing in people. Support for walking and biking comes from the District, as well. The Monticello Public School District wellness policy sets direction to "promote and protect students' health, well-being, and ability to learn by supporting healthy eating and physical activity". Looking to the future, Monticello shares a vision with the State of Minnesota to create safe, accessible, O convenient, and affordable multi -modal transportation opportunities for all. The community hopes this plan will enhance the quality of life for all residents of Mon- ticello. Throughout the planning process, stakeholders from key organizations came together to create a team of connected individuals committed to safe walking and biking to schools in Monticello. These individuals — listed in the acknowledgments at the beginning of this document — will continue working towards imple- mentation of the recommendations found in this plan. This plan was made possible with support from Mn - DOT and developed in coordination with the City of Monticello, Wright County, and the school district. It is the product of meetings and visits with staff, communi- ty members, and youth in Monticello. The following pages identify program and infrastruc- ture recommendations to support a safe and comfort- able environment for people walking and biking to schools in Monticello. All recommendations are intend- ed to be on an approximate five-year timeline. While not all of these recommendations can be implemented immediately, it is important to achieve shorter -term successes while laying the groundwork for progress toward some of the larger and more complex projects. 11019 *101011114 IN 0KKK*]019 XA A Monticello Schools in Context DISTRICT STRUCTURE Monticello Public School District draws from a large geographic area of Wright County that generally runs along the south bank of the Mississippi River from Clearwater to Albertville. Most students attending the five schools live within the City of Monticello (estimated population 13,600), while some come from the smaller surrounding cities of Becker, Clearwater, Big Lake, and Albertville. The following pages provide a brief overview of each school. For much of this document, Eastview Education Center, Little Mountain Elementary, and Monticello High School will be discussed together because of their close proximity to each other. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL Monticello Middle School serves over 1,000 students in grades 6-8. The school is located on Broadway St E (Wright County Road 39) on the eastern edge of downtown Monticello and just a few blocks from the Mississippi River. The school campus includes a base- ball field, track, tennis courts, and the Moose-Sherritt Ice Arena, which serves as a major destination in the city and region for ice hockey and skating. There are parking lots of varying sizes surrounding the school building with accesses from Broadway and Washington St. Broadway is a major thoroughfare in Monticello and carries high volumes of traffic into and out of town. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL MONTICELLO, MN SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA O MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL, LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY, EASTVIEW EDUCATION CENTER Monticello High School serves over 1,200 students in grades 9 through 12. Little Mountain Elementary, located to the west of the high school, welcomes nearly 700 students in grades 1 through 5. Eastview Education Center, which serves as the District's early childhood education, pre -Kindergarten, and Kinder- garten school, serves nearly 360 students. It is located to the east of Monticello High School. All three schools are located on the same super block, on the opposite side of Interstate 94 from downtown Monticello, the middle school, and Pinewood Elemen- tary. The super block is bounded by Fenning Ave on the east, Fallon Ave NE on the west, School Blvd on the south, and industrial and commercial land uses to the north. Relative to the traditional grid street network north of Interstate 94, the neighborhoods surrounding these three schools include newer housing develop- ments with curvilinear streets. Despite the relatively new housing stock and associated lower density development, there is a high density of students in the surrounding neighborhoods who face challenges with Fallon Ave, Fenning Ave, and School Blvd, especially where these streets intersect. MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL, LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY & EASTVIEW EDUCATION CENTER MONTICELLO, MN 11011101 bill" 11W] 0 QKi]019 *111 PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY Pinewood Elementary servesjust over 900 students in grades 1 through 5. It's located on the western edge of Monticello along Broadway St and just two blocks from the Mississippi River. Railroad tracks run along the back side of the school along with a fence that re- stricts access to the school. Between Broadway St and the entrance to the building is a large parking lot and a parent drop off loop. To the west of school is more parking, tennis courts, and ball fields. While Broadway St is narrower than further east near the middle school (three lanes compared with four), there are still challenges for students traveling to and from the school across Broadway as vehicles entering and exiting town have higher speeds. PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY MONTICELLO, MN 10 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Community Engagement O Many people helped develop the recommendations found in this plan. Besides stakeholders listed in the acknowledg- ments section above, project staff engaged the local community through a variety of tools described in the table below. This information came from people who know the issues faced better than anyone else - those who walk and bike in Monticello. For more information related to engagement results and early data collection, including the School Zone Hazard Observa- tion Assessment and Student Travel Tally, see the Appendix section that accompanies this document. GROUP ENGAGED; ENGAGEMENT TOOL PROJECT TIMING FEEDBACK GATHERED Parent Survey Parents and County Roads 14, 39, Highway 25, and School Blvd are major caregivers of students barriers An online survey sent to families Lighting should be improved at crossings that asks parents and caregivers Fall 2018 Concern about violence and crimes against children how they feel about their child walking and biking to school. Administration Survey School principals and District and school transportation policies do not address administrators walking and biking An online survey sent to principals Schools collaborate with law enforcement to enforce speed limits and administrators that asks about Fall 2018 and other traffic laws school and district policies or practices that support walking and biking to school. It also asks about the physical and built environment surrounding school. Online mapping tool Monticello community No feedback gathered at time of plan writing members An interactive tool where users can add their walking and biking routes, Fall 2018 barriers, and destinations to an online map. Pop up engagement tabling In-person events held at schools or community events where project staff talk with families about ways to improve comfort while walking and biking to school. Student conversations In person conversations with students about their experiences walking and biking in the commu- nity. Rapid Planning Workshop A two day workshop held in Monti- cello with local stakeholders to dis- cuss walking and biking challenges and opportunities. Students, parents, Drivers rarely yield to students waiting to cross at intersections caregivers, families near schools • Biggest barriers are high traffic roadways and lack of lighting in Fall 2018 darker months of the year Monticello students Students are interested in walking and biking but they often live too far away Fall 2018 Students informally participate in SRTS programs like walking school buses and bike trains by traveling together in groups Local stakeholders The community is excited and motivated to increase the number of students walking and biking to school, but major barriers exist Fall 2018 in the community. Ej dJ 00 r, �� < o I '�19i '' .. • i PROGRAMS Introduction to Programs The Safe Routes to School movement acknowledges that infrastructure changes are necessary for shifting school travel behavior, but are insufficient on their own. Programs are a necessary component of any successful SRTS plan. While engineering improvements such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and bikeways are important, equally im- portant are education programs to give children and families basic safety skills, encouragement programs to highlight walking and bicycling to school as fun and normal, enforcement against unsafe and illegal motor- ist behavior, and evaluation of the impact of invest- ments and non -infrastructure efforts. Often, programs that help to get more kids walking and biking lead to increased public support for infrastructure projects - they can be an important first step towards building out the physical elements that make walking and bik- ing safer and more comfortable. And relative to certain infrastructure projects, most programs are very low cost. It is important to always deliver these programs equitably so all Monticello students have the opportu- nity to walk and bike safely and comfortably. The Monticello community and schools are already working towards a healthy and active student popula- tion. The District has participated in several SRTS pro- grams including access to a District -wide bicycle fleet for use by schools, participation in Walk! Bike! Fun! training and curriculum, Walk and Bike to School Day, and an annual Walk'n' Roll event celebrating the City's parks and pathways where local partners and busi- nesses in Monticello participate and promote a healthy lifestyle. Schools also use crossing guards during arrival and dismissal and give fifth grade students the opportunity to participate in crossing guard training at the Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center. Wright County has also partnered with local law en- forcement to organize and host a Stop for Me pedestri- an safety campaign on Broadway St and School Blvd. These campaigns educate drivers and pedestrians about the rules and responsibilities of road users. It is important that the events and activities listed above are continued! The momentum that has been built from these existing programs will allow future programming and SRTS efforts to be successful. Recommended Programs To increase the number of students walking and biking to school, the following programs are recommended for the Monticello Public School District. In order for a program to be successful and sustainable, a network of support within and outside school is necessary. The programs listed below were recommended after con- versations with school and district staff, parents, stu- dents, community members, and city and county staff. The team discussed existing resources at schools, in the district, and within the community that might sup- port programs to ensure they succeed. The following programs are recommended for the Monticello Public School District: • Walking School Bus/Bike Train • Bike Club • School Communication to Families • Student Walk/Bike Safety Education • Walking/Biking Route Maps • Community Safety Campaign • Expanding Walk & Bike to School Day • Expanding Remote Drop-off/Park and Walk • Walking and Biking Field Trips • Bike Mechanics Class/Ea rn-a-Bike On the following pages, additional information is pro- vided for programs listed above - a brief description, a suggestion for who should lead the program, a sug- gested timeline, the schools within Monticello that the program would be best for, and rationale to support its recommendation. 0 z0zh 7IuK 13 nV�,''v �.• f. K WALKING SCHOOL BUS/BIKE TRAIN A Walking School Bus is a group of children who walk to school with one or more adults. Parents can take turns leading the bus, which follows the same route each time and picks up children from their homes or designated bus stops at designated times. Ideally buses run on a regular schedule so families can count on it, but they often begin as a one-time pilot event. Older students or "walking buddies" could also be used once a safe route has been established with the help of a trusted adult. A Bike Train is very similar to a Walking School Bus: groups of students accompanied by one or more adults bicycle together on a pre -planned route to school. Routes can originate from a particular neighborhood or begin at a park, parking lot, or other meeting place. Which schools it would be good for: All schools. Walking school buses work well for elementary and middle school students who live within walking distance from school. Bike trains may work well for middle and high school students and can include students who live further from school. Program lead: School staff, PTO. Support from Rotary/In- teract Club, Senior Center, youth mentors program. Timeline: Short term (1-2 years) Why we recommend it: Walking school buses and bike trains give parents additional feeling of security knowing their child is traveling in a group and with a trusted adult or older student. Many people who completed the survey ex- pressed concern over their child being alone on their way to school. An informal walking school bus already exists at 14 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Little Mountain, where students wait at the midblock cross- ing of School Boulevard until a crossing guard safely cross- es students. Monticello schools have strong parent teacher organizations, which provide excellent opportunities for organizing a walking school bus for younger students, and a bike train for middle and high school students. PARENT SURVEYS AND STU- DENT TRAVEL TALLIES .................................. There are two great tools to evaluate all the SRTS work in the community: Parent Surveys: Recommended once every 2-3 years. A hard copy survey or link to an online version can be sent to parents to gather their perceptions of walking and biking to school. Surveys can be distributed through newsletters, school websites, or at conferences. Student Travel Tally: Recommended in fall and spring of every year. In -class tallies ask students how they traveled to and from school on a given day. SCHOOL COMMUNICATION TO FAMILIES Communication could come as a paper or electronic news- letter or school social media blast describing safe trans- portation practices in and around school, making sure to elevate walking and biking as an option. Messaging could also inform parents of safe crossings and how to dress appropriately for the weather. Information could describe where parking for bikes is located at each school as well as other resources on site. The communication could also highlight SRTS news and efforts to date and advertise any upcoming events related to walking and biking. Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: Monticello School District Communication, school administration Timeline: Immediately - information can be shared through existing channels Why we recommend it: Consistent messaging highlight- ing and elevating walking and biking tips and events is a great way to continue the momentum built during the planning process. Coordinate with Monticello School District Transportation to develop tailored messaging for individual schools. Monticello School District families are heavily engaged and involved in the schools. Leverage this engagement to promote walking and biking through communication channels including print, social, and other electronic media. See the SRTS talking points in Appendix B for more ideas. (9) BIKE CLUB A student bike club can be a formal or informal group of students who share an interest in biking for transportation or recreation. They can go on rides, commute to school, and fix bikes together. They can lead younger students and be advocates for safety and resources for people biking in the community. Which schools it would be good for: Monticello Middle School, Monticello High School Program lead: Student groups, school staff for support and resources Timeline: Immediately -just organize a group of interested students! Why we recommend it: Several respondents to the caregiver survey expressed that their students would be interested in a bike club and/or participating in group rides. This would be a great way for students to gain experience in community and student organizing and leadership. Students could participate in inclusive group rides, take advantage of the Montiview Mountain Bike Challenge Course, or formally participate in the Minnesota High School Cycling League. a*10Zal:7\LFA 6�l,-1 Fft-1 ® am PARENTS S rUARLIANS xe ICK I,"Ll; L� t',P.TE SALE: BIKE SAFE! _':7Z Tµe.r wM reo-y./a aw..F..i[n�wnn r+MM.w uCNw11 mrd Ww. i0 •rtn ��R ILO!G wr.• NM�4n10•ROL%VMNR DE PARiµlHT OF IIII'F.Iwe bJ N[4�YIW¢nR �. `��...�_,.avn-a..e�e.y TRANSPORTATION �•.•..••••• SCHOOL COMMUNICATION TO FAMILIES Communication could come as a paper or electronic news- letter or school social media blast describing safe trans- portation practices in and around school, making sure to elevate walking and biking as an option. Messaging could also inform parents of safe crossings and how to dress appropriately for the weather. Information could describe where parking for bikes is located at each school as well as other resources on site. The communication could also highlight SRTS news and efforts to date and advertise any upcoming events related to walking and biking. Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: Monticello School District Communication, school administration Timeline: Immediately - information can be shared through existing channels Why we recommend it: Consistent messaging highlight- ing and elevating walking and biking tips and events is a great way to continue the momentum built during the planning process. Coordinate with Monticello School District Transportation to develop tailored messaging for individual schools. Monticello School District families are heavily engaged and involved in the schools. Leverage this engagement to promote walking and biking through communication channels including print, social, and other electronic media. See the SRTS talking points in Appendix B for more ideas. (9) BIKE CLUB A student bike club can be a formal or informal group of students who share an interest in biking for transportation or recreation. They can go on rides, commute to school, and fix bikes together. They can lead younger students and be advocates for safety and resources for people biking in the community. Which schools it would be good for: Monticello Middle School, Monticello High School Program lead: Student groups, school staff for support and resources Timeline: Immediately -just organize a group of interested students! Why we recommend it: Several respondents to the caregiver survey expressed that their students would be interested in a bike club and/or participating in group rides. This would be a great way for students to gain experience in community and student organizing and leadership. Students could participate in inclusive group rides, take advantage of the Montiview Mountain Bike Challenge Course, or formally participate in the Minnesota High School Cycling League. a*10Zal:7\LFA 6�l,-1 WALKING/BIKING ROUTE MAPS A bicycling or walking route map shows safe and low stress routes and crossings for students and families walking or biking to school. Route maps can also highlight approxi- mate route distances or times, walking school bus stops, rules of the road, and other helpful information to help students and families feel more comfortable walking or biking to school. Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: City of Monticello, Monticello School Dis- trict. Support from CentraCare. Timeline: Short term (1-2 years) Why we recommend it: During the Rapid Planning Work- shop, we heard that some parents and students don't realize how close to school they actually live. In the surveys sent home, parents expressed frustration about how long bus rides home take despite seemingly living so close to school. Maps identifying safe crossings and streets with sidewalks would give families the necessary information to try walking and biking. Consider including the time and distance to school based on the suggested route, and coordinating with the City's existing Parks & Pathways map. Distribute maps online and in print at Walk and Roll events. 16 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SAFETY CAMPAIGN A safety campaign is an effective way to build awareness around students walking and biking to school and encour- age safe driving behavior among student drivers, parents, and other motorists. A campaign can use media at or near schools including posters, business window stickers, yard signs, and/or street banners to remind drivers to slow down and use caution in school areas. This type of campaign can also address other specific behaviors such as walking or bicycling to school, school bus safety, and/or parent drop- off and pick-up behavior. Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: Wright County Sheriff's Office and Public Health, City of Monticello, CentraCare, Just Drive, Safe Communities, schools for promotional material Timeline: Short term (1-2 years) Why we recommend it: Driver behavior and enforcement was a top concern expressed through caregiver surveys and community engagement. Distracted driving was also the top concern of Wright County residents who respond- ed to the 2018 Community Health Needs Assessment. Because this plan considers all schools in Monticello, there is a unique opportunity to conduct a city-wide safety cam- paign. Consider highlighting student walking and biking routes and driver behavior around schools as part of local Stop for Me and Just Drive campaigns. Build on community and school spirit and pride to promote safe driving speeds and proper yielding behavior. Shops and businesses downtown can put posters in their windows designed by students to promote safe behavior by all people traveling in Monticello. WALK AND BIKE TO SCHOOL DAY Walk and bike to school days are organized events en- couraging students to walk or bicycle to school. They can happen as part of National Walk/Bike to School Days, or monthly or weekly. Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: Monticello School District, school staff Timeline: Immediately Why we recommend it: Walk to School Day is a great way to build energy and excitement around SRTS. There are great resources to advertise and promote the events on the Minnesota SRTS Resource Center. Consider piloting other programs as part of Walk to School Day such as a walking school bus, bike train, and remote drop-off. Minne- sota Winter Walk to School Day is in February and National Bike to School Day is in May. If the event is successful, con- sider organizing monthly or weekly events such as Walking Wednesdays. Consider distributing Walk/Bike Route maps ahead of Walk and Bike to School Day events to educate families about recommended routes and crossing loca- tions. (t FURTHER READING ......................................... For a complete list of all potential programs and descriptions, see httr)://mndotsrts.altaiDroiects.net/ (9) STUDENT WALK/BIKE SAFETY EDUCATION Student safety education can be implemented through a variety of programs. Walk! Bike! Fun! walking and biking safety curriculum, group bicycle rides, and integration into driver's education are just a few ways students can learn to be safer while walking, biking, and driving. There are many existing resources through MnDOT, the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota (Bike MN), and Wright County. Encourage more PE teachers and other interested staff to get trained to teach Walk! Bike! Fun! Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: Monticello School District and Community Education, Wight County, City of Monticello, youth mentors program for support Timeline: Short term (1-2 years) Why we recommend it: Because this plan considers all schools in Monticello, there is a unique opportunity to create a system that gives all students that come through the district critical safety information. The information and lessons could start in elementary as part of Walk! Bike! Fun!, be practiced as part of bicycle rides using the Wright County Bicycle Fleet in middle school, then taught to new drivers during driver's education through Community Education. Bike MN is currently developing a pilot program that teaches new drivers how to interact and share the road with people walking and biking. More information about the People Friendly Driver Program can be found at: httiD://www.bikemn.orq/education/people-friendlv-driver-pi- lot-program z zh 7IuR�VA Credit: Minneapolis Public Schools WALK AND BIKE FIELD TRIPS A field trip made by foot or by bicycle gives students a supportive environment in which to practice their pedes- trian safety or bicycling skills. Walk/bike field trips can also showcase the many benefits of walking and bicycling for transportation including health and physical activity, pollution reduction, and cost savings. The destination of the field trip may vary, or the field trip could be the ride or walk itself. Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: School staff, Monticello School District to create and promote walking and biking field trip guidance. Timeline: Short term (1-2 years) Why we recommend it: Pinewood Elementary School stu- dents already participate in walking field trips to the library, community center, and senior homes. Students could go to City Hall or Monticello Public Works to learn about city gov- ernment, planning, and engineering, or visit the Mississippi River or local parks to learn about environmental science and ecosystems. is SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA BIKE MECHANICS CLASS / EARN -A -BIKE Bike mechanics classes provide students with hands-on skills to identify and fix bicycles. Classes can be offered as an after-school extracurricular class or as an elective similar to shop classes. Earn -a -Bike programs are bike me- chanic classes where students get to keep the bike they fix when the class is complete. Which schools it would be good for: Monticello Middle School, Monticello High Program lead: Monticello School District/Community Education to organize and coordinate with bike shop in neighboring city Timeline: Long term (4-5 years) Why we recommend it: With no local bicycle shop in town, a bike mechanic elective or extracurricular program would be an excellent way to expose older students to careers or hobbies working with bicycles. Students could work towards repairing a bicycle, then keep it as part of an Earn -a -Bike program. Make sure a trained and qualified mechanic is on site to confirm bicycles are safe to ride. Consider searching for a community member to teach/lead the classes. REMOTE DROP-OFF/PARK AND WALK During a remote drop-off or park and walk, buses and parent drivers drop students at a designated off -campus location and students walk the rest of the way to school. Remote drop-off events can help reduce drop-off conges- tion on campus and provide students who live further from school with an opportunity to walk to school. Which schools it would be good for: All schools Program lead: Monticello School District for coordination with Hoglund Bus Company, school staff for coordination with families Timeline: Medium term (3-4 years) Why we recommend it: Many Monticello students live too far from school to reasonably walk or bike. Park and walk programs create an opportunity for students who live further from school to walk or bike at least part of the way. Consider piloting the event during Walk/Bike to School Day events. EQUITY IN PROGAMMING When planning and implementing SRTS programs, it is important to design events and activities that are inclusive of students of all backgrounds and abilities. Language and cultural barriers, physical abilities, personal safety concerns, and infrastructure barriers can all create po- tential obstacles to participation. Creative outreach, low-cost solutions, and flexible implementation can help overcome obstacles and enable more students and families to participate. For more information about equity in SRTS planning, see Appendix N. 9*10119127TILFAR� V1 ,, 111111 - Ir -Lr - r VA - OINFRASTRUCTURE Introduction to Infrastructure In addition to program recommendations, changes to the streetscope ore essential to making walking and biking to school safer and more comfortable. The initial field review and subsequent meetings yielded specific recommendations to address the key barriers to walking and bicycling in the areas surround- ing the five schools. This plan does not represent a comprehensive list of every project that could improve conditions for walking and bicycling in the neighborhood, but rather the key conflict points and highest priority infrastruc- ture improvements to improve walking and bicycling access to the school. The recommendations range from simple striping changes and school signing to more significant changes to the streets, intersections and school infrastructure. All engineering recommendations are shown on the Recommended Infrastructure Improvements maps and corresponding tables on pages 26-32. It should be noted that funding is limited and all recommendations made are planning -level concepts only. Additional en- gineering studies will be needed to confirm feasibility and final costs for projects. Before recommendations are presented, pages 22- 25 show and discuss conditions currently existing in Monticello. These observations were made during walk assessments. A walk assessment is the process of walking the streets surrounding the schools to assess and observe the barriers and challenges faced by people walking and biking. The Monticello Safe Routes to School team performed a walk assessment led by consultants in the fall of 2018. FURTHER READING .................................. Demonstration projects are an approach to neighborhood building using short-term, low-cost, and scalable interventions to cata- lyze long-term change for safer streets and healthier, more vibrant communities. Many infrastructure improvements near schools can start as demonstration proj- ects in order to test installations and build support for more long term improvements. More information about demonstration projects near schools can be found at the link below. http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/ resources/fact-sheet/tactical-urbanism-and- safe-routes-school 104ia MV11 411"01:»4 Existing Issues and Conflicts This section highlights some of the major issues surrounding the three Monticello campuses. The photos and observa- tions described below were made during the fall of 2018, when the Monticello SRTS team performed a walk assessment of the area surrounding the schools. A walk assessment allowed the team to experience the conditions faced by people who walk and bike in the area. More observations and recommendations to improve conditions can be found on the pages following this overview. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL ISSUES AND CONFLICTS Broadway St E & Washington St E This crossing is the main access to school for anyone traveling to or from the north. There is a pedestrian activated amber flashing light, but it does a poorjob of grabbing the attention of oncoming motorists, leading to low yielding compliance. The push button activator is located inconveniently and out-of-the-way for a pedestrian waiting to cross. The crossing of Broadway is long and uncomfortable. Because of the four lane roadway, the hidden threat exists if one driver yields and the driver in the adjacent lane does not. Finally, vegetation and the fence on the southwest corner of the intersection limits visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross. Washington St & 3rd St E This crossing provides a main access to and from the neighborhoods to the west of school. Washington is particularly busy during arrival and dismissal with parent pick-up and drop-off traffic and through traffic. Private vehicles dropping off students encroach on the crosswalk and crossing guards (pictured), limiting visibility of those waiting to cross. A rectangular rapid flashing beacon exists at the crossing that can be activated by pedestrians. This alerts drivers of people waiting to cross. However, visibility is low, especially during darker months. There are also conflicts/confu- sion between people dropping off along the curb and drivers attempting to turn right on Broadway. 3rd St E between Cedar St & Washington St 3rd St E is a main connection to the crossing at Wash- ington St. No pedestrian space (sidewalk or separated trail) exists along this segment of roadway. 22 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Southeast parking lot/bus loop Although there is an existing trail along Broadway that leads to school grounds, people walking and biking do not have a separated space to access the entrance on Broadway. Currently, students must cross the parking lot, which does not have clear delineated space for dif- ferent modes. There is no clear circulation for vehicles, so bus and car traffic is mixed. Private vehicles typically drop off and pick up in travel lanes, not along the curb. PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY ISSUES AND CONFLICTS Elm St&W3rd St This intersection is a main access to and from the neighborhoods to the east of Pinewood. The crossing distances are long and visibility is low, especially in the darker months. W Broadway St & Otter Creek Rd This crossing provides access to neighborhoods to the north and west of school. Because this location is on the western edge of Monticello, traffic speeds can be high coming in to town as cars slow, and high exiting town as cars increase speed. The crossing is wide and the existing curb radii encourage drivers to turn onto and off of Broadway at high speeds. 104ia MV11 *411" 01.»*] Western driveway access to W Broadway St For people traveling to and from the west, the wide driveway presents a challenge. The existing curb radiii on the driveway apron encourages high speeds into and out of the parking lot, and in order for drivers to see traffic on Broadway, they must encroach on the trail crossing of the driveway where students often cross. 0 FURTHER READING In colder climates, it is important to consider how winter can affect the safety and comfort for youth walking and biking to school. See Appendix M for informa- tion related to winter maintenance that will allow kids to stay active and healthy yearround. 24 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA FURTHER READING .................................. For a complete list of infrastructure to increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety and comfort, turn to Appendix K . The toolkit found here will help you brainstorm addition- al improvements for Monticello MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL, LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY, EASTVIEW EDUCATION CENTER ISSUES AND CONFLICTS School Blvd between Fallon Ave NE & Fenning Ave School Blvd acts as a main barrier for students travel- ing to the three schools from the south. Traffic volumes are high, crossing distances are high, and drivers often do not yield to students waiting to cross. There is no trail/sidewalk on most of the south side and there are long distances between marked and designated cross- ings. Students who live south of School Blvd between Fallon and Fenning must cross School Blvd at the end of their street in order to access the trail. Fallon Ave NE & School Blvd This is a main crossing for students traveling to the south and west - especially to and from Little Mountain. Currently, the crossing distance is quite long, traffic volumes can be high during arrival and dismissal, and visibility is low during the darker months. Pedestrian desire line between School Blvd & Falcon Ave Through observation, it was clear that students were walking between houses to the south to connect to campus. However, no formal or paved path is present along the desire line. Monticello High northern access road to Chelsea Rd W This winding road is used by drivers exiting and enter- ing the high school parking lot to the north. There is no sidewalk on either side of this road, which means people walking must either walk in the street or in the grass. Because of the winding road, visibility of pedes- trians can be low in certain areas. Fenning Ave & Meadow Oak Ave The roundabout at this intersection does not provide provide an accessible, marked, or dedicated space for people crossing east/west across Fenning Ave. Once a person reaches the western -most leg of the inter- section, there is an island that leads to the entrance of Eastview. However, this island is used for snow storage and uncomfortable to traverse. School Blvd/Jason Ave NE & Fenning Ave This intersection provides access to the super block from the south and east. There is a large apartment complex on the southeast corner. Crossing distances are long and traffic volumes are high. K--1 _ + eRoq Location/Zone OpportunityCorridor Opportunity 4 Add/Upgrade Bicycle Parking IL North Net- ', R •. � 4�'" ,4� STF t �� 11igY *` \ t r - / 0,9 ••� ... °'mow. _ :/ • �. hNlflllfl r' � i b� j E 7TH ST 1 Monticello Middle School Infrastructure Recommendations LOCATION PROBLEM/ISSUE A Broadway St E and Washington High traffic speeds and volumes; unpredictable motorist yield/stop St E compliance; long pedestrian crossing distance with dual threat risk; large turning radii; limited visibility between pedestrians and motorists due to vegetation, lighting, and intersection geometry; push buttons for flashing pedestrian beacon are inconveniently located; not ADA compliant; opportunity to reduce length of pedestrian signal indica- tion to better correspond with pedestrian presence in crosswalk. POTENTIAL SOLUTION/RECOMMENDATION Upgrade existing flashing beacon to a more high -visible pedestrian bea- con (e.g. RRFB); consider providing an additional pole mounted beacon in the center median or replacing with an overhead pedestrian beacon; re- duce flashing time to correspond with estimated pedestrian crossing time; minimize corner turning radii; relocate pedestrian push buttons to increase convenience and accessibility; consider extending and/or widening the existing median to provide a safety island for pedestrians crossing Broad- way St; install yield markings ahead of pedestrian crosswalk; manage vegetation at intersection approaches. ANTICIPATED OUTCOME Increase pedestrian visibility; increase visibility of flashing beacon; reduce vehicle turning speeds; reduce pedestrian cross- ing distance; increase motorist yield/stop compliance; provide two stage crossing for pedestri- ans to increase pedestrian safety and comfort. IIIII:FTI Wright County B Washington St between Broad- No separation between sidewalk and roadway for segments of the Install curb extensions where on -street parking is present; extend existing Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello way St and E 7th St street; sidewalk gap on west side of Washington between E 7th St sidewalk south to 7th St; upgrade sidewalks that are currently back of curb ing that is physically separated and north of the railroad tracks; street lights frequently turned on and to include boulevards; assess and adjust sensitivity of existing street lights from vehicle traffic; increase off during school arrival observations despite darkness. to ensure they are consistently on when visibility is poor. pedestrian safety and comfort. C 3rd St E between Cedar St and No separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Install sidewalk on one or both sides of 3rd St, prioritizing the north side Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello Washington St to connect to the existing crossing at 3rd St and Washington St. Explore ing that is physically separated feasibility of providing planted boulevard, pedestrian lighting, and inter- from vehicle traffic; increase section treatments such as curb extensions. pedestrian comfort and safety. D 4th St E between Cedar St and No separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Install sidewalk on one or both sides of 4th St. Explore feasibility of pro- Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello Washington St viding planted boulevard, pedestrian lighting, and intersection treatments ing that is physically separated such as curb extensions. from vehicle traffic; increase pedestrian safety and comfort. E Washington St and 3rd St E Unpredictable yield/stop compliance by motorists (through traffic and Consider upgrading RRFB flasher from amber to brighter yellow or white Increase visibility of pedestrians City of Monticello parent traffic); parents dropping off along Washington St block or stop lights; Consider curb extensions or median refuge to minimize pedestrian and pedestrian crossing; reduce very close to school crossing location; some dual threat risk between crossing distance; consider striping, signage, and/or geometric changes to pedestrian crossing distance; curbside activity and through traffic; existing RRFB uses amber lights. better differentiate between pick-up/drop-off lane and through lane. increase driver stop/yield com- pliance; reduce unpredictable behavior and dual threat. F Southeast parking lot/bus loop No clear pedestrian connection across parking lot between Broadway Explore strategies to physically separate and clearly define routes for Reduce conflicts between Monticello School St E and main entrance; no clear parent circulation pattern; conflicts school buses, parents, staff, and pedestrians, prioritizing pedestrian con- modes; increase safety and com- District between pedestrians, parent drop-off/parking, and bus circulation. nections between Broadway Ave and the main entrance. fort for people walking. G Broadway St E High traffic speeds and volumes; long pedestrian crossings; long Explore opportunities to reduce the width or number of vehicle travel Reduce traffic speeds; increase Wright County distances between pedestrian crossings; opportunity for additional lanes; consider extending existing trail on south side of Broadway St and/ visibility, comfort, and safety for pedestrian -scale lighting and pedestrian realm improvements. or implementing protected bike lanes in coordination with lane narrowing; people walking and biking. increase pedestrian lighting, especially at intersections. H River St E east of Cedar St No dedicated pedestrian facility; wide roadway for traffic volumes; River St is a designated segment of the Mississippi River Trail. Recently, Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello opportunity for dedicated pedestrian and/or bicycle connection along River St was reconstructed without any accommodations for people walk- ing and biking that is physically designated Mississippi River Trail route. ing or biking. Consider piloting an on -street walkway/bikeway on the north separated from vehicle traffic; side of the street using temporary materials such as paint and flexible reduce traffic speeds. posts to provide a space for people walking and biking that is physically separated from vehicle traffic. A demonstration project could take place during a one day Walk & Roll event or over several days or weeks. Washington St between Broad- No separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Install sidewalk on one or both sides of Washington St, prioritizing the east Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello way St E and River St E side to align with the existing marked crossing of Broadway St. Explore ing that is physically separated feasibility of providing planted boulevard, and pedestrian lighting. from vehicle traffic; increase pedestrian safety and comfort. IN!e7[97.11W1 High High Med Med Med Med Low Low Low ON •� x- `- Opportunity 4 Corridor Opportunity c _ Sr tv Add/Upgrade Bicycle Parking - oC Y _ W - ' w@ FLu^North uj O.; A R; G ti k �,3R0 qys h0 Res C - - - ---- - --_ pIL� (07 i FAIRWAY DR h �� 'lookClStOq RIO �. ..,i,' � � `' COUNTRY c4(G Pinewood. Elementary Infrastructure Recommendations LOCATION PROBLEM/ISSUE POTENTIAL SOLUTION/RECOMMENDATION ANTICIPATED OUTCOME LEAD PRIORITY A Elm St and W 3rd St Long pedestrian crossing distance; unpredictable driver Upgrade pedestrian ramps; consider pedestrian flashing beacon such as an Increase pedestrian visibility and Wright County High yielding behavior; curb ramps out of ADA compliance; RRFB; evaluate geometric changes to reduce crossing distance (so long as they accessibility; reduce pedestrian extensions. limited lighting. don't interfere with the bikeable shoulder) and increase pedestrian visibility such crossing distances; reduce traffic City of Monticello Designate space for people walk- Wright County High mately Fairway Dr and Elm St as a safety island. speeds. Ing that is physically separated Wright County Med B Elm St Sidewalk gaps including sidewalk on west side only Fill sidewalk gap on east side of Elm St and/or extend existing sidewalk and Designated space for people Wright County High between Golf Course Rd and W Broadway St, and no provide additional enhanced pedestrian crossings. Coordinate with proposed walking and biking that is phys- crossing distances; reduce vehi- sidewalk resent south of Golf Course Rd; wide roadway; p Y; off street path along Elm. Consider upgrading existing shoulders to buffered or P 9 Pg 9 g icall separated from vehicle Y p City of Monticello limited lighting. protected bike lanes. CSAH 39 (Elm St and Golf Course Rd) identified as coun- traffic; improved visibility Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello Med St ty-wide signed bikeway in Wright County Trail and Bikeway Plan. Improve lighting, side of the street between Maple St and Walnut St. Explore feasibility of providing ing that is physically separated especially at crossings. planted boulevard, pedestrian lighting, and intersection treatments such as curb from vehicle traffic C W 6th St east of Elm St No consistent sidewalk connection along W 6th St. Fill sidewalk gaps on W 6th St between Elm St and Walnut St. Consider prioritizing Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello High W Broadway St and Otter Creek sidewalk infill on north side of the street initially to provide continuous connection Ing that is physically separated Increase pedestrian visibility; Wright County Med Rd along W 6th St. from vehicle traffic slower traffic speeds; reduce D W 4th St between Elm St and Sidewalk gap on north side of W 4th St between Elm St Fill sidewalk gaps along W 4th St. Consider prioritizing sidewalk infill on north side Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello High Minnesota St and Minnesota St. Opportunity for additional connectivity of the street between Elm St and Minnesota St. Explore feasibility of providing Ing that is physically separated and level of service and pedestrian realm improvements. planted boulevard, pedestrian lighting, and intersection treatments such as curb from vehicle traffic including pedestrian scale lighting; explore opportunities to reduce the width and/ extensions. E Golf Course Rd between approxi- No sidewalk connection along Golf Course Rd connect- Install sidewalk and/or trail on one or both sides of the street, prioritizing north Designate space for people walk- Wright County High mately Fairway Dr and Elm St ing to single and multifamily housing; high traffic speeds side between Elm St and Kampa Cir. Ing that is physically separated Wright County Med and volumes. and yielding compliance when pedestrians in crosswalk; from vehicle traffic F W Broadway St High traffic speeds and volumes; no pedestrian connec- Fill sidewalk gap on north side of Broadway St between Chestnut St and Otter Increase pedestrian connectivity Wright County Med tion on north side of Broadway St west of Elm St; long Creek Rd; bring existing trail and ramps into ADA compliance; increase lighting and level of service pedestrian crossings. Opportunity to improve lighting, including pedestrian scale lighting; explore opportunities to reduce the width and/ City of Monticello ADA compliance, and pedestrian realm. or number of travel lanes and increase boulevard width. G W Broadway St and Elm St High traffic speeds and volumes; poor driver behavior Upgrade ramps and signal to bring into ADA compliance; minimize corner radii; Increase pedestrian visibility and Wright County Med and yielding compliance when pedestrians in crosswalk; consider adjusting pedestrian signal indication to display automatically instead of accessibility; reduce pedestrian long pedestrian crossing distances; large corner radii; by request; consider adjusting pedestrian signal indication to provide a Leading crossing distances; reduce vehi- curb ramps and pedestrian signal out of ADA compliance. Pedestrian Interval. cle turning speeds. H W 3rd St from Maple St to Walnut Sidewalk gap along south side of W 3rd St between Ma- Fill sidewalk gaps along W 3rd St. Consider prioritizing sidewalk infill on south Designate space for people walk- City of Monticello Med St ple St and Walnut St. Opportunity for additional connec- side of the street between Maple St and Walnut St. Explore feasibility of providing ing that is physically separated tivity and pedestrian realm improvements. planted boulevard, pedestrian lighting, and intersection treatments such as curb from vehicle traffic extensions. W Broadway St and Otter Creek High traffic speeds and volumes; existing beacon uses Upgrade existing pedestrian beacon with to RRFB or other higher visibility pedes- Increase pedestrian visibility; Wright County Med Rd slow flashing amber signal often overlooked by motorists; trian flashing beacon; minimize corner turning radii; consider replacing eastbound slower traffic speeds; reduce long pedestrian crossing; driver behavior and yielding bypass lane with dedicated left and through lanes and providing a pedestrian pedestrian crossing distance compliance. Opportunity for more highly visible pedestri- safety island at existing crosswalk; seek opportunities to reduce number and an signal. width of travel lanes to minimize dual threat risk to pedestrians and encourage slower traffic speeds. Consider staffing with adult crossing guards during school arrival and dismissal. J Western driveway / bus loop Long pedestrian crossing at schools western driveway; Reduce width and turning radius of school driveway and install high visibility Reduce pedestrian crossing Wright County Med entrance on W Broadway St large turning radius for vehicular traffic. crosswalk markings. distance; reduce vehicle turning speeds. Monticello School District K W Broadway St and Willow St High traffic speeds and volumes; no designated pedestri- Install enhanced pedestrian crossing including a pedestrian flashing beacon and/ Increase pedestrian visibility; Wright County Med an crossing at primary school access point. or geometric changes such as curb extensions or a safety island. Coordinate with slow traffic speeds; reduce sidewalk installation on W Broadway St as part of J. Consider prioritizing crossing pedestrian crossing distance; enhancements at either Willow St or Otter Creek Rd. Consider staffing with adult designate additional, more direct crossing guards. pedestrian crossing opportunity. INFRASTRUCTURE 29 MEEPiiXF Opportunity Corridor Opportunity Bicycle ParkingNorth c FARMSTEAD DR ,�\ STONERIDGE DR — _ ` Z LL Lu I !' �.��. _ Q?fQ MEADOW OAI AVE !' Z - 1 SCHOOL BLVD - I � • i` � `�' • ` _ SON * .. MARTIN DR w. Y ORIOLE 9liF c A + FALCON AVE STARLING aR . O LLI 2 R1AR OAKES 6� tiv Z _ Lu Av ,S4AD AVE re s � F v 1 Little Mountain Elementary, Monticello High, and Lastview Education Center Infrastructure Recommendations LOCATION PROBLEM/ISSUE POTENTIAL SOLUTION/RECOMMENDATION ANTICIPATED OUTCOME LEAD PRIORITY A Fallon Ave NE High traffic speeds and volumes, especially during school arrival and dismissal; no Provide sidewalk or shared use path facility on east side of Fallon Ave Designate space for people walking and City of Monticello High pedestrian or bike connection on Fallon Ave NE north of School Blvd; no pedestri- NE south of School Blvd. Evaluate feasibility and need for a sidewalk biking that is physically separated from an or bike connection on east side Fallon Ave NE south of School Blvd. or shared use path facility between School Blvd and Stoneridge Dr. vehicle traffic; reduce need for students to cross Fallon Ave to access existing path on west side. B School Blvd between Fallon Ave High traffic speeds and volumes, especially during school arrival and dismissal; Install a shared use path on the south side of School Blvd between Designate space for people walking that City of Monticello High NE and Fenning Ave existing marked crossings are wide; long distances between marked crossings; no Cardinal Hills Park and Fenning Ave to provide better access to is physically separated from vehicle traffic; trail on south side of School Blvd east of Cardinal Hills Park; pedestrian crossings dedicated crossing; evaluate pedestrian crossing needs and identify increase pedestrian safety and comfort; are not ADA compliant. locations for marked and enhanced pedestrian crossings such as curb more predictable pedestrian crossing Provide shared use path along Fenning Ave. Evaluate whether it is extensions, safety islands, flashing beacons, and other treatments; behavior. Crossing at Cardinal Hills Park: Opportunity for longer-term, more permanent solu- consider walkability and streetscaping enhancements including appropriate to include a connection on one or both sides with con- tion to interim crossing treatment. landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting, and traffic calming; bring Crossing at Elder Ln: Visibility issues due to high traffic volumes and congestion at intersections and marked crossings into ADA compliance. Coordinate increase pedestrian safety and comfort. school driveway during arrival and dismissal; no landing on south side of School crossing improvements with installation of a dedicated path along the Blvd. south side of School Blvd and with J. Midblock crossing between Elder Ln and Pelican Ln: Most direct route to pedes- trian desire line between School Blvd and Falcon Ave; existing ramp is not ADA compliant and does not connect to crosswalk, receiving ramp, or pedestrian facility on south side of School Blvd. Crossing at Pelican Ln: No pedestrian facilities or landing on south side of School Blvd; poor site lines especially around southwest corner. C Fenning Ave High traffic speeds and volumes; no pedestrian or bicycle facilities south of School Provide shared use path along Fenning Ave. Evaluate whether it is Designate space for people walking that Wright County High Blvd/Jason Ave NE; long pedestrian crossing distances; long distances between appropriate to include a connection on one or both sides with con- is physically separated from vehicle traffic; pedestrian crossing locations; visibility south of School Blvd due to topography. sideration for existing conditions and future development and traffic increase pedestrian safety and comfort. City of Monticello patterns; consider pedestrian realm elements such as landscaped boulevards and pedestrian lighting in coordination with sidewalk or path implementation. Consider improvements with transfer to Wright County ownership and upcoming road design and construction. Coor- dinate with B, D, and I. D Fallon Ave NE and School Blvd High traffic volumes during school arrival and dismissal; long crossing distance; Reduce turning radii and/or install curb extensions; additional pe- Increase pedestrian visibility; reduced pe- City of Monticello High key crossing location for students who live south and/or west of campus; poor destrian lighting on northwest and northeast corners; consider solar destrian crossing distances; increase stop stopping/yielding behavior by motorists. flashing LED stop signs to increase STOP sign visibility and driver compliance by motorists. compliance. Consider providing a marked crossing on the east side of the intersection in coordination with B. E School Blvd/Jason Ave NE and High traffic volumes; long pedestrian crossing distances; inconsistent ADA com- Reduce turning radii; upgrade pedestrian ramps; evaluate feasibility of Reduce pedestrian crossing distances; Wright County High Fenning Ave pliance; poor motorist yield/stop compliance; no pedestrian landing on southwest reducing the number/width of travel lanes, in particular Fenning Ave reduce vehicle turning speeds; increase corner; no marked crossing on west or south sides; opportunity for improved north of School Blvd; consider curb extensions and/or safety islands motorist yield/stop compliance. City of Monticello lighting. in coordination with changes to the number/width of travel lanes to reduce and/or break up pedestrian crossing distances; consider addi- tional marked crossings and lighting. Consider intersection improve- ments with transfer of ownership to Wright County. Explore improve- ments during 2020 design. Coordinate with B and C. F Future development sites Opportunity for additional pedestrian connections in coordination with future Integrate pedestrian and bicycle routes and facilities into future devel- Plan for and accommodate future walking City of Monticello High development. opment. Consider connectivity of the street network, opportunities to and biking needs. secure easements and/or provide pedestrian shortcuts where streets Coordinate do not connect, presence of dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facili- with future ties, and crossing treatments. development INFRASTRUCTURE 31 LOCATION PROBLEM/ISSUE POTENTIAL SOLUTION/RECOMMENDATION ANTICIPATED OUTCOME LEAD PRIORITY G Penning Ave and Meadow Oak No marked or accessible pedestrian crossing of Penning Ave at Meadow Modify the roundabout at Penning Ave and Meadow Oak Ave to pro- Increase pedestrian comfort and Wright County Med Ave Oak Ave roundabout to connect to multifamily housing east of Penning vide a designated pedestrian crossing across Penning Ave. Consider safety; increase route options for Ave. crosswalk markings, signage, and/or flashing beacons. Coordinate students east of Penning Ave. with planned roadway work on Penning Ave north of School Blvd. H Monticello High northern access Most direct route to destinations along Chelsea Rd W. High traffic volumes Provide a sidewalk or shared use path along the school driveway Designate pedestrian route along Monticello School Med road to Chelsea Rd W during school arrival and dismissal; narrow roadway without pedestrian between Monticello High School and Chelsea Rd. If space allows, school driveway that is physically District accommodations; poor visibility due to roadway geometry and lack of include a boulevard or other separation from vehicle traffic and pe- separated from vehicle traffic; City of Monticello lighting. destrian lighting. Coordinate with F. increase pedestrian safety and comfort. Chelsea Rd W No direct and continuous pedestrian connection between Monticello High Construct a sidewalk or shared use path alongz the south side of Designate walking and biking City of Monticello Med School and after-school destinations/employers along the south side of Chelsea Rd to provide more direct access to Fleet Farm and other route that is physically separated Chelsea Rd. Opportunity to provide dedicated pedestrian facility on the destinations; include a boulevard and pedestrian lighting with side- from vehicle traffic; reduce need south side of the roadway for improved accessibility. walk/path implementation; minimize the number, width, and turning for people to cross Chelsea Rd; radii of commercial driveways and other access points. increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety and comfort. i Pedestrian desire line between Pedestrian desire line between School Blvd and paved pedestrian path Install a shared use path between School Blvd and Falcon Ave in the Increase route options for pe- City of Monticello Low School Blvd and Falcon Ave that aligns with Widgeon Ln between Falcon Ave and Starling Drive. Op- easement in line with the existing shared use path between Falcon destrians; reduce route distance portunity to formalize route with paved pathway. Implement in coordination Ave and Widgeon Ln. Consider feasibility of pedestrian scale or bol- between neighborhood and with crossing improvements at School Blvd and/or pedestrian facilities lard -style lighting to improve pathway visibility. Consider in coordina- School Blvd; formalize existing along the south side of School Blvd. tion with pedestrian crossing evaluation as part of B. pedestrian desire line. K Eastern parking lot of Eastview No clear pedestrian route between Penning Ave and Eastivew Education Provide a clearly delineated and marked pedestrian route from Fen- Designate pedestrian route Monticello School Low Education Center Center main entrance. ning Ave to the main entrance of Eastview Education Center. Consider through parking lot; increase District aligning with Meadow Oak Ave in coordination with L. Creating a safe, predictability of pedestrian intuitive, and direct route may require changes to vehicular circulation. movements. L Developing area between Monti- Opportunity for additional pedestrian connections to commercial destina- Seek opportunities to provide more direct north/south pedestrian Increase pedestrian connections City of Monticello Low cello High and Chelsea Rd W tions and student employers in coordination with future development. connections between Monticello High School and Chelsea Rd in to existing and future destina- coordination with future development. tions. M Monticello High athletic fields Opportunity for additional pedestrian connections to School Blvd, Penning Explore opportunities to provide paved pedestrian routes through Increase pedestrian route Monticello School Low Ave, and Chelsea Rd. Monticello High School's athletic fields that serve pedestrian desire options and connectivity to adja- District lines without interfering with use of athletic facilities. cent roadways and paths. 32 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA This page intentionally left blank. 101a UMI ior"ra N�N v ; L �r 04 HOW TO GET INVOLVED .I Using this Plan At the heart of every successful Safe Routes to School comprehensive program is o coordinated effort by parent volunteers, school staff, local agency staff, low enforcement, public health, and community advocates. This plan provides an overview of Safe Routes to School with specific recommendations for a 6 E's approach to improve the safety and the health and wellness of students. The specific recommendations in this plan are intended to support improvements and programs over the next five years. These recommen- dations include both long- and short-term infrastruc- ture improvements as well as programmatic recom- mendations. It should be noted that not all of these projects and programs need to be implemented right away to improve the environment for walking and bicycling to school. The recommended projects and programs listed in this plan should be reviewed as part of the overall and ongoing Safe Routes to School strategy. Some projects will require more time, support, and funding than others. It is important to achieve short- er -term successes while laying the groundwork for progress toward some of the larger and more complex projects. MN SRTS Resource Center .................................. There are many great resources already available on the Minnesota Safe Routes to School Resource Center. You can find answers to many common questions, infor- mation about upcoming events, and even promotional material that can easily be cus- tomized for your community's SRTS event. The MN SRTS Resource Center is a great way to stay engaged throughout the year! mnsaferoutestoschool.org 7100TH COZH :8 2 1 i q M01 WWI 0�i-' 7 WHO ARE YOU? Successful programs are achieved through the co- ordinated efforts of parent volunteers, school staff, local agency staff, law enforcement, and community advocates, such as public health. Each partner has a key role to play in contributing to a plan's success. The following paragraphs highlight the unique contribu- tions of key partners in Safe Routes to School. I AM A PARENT Parents can use this report to understand the condi- tions at their children's school and to become familiar with the ways an SRTS program can work to make walking and bicycling safer. Concerned parents or city residents have a very important role in the Safe Routes to School process. Parent groups, both formal and informal, have the ability and the responsibility to help implement many of the educational and encourage- ment programs suggested in this plan. Parent groups can also be key to ongoing success by helping to fundraise for smaller projects and programs. I AM A COMMUNITY MEMBER Community residents, even if they don't currently have children enrolled in school, can play an important role in supporting implementation of the plan. They can use this report to better understand where there may be opportunities to participate in programming initia- tives and infrastructure improvements. Community members, including seniors or retirees who may have more flexible schedules than parents with school -aged 36 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA children, may volunteer in established programs or work with school staff or community partners to start new programs recommended in this plan. I WORK FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT School district staff can use this report to prioritize improvements identified on District property and develop programs that educate and encourage stu- dents and parents to seek alternatives to single family commutes to school. District officials are perhaps the most stable of the stakeholders for a Safe Routes to School program and are in the best position to keep the program active over time. District staff can work with multiple schools, sharing information and bringing efficiencies to pro- grams at each school working on Safe Routes. I AM A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR School administrators have an important role in implementing the recommendations contained within this SRTS plan. For a plan to succeed, the impetus for change and improvement must be supported by the leadership of the school. School administrators can help with making policy and procedural changes to projects that are within school grounds and by distributing informational materials to parents within school publications. Please read the SRTS Facts for School Communication in Appendix B. I AM A TEACHER OR OTHER STAFF MEMBER Other than parents, teachers might interact with students the most. Teachers can include bicycle and pedestrian safety in lesson plans (see Walk! Bike! Fun!). Sharing books in your classroom that promote walking and biking is a good way to get kids interest- ed at an early age. Teachers can also arrange for field trips within walking distance of school and incorporate informal lessons about safety along the way. In gener- al, being positive and encouraging about walking and biking is a great way to start! I WORK FOR THE CITY OR COUNTY City and County staff can use this report to identify citywide issues and opportunities related to walking and bicycling and to prioritize infrastructure improve- ments. City staff can also use this report to support Safe Routes to School funding and support opportuni- ties such as: • MnDOT SRTS grants • Federal SRTS grants • Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) For all infrastructure recommendations, a traffic study and more detailed engineering may be necessary to evaluate project feasibility. Additional public out- reach should be conducted before final design and construction. For recommendations within the public right-of-way, the responsible agency will determine how (and if) to incorporate suggestions into local improvement plans and prioritize funding to best meet the needs of each school community. I WORK FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Police department staff can use this report to under- stand issues related to walking and bicycling to school and to plan for and prioritize enforcement activities that may make it easier and safer for students to walk and bike to school. The Police Department will be instrumental to the success of the enforcement programs and policies recommended in this plan. The Police Department will also have a key role in working with school administrations in providing officers and assistance to some of the proposed education and encouragement programs. I WORK IN PUBLIC HEALTH Public health staff can use this report to identify specif- ic opportunities to collaborate with schools and local governments to support safety improvements and encourage healthy behaviors in school children and their families. Final Thoughts This process brought together local stakeholders with a shared vision for students traveling to school by foot and by bicycle. The information and recommendations in this plan are merely a starting point. Though implementing them may seem overwhelming, the important thing to remember is that anything you can do to make it safer and more comfortable for walking and biking in Monticello, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction. Here are some things to remember: THINK ABOUT EQUITY Some students and families experience more barriers than others to walking and biking to school. When thinking about improvements and programs, make sure to consider this and prioritize investments and resources to give the most vulnerable students a safe and comfortable walk and roll to school. TALK ABOUT SRTS A lot of people don't know about SRTS. And that's okay! Continue talking about it and telling people why it's important. There are talking points in Appendix B for reference. CELEBRATE SUCCESS When a staff, parent, student, or community member takes a positive step towards more walking and biking to school, recognize them for it! This encourages others to do the same while giving the person a pat on the back. PARTNER WITH EXISTING ACTIVITIES Don't feel like you have to do it alone! There are many great community events that relate to walking and biking in Monticello. These are great opportunities to promote SRTS without organizing an event of your own. CONTINUE TO EVALUATE Evaluation is the best way to understand the impacts of your efforts. Talking to parents and community members about new improvements, activities, and programs will tell you if you should stay the course or change direction. CONTINUE MEETING AS A SRTS TEAM One of the best ways to continue momentum is meet as a team — even twice a year would be a way to check in with others and learn of successes. Sharing stories inspires others to do good and allows for col- laboration and teamwork. 7100TACOZH:8 2Iiq M01WWI 0�k] M1NNESpTP fAtsslkfE ROVES w�j 10 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN, JUNE 2019 MONTICELLO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT APPENDICES Monticello, MN �y� •L'., 01,of N SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN, JUNE 2019 MONTICELLO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT APPENDICES Monticello, MN This page intentionally left blank. 42 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Appendix A. For More Information This appendix provides contact information for local, state, and national SRTS program resources as well as school partners. NATIONAL RESOURCES Safe Routes to School Data Collection System htte://www.saferoutesdata.ora/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center htte://www.iDedbikeinfo.com/ National Center for Safe Routes to School htte://www.saferoutesinfo.orci/ Safe Routes to School Policy Guide htte://www.saferoutesiDartnershiiD.ora/sites/default/ files/Ddf/Local_Policv_Guide_2011.Ddf School District Policy Workbook Tool httD://www.chancielabsolutions.ora/safe-routes/wel- come Safe Routes to School National Partnership State Network Project htte://www.saferoutesr)artnershir).ora/state/network Bike Train Planning Guide httr):Hquide.saferoutesinfo.orq/walkinq_school_bus/ bicvcle_trains.cfm 10 Tips for SRTS Programs and Liability httD:HaDDs.saferoutesinfo.orq/trainina/walking_ school_bus/liabilitvtiiDsheet.edf Tactical Urbanism and Safe Routes to School httD://www.saferoutesr)artnershir).orq/resources/fact- sheet/tactical-urbanism-and-safe-routes-school STATE RESOURCES Dave Cowan, Minnesota SRTS Coordinator 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 651-366-4180 dave.cowan@state.mn.us Kelly Corbin, Safe Routes to School Planner 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 507-286-7590 Kellv.Corbin@state.mn.us MnDOT SRTS Educational Webinars: htte://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/traininq/ Dlannina/index.html MnDOT Safe Routes to School Resource Website htte://www.mnsaferoutestoschooI.orci Minnesota Safe Routes to School Facebook page httDs://www.facebook.com/MinnesotaSafeRoutesto- School Walk!Bike!Fun! Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Curriculum httD://www.bikemn.ora/education/walk-bike-fun School Siting and School Site Design htte://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/r)lanninq/ school_sitina.html LOCAL RESOURCES Gabe Hackett Principal, Little Mountain Elementary aabe.hackett@monticello.k12.mn.us Anna Bohanan Wright County Health Promotion Coordinator Anna.Bohanon@co.wriaht.mn.us Angela Schumann Community Development Director Angela.Schumannffci.monticello.mn.us 099:10101141V 43 Appendix B. SRTS Facts for School Communication The following facts and statistics have been collected from national sources. They are intended to be submitted for use in individual school newsletters, emails, or other communication with parents and the broader school community. Except where otherwise noted, the following are based on research summarized by the National Center for Safe Routes to School. More information, including primary sources, can be found at httD:Hquide.saferoutesinfo.ora. TRAFFIC: COSTS, CONGESTION, AND SAFETY • In 1969, half of all US schoolchildren walked or biked to school; by 2009, that number had dropped to just 13 percent. • In the United States, 31 percent of children in grades K-8 live within one mile of school; 38 percent of these children walk or bike to school. You can travel one mile in about 20 minutes by foot or six minutes by bicycle. • In 2009, school travel by private family vehicle for students in grades K through 12 accounted for 10 to 14 percent of all automobile trips made during the morning peak travel and two to three percent of the total annual trips made by family vehicle in the United States. Among parents who drove their children to school, approximately 40 percent returned home immediately after dropping their children at school. If more children walked or bicycled to school, it would reduce the number of cars near the school at pick-up and drop-off times, making it safer for walkers and bicyclists through reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality. Over the past few decades, many school districts have moved away from smaller, centrally located schools and have instead built schools on the edge of communities where land costs are lower and acreage has been more available. As a result, the percentage of students in grades K through 8 who live less than one mile from school has declined from 41 percent in 1969 to 31 percent in 2009. Personal vehicles taking students to school accounted for 10 to 14 percent of all personal vehicle trips made during the morning peak commute times. Walking, bicycling, and carpooling to school reduces the numbers of cars dropping students off, reducing traffic safety conflicts with other students and creates a positive cycle—as the community sees more people walking and biking, more people feel comfortable walking and bicycling. • Conservatively assuming that five percent of today's school busing costs are for hazard busing, making it safe for those children to walk or bicycle instead could save approximately $1 billion per year in busing costs. • In 2009, American families drove 30 billion miles and made 6.5 billion vehicle trips to take their children to and from schools, representing 10-14 percent of traffic on the road during the morning commute. • Reducing the miles parents drive to school byjust one percent would reduce 300 million miles of vehicle travel and save an estimated $50 million in fuel costs each year. Did you know that as more people bicycle and walk, biking and walking crash rates decrease? This is also known as the `safety in numbers' principle. As more families walk and bike to school, streets and school zones become safer for everyone. 44 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEALTH: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND OBESITY • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that children do one hour or more of physical activity each day. Walking just one mile each way to and from school would meet two-thirds of this goal. Studies have found that children who get regular physical activity benefit from healthy hearts, lungs, bones, and muscles; reduced risk of developing obesity and chronic diseases; and reduced feelings of depression and anxiety. Teachers also report that students who walk or bike to school arrive at school alert and "ready to learn." • Researchers have found that people who start to include walking and biking at part of everyday life (such as the school commute trip) are more successful at sticking with their increased physical activity in the long term than people whojoin a gym. One recent study showed that children who joined a "walking school bus" ended up getting more physical activity than their peers. In fact, 65 percent of obese students who participated in the walking program were no longer obese at the end of the school year. Childhood obesity has increased among children ages six to 11 from four percent in 1969 to 19.6 percent in 2007 Now 23 million children and teens—nearly one-third of all young people in the U.S.—are overweight or obese. • The 2010 Shape of the Nation report from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education found that, nationwide, less than one-third of all children ages six to 17 participate in physical activity for at least 20 minutes that made the child sweat and breathe hard. • Children aren't exercising enough and 78 percent of children aren't getting the 30 to 60 minutes a day of regular exercise plus 20 minutes of more vigorous exercise that doctors recommend. Children are increasingly overweight. Twenty percent of children and 33 percent of teens are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. This is a 50 percent to 100 percent increase from 10 years ago. According to a Spanish study of 1,700 boys and girls aged between 13 and 18 years, cognitive performance of adolescent girls who walk to school is better than that of girls who travel by bus or car. Moreover, cognitive performance is also better in girls who take more than 15 minutes than in those who live closer and have a shorter walk to school. • One hundred calories can power a cyclist for three miles, but it would only power a car 280 feet. If you have a bowl of oatmeal with banana and milk for breakfast, you could bike more than nine miles. How far is the trip to school from your house? • A 2004 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that, for every hour people spend in their cars, they are six percent more likely to be obese. • Because of the health benefits, the cost of walking is actually negative. • Childhood obesity rates have more than tripled in the past 30 years, while the number of children walking and biking to school has declined. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, 13 percent of students between the ages of five and 14 walked or biked to or from school, compared to 48 percent in 1969. 0a9a.u1[41:617 ENVIRONMENT: AIR QUALITY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESOURCE USE Did you know? When you walk, bike, or carpool, you're reducing auto emissions near schools. Students and adults with asthma are particularly sensitive to poor air quality. Approximately 5 million students in the U.S. suffer from asthma, and nearly 13 million school days per year are lost due to asthma -related illnesses. • Did you know that modern cars don't need to idle? In fact, idling near schools exposes children and vehicle occupants to air pollution (including particulates and noxious emissions), wastes fuel and money, and increases unnecessary wear and tear on car engines. If you are waiting in your car for your child, please don't idle — you'll be doing your part to keep young lungs healthy! • Families that walk two miles a day instead of driving will, in one year, prevent 730 pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. • The United States moved into the 21st century with less than 30 percent of its original oil supply remaining. • Americans drive more than 2 trillion vehicle miles per year. • Short motor -vehicle trips contribute significant amounts of air pollution because they typically occur while an engine's pollution control system is cold and ineffective. Thus, shifting 1 percent of short automobile trips to walking or biking decreases emissions by 2 to 4 percent. • There is more pollution inside a stationary car on a congested road than outside on the pavement. • The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Automobiles and light-duty trucks account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the transportation sector. Emissions have steadily grown since 1990. • In a year, a typical North American car will add close to five tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Cars account for an estimated 15 percent to 25 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. • Transportation is the largest single source of air pollution in the United States. In 2006 it created over half of the carbon monoxide, over a third of the nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons in our atmosphere. • Disposal of used motor oil sends more oil into the water each year than even the largest tanker spill. • Going by bus instead of car cuts nitrogen oxide pollution by 25 percent, carbon monoxide by 80 percent and hydrocarbons by 90 percent per passenger mile. • Eight bicycles can be parked in the space required forjust one car. 46 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Appendix C. Summary of Planning Process The following is a brief summary of the planning process completed for the formation of this plan. The timeline below accompanies the narrative. Project kick off Rapid Planning Session scheduling & workshop Data collection - parent surveys (if needed) Data collection -School Environment and Policy Assessment Data collection -student travel hand tallies (O needed) Data collection -School Zone Hazard Observation Community engagement (in person and interactive) Draft Strategies and Action Steps Action Plans Draft Plans Final Plans Planning for this SRTS plan began in the summer of 2018, after Monticello Public School District successful- ly applied for and was awarded a planning assistance grant from MnDOT. On September 19, 2018, consultant staff met in Monticello with team leaders - local SRTS team members who identified themselves as the core group. An informal training was given to the team lead- ers on the background and principles of SRTS. Over the next few months of 2018, Monticello schools conducted four early evaluation and data collection efforts to gather baseline information about walking and biking in the community. First, the five Monticello schools sent a link to an online survey to parents that asked them about how comfortable they were with their children walking and biking to school. In addition, the survey asked the distance from school families live, whether they feel like their school promotes biking and walking, and what changes would make them feel more confident about allowing their children to walk or bike. In addition to the surveys sent home to parents, students were asked by school staff about their travel patterns to and from school. This student tally col- lected data on travel to and from school during three weekdays in the fall. Both the student tally and parent survey were designed by the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Results from both were uploaded to the Data Collection System, allowing for comparison when future surveys and tallies are completed. The results of these evaluation efforts are in Appendix F and G. To understand school and school district policies relat- ed to walking and biking, school principals were asked to complete a survey that asked questions about the physical and street environment surrounding school and arrival and dismissal procedures at school. Results of this survey can be found in Appendix H. Finally, the LE W W E local team conducted an observation of arrival and dismissal at each school to note hazardous behav- ior by people using the streets near school. These results can be found in Appendix I. RAPID PLANNING SESSION In late fall of 2018, a broad group of stakehold- ers met for an intensive day -and -a -half -long meeting called a Rapid Planning Session. This charrette-style event brought together school, district, city and county staff, plus students, health professionals, and community members to discuss the challenges and opportunities for walking and biking to school in Monticello. Broadly, the Rapid Planning Session included the following: observing arrival and dismissal at each of the five schools; performing a walk assessment of the conditions surrounding each school; discussing current programs that promote walking and biking at each school; meetings with students to hear the chal- lenges they face while walking and biking in the community; and discussing current and planned road construction projects that might promote 0»:1►111111N1xo; 47 walking and biking in the community. The Rapid Planning Session provided an opportunity to talk about challenges and opportunities in Monticello and allowed stakeholders to witness those challenges first hand, and on site. The Rapid Planning Session also allowed local community members and professional staff to connect and create relationships that will serve as the founda- tion for a sustainable SRTS program in town. This meeting served as the basis for recommendations through the winter and spring of 2018-2019. WINTER - SPRING 2018/2019 Following the Rapid Planning Session, consultant staff processed the photographs, notes, and observations and created issue and opportunity maps that were later shared with local SRTS team members. These maps summa- rized the areas of concern that were observed during the Rapid Planning Session in order come to a consensus before moving forward to recommendations to improve the streets. Following feedback from the local team, consultant staff drafted recommendations for infrastructure improve- ments and programs. These recommendations were shared with the local team in Spring 2019. After feedback from the local team, the recommendations were finalized and included in the main body of this document. 48 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Appendix D. Existing Conditions The following is a brief summary of the existing conditions in the area of each of the five schools. MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL, LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMNTARY, EASTVIEW Surrounding Land Use The superblock containing the High School, Little Mountain, and Eastview Education Center are across town from Pinewood and the Middle School on the south side of Interstate 94. The properties of all three schools lie adjacent to each other. Surrounding the superblock is a mixture of low density residential to the west and south of the schools, a higher density apartment complex to the east across Fenning Avenue, and industrial land uses to the north. School Enrollment Boundary (from the Minnesota Department of Education) PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY Surrounding Land Use Pinewood Elementary is surrounded by low resi- dential and single family homes to the north and east of school, railroad tracks and a golf course to the south. and athletic fields to the west. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL Surrounding Land Use Low density residential and single family homes are located to the west of the Middle School. To the south are athletic facilities, a railroad track and wooded areas. To the east is more wooded land and industrial land uses. Across Broadway to the north is the Centra - Care clinic and Mississippi River. 0a9:10I0]N7X. 11:1 The following travel pattern and parent survey summaries highlight results from an in class travel tally and a parent survey from fall 2018. The full results of each are in Appendix F and G. CURRENT TRAVEL PATTERNS In the fall of 2018, over 20,000 student trips were counted at the five schools. On three midweek days, students from all grades were asked how they traveled to and from school. These 20,716 trips represent each response. That is, individual students were counted up to six times during those three days (morning response day one, af- ternoon response day one, morning response day two, afternoon response day two, morning response day three, afternoon response day three). Appendix G gives details of these results. Generally, Little Mountain students reported walking most often. Students attending the Middle School reported biking to and from school the most. Pinewood students reported riding the school bus most frequently, while high school students reported riding the school bus the least. Unsurprisingly, high school students reported riding in or driving a family vehicle the most frequently (along with carpooling). Students reported drop off and pick up in a family vehicle at the lowest frequency at Pinewood. PARENT SURVEY SUMMARY Four hundred and forty parent and caregiver responses were collected from a survey sent home to Monticello families in the fall of 2018. The survey asked parents and caregivers about their feelings towards walking and biking to the five schools. At all schools, the vast majority of parents and caregivers reported their children either riding the school bus or getting dropped off or picked up in a family vehicle. In general, parents most often stated that distance, the safety of intersections and crossings, and the speed of vehicles influenced their willingness to allow their children to walk or bike to school. 50 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST -INVOLVED CRASHES The maps below show crashes involving people walking or biking within one mile of each of the five schools between 2006 and 2015. The school campuses are marked by the purple icons. Crashes shown as a larger, dark red circle (K) resulted in a fatality. Crashes shown as a pink circle (A) resulted in an incapacitating injury. Crashes shown as a gray circle (those categorized as N, C, or B by MnDOT) are those that resulted in non -incapacitating injury, no injury, or property damage only. These maps do not show unreported crashes or near misses. Lagena r lmw.w„d oWn rwA rrapw. � � Mmucwlln Meal• lli W la! ma,hn flnln MowlNn MYnfM �riNns � � Md�do� • Monlipelb fligh Se .l Dim hd. rnNl • � • �.r. E.arww ].Ar Po.I.suhn� r�tK< Ne.• a • Appendix E. Student Residences The maps on the following pages show the locations of students attending each of the five schools in the 2018- 2019 school year. The top map shows the county and portions of neighboring counties. The lower map shows the area immediately surrounding school. Warmer colors represent a higher density of student residences. Cooler colors represent a lower density. The purple icon shows the location of the school. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL Monticello Middle School Students High �* —i ■ Low 1 p . • pop • 52 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY Pinewood Students Hfgh Low 1# r 1 • . � a `toll) • .r rl LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY Legend + Cs Little Mountain Students High Low IF Ip 0 AW r 54 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA '.111111111111111"le EASTVIEW EDUCATION CENTER Legend i Eastview Students ! High �! ■ + 1 Low r moAV IN SO rwren r, r � APPENDICES 55 MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL Legend Monticello Nigh School Students High Low up • F5 ,, 0 56 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA [� 7 i 56 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA [� 7 Appendix F. Parent/Caregiver Survey The following shows a summary of results of a survey sent home to parents and caregiver of children attending four schools in Monticello (Eastview families did not receive the survey). The graphics and charts summarize re- sponses to questions designed by the National Safe Routes to School Data Collection System. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Monticello Middle School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 1300 Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don't Know Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0 SetID:17873 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 142 This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Sex of children for parents that provided information ■ Male IF Female 57 ,4u- 30— IJ 4u- 30— IJ 4- 20— V L C6 01 Grade levels of children represented in survey 4 5 6 7 Grade T 8 9 Grade levels of children represented in survey 58 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 7 Responses per grade Grade in School Number Percent 4 2 1% 5 2 1% 6 55 39 7 41 29% 8 38 27% 9 3 2% 12 1 1% 58 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 7 r U- 60- 50 L 40— L*. 30— LJ L Q6 20 as Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school < 114 mile 114 to 112 mile 112 to 1 mile 1 to 2 miles > 2 miles Distance between Hoine and School Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Distance between Number of children Percent home and school Less than 1/4 mile 6 4% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1 1% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 6% 1 mile up to 2 miles 34 24% More than 2 miles 92 65% Don't know or No response: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. U a 9:10 101 Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Morning 138 4% 2% 54% 35% 5% 0% 0% Afternoon 141 6% 2% 73% 17% 1% 0% 0% No Response Morning: 4 No Response Afternoon: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 60 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Number School Family Time of Trip Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other of Trios Bus Vehicle Morning 138 4% 2% 54% 35% 5% 0% 0% Afternoon 141 6% 2% 73% 17% 1% 0% 0% No Response Morning: 4 No Response Afternoon: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 60 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school ■ Morning ■ Afternoon Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school School Arrival Don't know or No response: 5 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. School Departure Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Bus Vehicle Distance Less than 1/4 mile 6 50% 17% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 25% 13% 50% 0% 13% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 33 0% 3% 67% 30% 0% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 89 0% 0% 53% 40% 7% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 5 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. School Departure Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding 62 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Bus Vehicle Distance Less than 1/4 mile 6 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 25% 13% 63% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 33 3% 3% 79% 15% 0% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 92 0% 0% 78% 20% 2% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding 62 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school I 1 1/2 to 1 mile 1 to 2 miles Distance between Home and School 0 I > 2 miles Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school Asked Permission? Number of Children Less than 1/4 mile Yes 54 83% No 83 17 Don't know or No response: 5 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 1/4 mile iUU so - 80— ai 70- 0- up to 1/2 up to 1 60-O 60- 0 50— bW r_ mile V 40- L 86% C6 27% 100% 30- 00-. 44% 20 .. ....... 0-0— 10- 0— < < 1/4 mile I 1 1/2 to 1 mile 1 to 2 miles Distance between Home and School 0 I > 2 miles Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school Asked Permission? Number of Children Less than 1/4 mile Yes 54 83% No 83 17 Don't know or No response: 5 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 1/4 mile 1/2 mile More 1 mile up up to 1/2 up to 1 than 2 to 2 miles mile mile miles 0% 86% 56% 27% 100% 14% 44% 73% Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school Convenience of Driving Adults to Bike/ Walk With grossing Guards — Violence or Crime — Child's Participation in After School Programs_ Time Sidewalks or Pathways Weather or climate Safety of Intersections and Crossings Speed of Traffic Along Route Amount of Traffic Along Route Distance Percent of Responses Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Convenience of Driving Adults to Bike/Walk With Crossing Guards Violence or Crime Child's Participation in After School Programs Time Sidewalks or Pathways Weather or climate Safety of Intersections and Crossings Speed of Traffic Along Route Amount of Traffic Along Route Distance 64 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA IIIIIII 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 81 Percent of Responses Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Issue Distance Amount of Traffic Along Route Speed of Traffic Along Route Safety of Intersections and Crossings Weather or climate Sidewalks or Pathways Time Child does not walk/bike to school Child walks/bikes to school 83% 57% 75% 57% 67% 71% 64% 71% 52% 57% 49% 57% 32% 29% Child's Participation in After School 29% 14% Programs Violence or Crime 25% 29% Crossing Guards 22% 29% Adults to Bike/Walk With 21% 0% Convenience of Driving 13% 29% Number of Respondents per Category 106 7 No response: 29 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically. Ua9:10l.]141:6 4 i Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school 7 Discourages 1 , Strongly Encourages Encourages Strongly Discourages Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child ti 66 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ' , Boring 2 , Very Boring Very Fun Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child 0 , Unhealthy I , Very Unhealthy filthy 0a 9:10 101 SurveylD I Comments Section Comment 1621201 The middle school is further away from our home than the HS. More than likely bikes will be used in the spring and fall once attending that school. 1621177 Multiple times, my children have been threatened by cars not watching while they are in crosswalks, either walking or on their bikes. Not enough has been done two light intersections and place flashing lights at crosswalks when children are crossing. Speed limits in other towns on streets where schools are do not have multiple speeds i e when children are present or not present. I suggest this is a single slower speed to prevent any disasters from happening with our children. I would even suggest that a police officer or Sheriff be present at the intersection of Fallon and school Boulevard near Pioneer Park to even observe cars that do not come to a complete stop while children are crossing. When it is dark, it is imperative that cars be aware of students behind trees or crossing on their bikes, and at this point many children are threatened. 1 child has even been hit buy a car at this intersection and luckily survived the impact of being hit by a car, which was driven by another student. 1620847 1 don't like that my 6th grader is forced to walk to school because the bus won't pick her up. Out world isn't safe and it puts her in jepordy. I don't have the option to pick her up and drop her off daily. I don't think it's right. But i love the school district otherwise. 1620853 The city needs to provide a safer cross walk on Broadway. With four lanes of traffic, every kid that crosses is in danger of cars hitting them. Add darkness and or rain and that risk only goes up. 1620855 There are no safe pathways for my child to bike to school at present, If this changed, I would consider biking with my child to school in nice weather. 1620856 If there were adequate bike paths and lights/crossings I would consider it. County Road 50 is 55+ MPH with no sidewalks and County Road 11 and Hwy 25 are busy crossings. 1620867 We live out of district and the only way to get there is via State hwy 25 during rush hour traffic -there is not sidewalk or path for a large portion of the way. It's about 4 miles which, depending upon weather would be do able if not such a busy road 1620876 1 am very disturbed that the school here doesn't insist that kids who bike to school wear bike helmets! I was quite shocked to see kids biking without helmets on school property. I think there are organizations that would provide helmets to school kids for free. Bike helmets aren't much encouraged in this area, which is very different from other areas of the U.S. and MN where I have lived. I have heard people say things like "bike helmets are for people in rich suburbs", and our are "stronger and tougher" than city kids, so they don't need helmets- which is ridiculous! I strongly believe all kids who bike to school should have helmets. Imagine the serious issues if a child biking to or from school had an accident and a head injury on school property, and was not wearing a helmet. Yikes! Medical, plus massive legal issues! As part of your safety grant and campaign, I think all kids who bike to school should have a short safety session about crossing, helmets, traffic awareness, weather (when it turns to ice and snow), brakes/ mechanical, dangers of double riding, where and how to lock up, etc-- just like the bus safety sessions. Helmets save lives-- it's not just a "fashion statement" for people living in "the city". We adults have to set the tone and expectation moving forward-- just like seatbelts and carseats. You could even start an after school "Bike club" and ride to parks and other destinations around town during early fall, and late spring. There are many ways to make this fun, and safe! 1620909 Honestly I don't think I'd let my child walk/bike home unless less we lived closer. It's only a possibility when she's older. Probably 16+ 68 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 1620844 1 would LOVE it if my daughter could bike to school, especially for summer sports camps, but 39 is deadly and I can't for the life of me figure out why they won't put in a bike path. 1620846 We open enroll -are in Big Lake. While I wouldn't let my children walk or bike due to the distance, I would love to see a school bus route in Big Lake -specifically near Eagle Lake Road if possible as there are several of us in this area that drive to Monticello. 1620851 We live out of district and transport our kids in. But if we lived in the area I'd appreciate safe walking/biking options. 1620861 My student would not walk or bike to school because of the distance. When he enters high school, I would expect him to walk again because bussing is not provided. 1620883 This year my son takes the bus. Next year he will be at the High School. We are within walking distance of the high school but people do not stop for people in the crosswalks along School Blvd. I think it's by the grace of God that nobody has been hit and killed or seriously injured. 1620892 The intersection of Washington and Broadway is a terrible hazard. The city should strongly consider building a stop light (or 4 way stop) at that intersection. Many students cross Broadway there and sadly lots of drivers fly down Broadway going 50+MPH. 1620904 When my son went to the elementary school less than a block away, they made him take the bus as there is no crosswalk from my neighborhood to allow safe access 1620913 Question 10 was confusing, unsure if I answered correctly 1620922 Crossing intersections is very dangerous in Monticello. Countless times, even at stop signs and stop lights, I have witnessed drivers not allowing walkers/bikers to cross. Pedestrians have to be overly watchful and on guard every time they try to cross or they will be hit. The intersections, especially near the schools, should have a flashing over -the -road light to get the drivers attention that someone will be crossing. It's the only safe option. 1620924 Walking is not an option from our home location due to busy roads. However, it would be appreciated if our bus stop was not the first in and last off resulting in almost 2 hours spent on the bus each day. 1620925 Walking is not an option from our home location due to busy roads. However, it would be appreciated if our bus stop was not the first in and last off resulting in almost 2 hours spent on the bus each day. 1620934 dropping off children in vehicles is dangerous and even driving passed those locations when not dropping off a child at that time is dangerous. I live where the construction is so I have no choice but drive where the school drop off is when heading to work. 1620938 My kids would love to bike to school if there would be a safe biking path along County Road 39. 1620939 Parent drop off in the "triangle" pattern by the arena is an accident waiting to happen. Parents do not know (or care?) where to go or what the "pattern" is. Especially exiting the lot. Washington street seems sketchy for kids to be walking and needs "something" especially along 4th where there are uncontrolled intersections. The kids just ride bikes and walk wherever they want in the street. Broadway is busy and there aren't even school slow down signs in front of the school that I've noticed. 1620955 The winter dark hours in the morning and afternoon factor in greatly to kids walking and biking. More lighting crossing streets would help. Especially near school (Broadway). Ua9:1010]N1:6 41] 1620963 Due to our location, walking/biking is not an option for my son. I do feel like the bus ride is much too lengthy though. The morning route is about an hour, which is acceptable, but the afternoon route is 1.5 hours and is much too long! 1620971 The parking lot is to scary to let kids run through! The parking lot and side walks need attendants. I work in another district and none of their schools including middle and high school have a free range parking lot. Someone is going to get hurt! A lot of high school student are dropping siblings off at the middle school and that doesn't help the chaos. 1620973 Most days my son gets a ride from a parent to school, however in the fall and spring (when the weather is nice) he does ride his bike and/or roller blade to and from school. 1620980 My children generally ride the bus due to distance. There are a few times that I've needed to drive School Blvd before school and I was horrified at the mess. Kids are lined up too close to the road before the patrols arrive. I've seen drivers who are are uncertain whether to stop. Some drivers stop and try to wave kids through, while other drivers speed through the crosswalks. The drivers who are too impatient and uncaring to slow down are the worst. The kids seem to understand that they are to wait for the patrols but their body language is confusing to all drivers. Is there some way to have them wait a little further away from the crosswalks to reduce confusion? It is unfortunate that the city planners planned a fast moving multi lane freeway between the developments and the schools. Hopefully things will improve when Chelsea is up and running again. I am very glad that the 40 mile per hour signs are gone. 30 miles per hour is fast enough at all times on this road. 1621021 My child walks because busing isn't an option where we live. Walking has been a tremendous concern for me due to the construction currently going on in our intersection. There is NO safe place for her to cross the streets, and has been yelled at by the workers. She is left to navigate the everchanging construction on a daily basis making the best choices that she can on how to get to school and home everyday. I hope there will be safer options once it is done. 1621040 There has been a long history of vehicles not stopping for the bus when the stop arm is out and the red lights are flashing when my son is picked up and dropped off. I would like to see cameras on busses to capture this and report / ticket the people doing this. 1621061 We live out of the district so my student will never walk, bike or ride a bus. 1621075 The crossing guards for elementary are nice, however cardinal hills is in need of a sidewalk for kids to walk instead of in the street. The streets are narrow and cars are parked on the streets and it's dangerous for the kiddos walking to the crosswalk. Also the intersection to cross school blvd off of pelican(which many high schoolers use) is extremely dangerous. Hardly any cars stop at the crosswalk. There should be lights or a more noticeable crosswalk there. I live in the area and I've even kids almost get hit there way too many times and I'm fed up and angry that more isn't being done! 1621093 We live off county road 37 so this survey doesn't really fit us. Sorry for any confusion 1621101 Survey is not designed to capture data regarding children who require special education transportation, so several questions are left unanswered. Please update this survey to be inclusive of the needs of all children. 1623192 Until there are changes (safe sidewalks) to county road 11/bridge, my child will not be walking or biking to school. The road is too busy and speeds are high. I rarely walk on this road for these reasons. 1621244 I'd love for my kids to walk to school. a) no sidewalks b) horrible distracted drivers looking at their cell phones rather than up at road/pedestrians c) one of the schools is more than three miles from my house. 70 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 1621252 Im not comfortable with walking to school at this time because of environmental factors. The concerns of the community with human trafficking and the overall lack of awareness my child has in making sure her surroundings are safe affect my decision at this time. 1621262 The problem I have is that they complain of getting to school so late in the morning they have barely any time to get to their locker and class in time. Hence why they want to walk. However with the distance we have to the middle school I am not comfortable with that. The situation apparently is even worse with the students in this neighborhood or whoever ride the bus that goes through this neighborhood that go to the highschool. My 10th grader and 9th grader leave the house and walk because they will get there faster than the bus. And they say they are never listened to about the issue they have. 1621979 1 think my children have always spent too much time on the bus to and from school, this is why I drive them in at least one way each day. The time that they are expected to be picked up by the bus in the morning has ranged from 6:20 - 6:30 over the years. School starts more than an hour later. School lets out at 2:29 and they are home around 3:30. It has been this way since elementary school .... 45 min -1 hr plus each way on the bus. Also a concern is parents not following the drop off rules and causing unsafe situations for students and difficult drop off situations for those of us who are following the rules. For example instead of following the flow of traffic at the front of the building parents are budging in line and dropping off in other locations forcing their students to cross through the flow of traffic to get to the sidewalk. Thank you for doing this work to make things better!! 1621282 Our neighborhood is disconnected from the path system. This is the biggest barrier. However, given the distance and traffic and the overpass, I'm not sure that I would ever feel safe allowing him bike to school alone. But the lack of path makes it impossible, even in an emergency situation. 1622009 This town is not easily accessible for children to be out and about biking or walking. Too many freaks around. It is not the same as when I was growing up. People don't want to help others if in danger like they used to. 1621337 The crosswalk at Washington and Broadway is pretty dangerous, in my opinion. My kids have to cross Broadway to get home and it's scary how many vehicles are on the road at the time school gets out. 1621387 1 think if we add sidewalks along Fallon to East 7th st it will be easier for kids that live by Pioneer Park to bike to and from school. The traffic along that route will also be lighter so it would pose a lesser risk to those kids as well. Thanks for taking the time to read this and have a great day! PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Pinewood Elementary School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 950 Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don't Know Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0 SetID:17875 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 57 This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Sex of children for parents that provided information 7 5'. ■ Male 72 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ❑ Female jU— Grade levels of children represented in survey 0 � I I Kindergarten 1 2 3 4 5 7 Grade Grade levels of children represented in survey 7 ►��a.u�ry��x3 Responses per grade Grade in School Number Percent Kindergarten 2 4% 1 12 21% 2 8 14% 3 10 18 4 13 23% 5 11 19 7 1 2% No response: 0 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 7 ►��a.u�ry��x3 bu- 70- 60 a� L 50- U 40- 30— C6 0 -30C6 20- LL*n Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school 0 — I < 1/4 mile 1/4 to 1/2 mile 1I2 to 1 mile 1 to.' miles > 2 miles Distance between Hoene and School Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Distance between Number of children Percent home and school Less than 1/4 mile 2 4% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1 2% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 3 6% 1 mile up to 2 miles 8 15% More than 2 miles 39 74% Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 74 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Time of Trip Number Walk Bike School Family Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 55 0% 2% 73% 24% 0% 0% 2% Afternoon 55 0% 2% 78% 18% 0% 0% 2% No Response Morning: 2 No Response Afternoon: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school ■ Morning = Afternoon 76 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school School Arrival Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding School Departure Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Bus Vehicle Carpool Transit Other Distance Distance Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Less than 1/4 mile 2 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 3 0% 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 8 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 39 0% 0% 64% 33% 0% 0% 3% Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding School Departure Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Bus Vehicle Distance Less than 1/4 mile 2 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 3 0% 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 8 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 39 0% 0% 74% 23% 0% 0% 3% Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school 1 u1 90- 80- r_ �+ f 0 — L h0 U 4- 0 O 50 r V 40 L GJ C6 30. 0. 10- 0— I i 1 < -1/4 mile U21 to 1 mile 1 to 2 miles > 2 miles Distance between Home and School Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school 78 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 1/4 mile 1/2 mile More Less than 1 mile up Asked Permission? Number of Children 1/4 mile up to 1/2 up to 1 to 2 miles than 2 mile mile miles Yes 13 50% 0% 67% 33% 21% No 38 50% 100% 33% 67% 79% Don't know or No response: 6 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 78 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school Child's Participation in After School Programs Convenience of Driving Violence or Crime Crossing Guards Adults to Bike Valk With Weather or climate Time Sidewalks or Pathways Amount of Traffic Along Route Safety of Intersections and Crossings Speed of Traffic Along Route Distance Percent of Responses I Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Child's Participation in After School Programs Convenience of Driving Violence or Crime Crossing Guards Adults to Bike/Walk With Weather or climate Time Sidewalks or Pathways Amount of Traffic Along Route Safety of Intersections and Crossings Speed of Traffic Along Route Distance -I 0 1111I1I11 10 20 00 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 Percent of Responses 099:1.101141:6 [-] Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Issue Distance Speed of Traffic Along Route Safety of Intersections and Crossings Amount of Traffic Along Route Sidewalks or Pathways Time Child does not walk/bike to school 83% 50% 48% 43% 39% 33% Child walks/bikes to school 50% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% Weather or climate 33% 50% Adults to Bike/Walk With 22% 50% Crossing Guards 20% 100% Violence or Crime 17% 0% Convenience of Driving 13% 0% Child's Participation in After School 13% 50% Programs Number of Respondents per Category 46 2 No response: 9 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically. 80 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school , Discourages 2 Strongly Discourage 2 , Strongly Encourages. Encoup age= Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child 2 , Boring -4 , Very Boring 3 , Very Fun MUMOMISM�-i Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child 82 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 0 , Unhealthy 2 , Very Unhealthy ly Comments Section SurveyID I Comment 1620749 Wasn't sure how to answer #11. We live too far from school for it to realistically be an option for an elementary student. 1620752 Our family bikes very regularly for recreation, but our kids only bike with adults (unless they are traveling within a block of our home). I feel that many of the intersections in town are not safe. Distracted drivers are unaware of pedestrians at cross walks. We avoid crossing Hwy 25 or Broadway, and the pedestrian cross -walks along Broadway (by Pinewood and the Middle School) are frequently ignored by drivers. We are huge advocates for more bike paths and safer routes for bikers and pedestrians! 1620753 1 don't trust drivers to watch out for walkers/bikers, especially on the road we live on. Over the course of last year, several cars either passed (went around) the school bus when the stop arm was out, or drove right through. If people aren't paying close enough attention to see a big yellow bus with flashing lights, how would they notice a small child on a bike or walking? 1620757 It takes an hour for my child to travel to school in the mornings, 1 hour in the afternoon. The bus driver (last year) was driving crazy per the children on the bus. So far this year no complaints. 1620778 Would not let my child walk to school. Too many pediphles nearby 1620783 We open enroll and it would not be beneficial for my child to be able to walk to and from school due to distance. We do pick up and drop off daily (either at a local bus stop or at the school itself). Our bus stop is about 40 minutes away from our school (including stops). 1620804 My children, grades 4&5 have biked to school with a parent, once they cross the busy intersection of broadway, they bike the last block on their own. They love it, I just don't feel comfortable with them crossing broadway on their own. I like the lights being in place, maybe an adult crossing guard would help! 1620815 We live in a development on the North Side of the river. The speed and amount of traffic on our roads is a concern, but the kids like the idea of independence biking would give them. Our kids only get to bike to school during late spring and summer. 1620840 We live on busy county rd. Would not feel safe due to traffic nor would I feel safe with abductions, or weather. 1620744 We live to far to walk or bike. To many busy roads and crazy drivers. 1620748 1 actually do walk up to his school to pick him up in the afternoons when the weather is nice from his grandmas that lives a mile and a half from the school. The paths are decent but to let him walk alone is still a no way. There are now too many creepers out there and I don't feel that elementary students for sure are mature enough to know how to handle themselves in those type of situations no matter how many conversations you have had with them. 1620795 It would take my son an hour to walk.. Im all for walking if we lived closer. Also I believe we have too many parents driving their kids ... not enough people using the buses 1620796 If we lived closer to the school, I would have no problems letting him walk or bike. Ua9:1010]Nl �:i�3 1620899 The middle school is much closer. I am hoping that when my first grader gets there, I can walk with him easily. When he was at EastView last year, was projected to take an hour on the bus one way when we live only a mile from that building. Too much time on the bus for that age group in my opinion. My daughter is at EastView now for 2 years and I will be driving her for that reason. 1621908 1 would let a kindergarten student ride bike with older(3rd/4th). Also depends on if adults will be home on departure/arrival 1621464 We love biking to school every day. Out of the almost 1,000 students in our schools - there are only a handful of bikes ... the most we have ever seen is 7 or 8. 84 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Little Mountain Elementary School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 640 Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don't Know Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0 SetID:17870 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 89 This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Sex of children for parents that provided information ■ Male ❑ Female zu 18 19 14 IJ 12 10 r ai g V L CL 6 Grade levels of children represented in survey Pref �indergarken 2 3 I 4 Grade 5 9 Grade levels of children represented in survey Responses per grade Grade in School Number Percent PreK 9 10% Kindergarten 10 11% 1 14 16% 2 17 19% 3 11 12% 4 14 16% 5 13 15% 9 1 1% No response: 0 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 86 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Ju - r_ 20— V L*. O r_ V L �y Q6 10— Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school 0ilia[ III 1 i -1 < 114 mile 114 to 112 mile 112 to 1 mile I to ' miles =} 2 miles Distance between Home and School Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Distance between Number of children Percent home and school Less than 1/4 mile 7 8% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 5 6% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 25 29% 1 mile up to 2 miles 25 29% More than 2 miles 24 28% Don't know or No response: 3 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. U a 9:10 101 Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Time of Trip Number Walk Bike School Family Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 87 2% 2% 41% 49% 3% 0% 1% Afternoon 87 7% 2% 48% 40% 1% 0% 1% No Response Morning: 2 No Response Afternoon: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 88 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Ln AL w 0 C a u IL I I I I '-7----7----1----1---- `-----1----1----J-I-----I--- LF R I I I �` I I I I I I F I I I I I I IW ++ I I I I I d I I I I IW I I I J — L N I S --1--- H I I I o ----L----1 I I I I I I IL I I I J I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school School Arrival Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding School Departure Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Bus Vehicle Distance Less than 1/4 mile 7 14% 0% 14% 71% 0% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 5 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 25 4% 8% 36% 48% 4% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 24 0% 0% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 24 0% 0% 42% 50% 8% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding School Departure Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 90 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Bus Vehicle Distance Less than 1/4 mile 7 14% 0% 14% 71% 0% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 5 20% 0% 20% 60% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 25 16% 8% 44% 32% 0% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 25 0% 0% 64% 36% 0% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 23 0% 0% 57% 39% 4% 0% 0% Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 90 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school 1UU 90- 80- r_ �J 10— L 60- U f 4- 0 50- 40— C6 0 -40— C6 30- 20— 10— 0 1 1 1 1 < 1/4 mile 1/4 to 1I2 mile V2, to 1 mile 1 to 2 miles > 2 miles Distance between Horne and School Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school UNMOOR]��s 1/4 mile 1/2 mile More Less than 1 mile up Asked Permission? Number of Children 1/4 mile up to 1/2 up to 1 to 2 miles than 2 mile mile miles Yes 35 57% 40% 72% 32% 17% No 48 43% 60% 28% 68% 83% Don't know or No response: 6 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. UNMOOR]��s Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school Child's Participation in After School Programs Convenience of Driving Crossing Guards Violence or Crime Adults to Bike Valk With Time Sidewalks or Pathways Weather or climate Safety of Intersections and Crossings Distance Amount of Traffic Along Route Speed of Traffic Along Route IIIIII 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent of Responses :ti Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Child's Participation in After School Programs Convenience of Driving Crossing Guards Violence or Crime Adults to Bike/Walk With Time Sidewalks or Pathways Weather or climate Safety of Intersections and Crossings Distance Amount of Traffic Along Route Speed of Traffic Along Route 92 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA IIIIIII 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 81 Percent of Responses Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school 099a0101141* Jcl Child does not walk/bike to Child walks/bikes to Issue school school Speed of Traffic Along Route 72% 40% Amount of Traffic Along Route 71% 40% Distance 69% 60% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 63% 80% Weather or climate 58% 60% Sidewalks or Pathways 38% 40% Time 28% 40% Adults to Bike/Walk With 28% 40% Violence or Crime 26% 40% Crossing Guards 17% 60% Convenience of Driving 15% 60% Child's Participation in After School 11% 20% Programs Number of Respondents per Category 65 5 No response: 19 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically. 099a0101141* Jcl Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school 2 Discourages I , Strongly Discourage 7 , Strongly Encourages X30. EFItnurages Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child lh- 94 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA -3 , Boring 3 , Very Boring 16 , Very Fun Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child 56 16 ,. Heal O-JC,ir.r _iI 0 , Unhealthy 0 , Very Unhealthy Comments Section SurveyID I Comment 1621209 Intersection of Fenning Ave and School Blvd/Jason Ave is not safe. People do not know how to use a 4 -way stop or look for bikers or pedestrians. Up on School Blvd at Pelican Ln and Elder Ln the crosswalks need the light up/flashing crosswalk signs. It is very hard to see the High School kids walking at 7:00am. I have been nearly rear ended because I have stopped for walkers and the driver behind me did not see them. As it gets darker (and when rainy) even with the street lights it is very difficult to see at those crossings. The increased traffic due to Chelsea being closed does not help either. I believe the flashing crossing signs would be very beneficial for the walkers and drivers alike. 1621214 1 firmly believe parents of children within walking distance should be offered a choice to bus their children- even if we have to pay for it. I will never allow my child to walk that far with all of the horrific crimes these days. 1620591 Our neighborhood is disconnected from the path system and the 45 -mile an hour road toward school is a hill and has no shoulder. I often see children and adults traveling on foot or bike along it and it's very unsafe. My kids always ask if they can ride their bikes for national bike to school day and I can never allow them, even though it's only a mile. 1620650 Thank You for looking out for our children SAFETY. 1620674 Even though my child walks to school I am very concerned every day with the amount of traffic and lack of safety measures. There needs to be some sort of light at the crosswalk. There are so many kids that cross the street outside of school hours for activites as well and some sort of light would help with that. 1620911 1 still am nervous every day my son bikes to school, but we have no other option. I would feel more confident if they added light crossings for pedestrians and bus pick ups and drop offs in the winter months. 1620475 Distance is the largest factor impacting walking or biking to school. 1620478 We live in the LME walking zone but as my child is in 1st grade we don't let him walk to school. For pickup he has to walk across the road to the park where we meet him with our car. He is too young to do it alone. This was also an issue last year when he went to EEC and was too far to walk (with a parent) yet still not considered in the bus zone. We wish there was a bus option for younger kids at EEC and LME, regardless of being in the walking zone, due to their young age and not always having older kids to walk with, and it being far enough away from the schools where the weather would be too cold for a walk in the winter. 1620484 1 worry about pedophiles, its too cold out, no time to walk with her. 1620513 If we lived closer I wouldn't mind if he walked/ biked to school. But from where we live he'd have to cross Hwy 25 and with the way people run yellow/red lights I don't feel it's safe for him to ride his bike to school. 1620587 The intersection between the Cardinal Hills neighborhood and School Blvd. is pretty dangerous. Very few cars stop for the kids to cross in the crosswalk. And other cars will go around cars who have stopped. There needs to be additional signage, or a temporary camera set up. 1620864 The start time of 9:00 makes it much safer for my LME student to walk to school. 96 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 1621716 1 allow my kids to bike with a friend at the end of their 5th grade year. If they can't find a friend, they may not bike. The middle school is too far from our home for them to arrive in a timely manner. I do allow biking or walking in high school, but again, it must be with a friend. Since we live in the bus route, they tend to choose the bus. 1621260 I've noticed that there are too many texting, inattentive, or speeding drivers in very close proximity to the schools. It is infuriating because I wish people would understand that it's not worth a child's life to make a quick message go through "now", or to make a permanent change to someone else's life because of trying to pass on the shoulder, or go faster. Hoping we can all figure out a solution for our school zones! 1621971 Children take special transportation due to medical reasons. I would not feel comfortable having my type 1 diabetic child walk to school in case of hypoglycemia or ketones, and without a trained adult. 1621984 1 would never allow a five year old to walk to school unless an adult was with 1620383 There is no sidewalk on Fenning Ave to walk over hill. 1620392 We live in hillside farms neighborhood, which houses a large amount of LME families. The path along fenning ave not being completed forces our children to have to ride the bus despite being so close to school. The road is traveled often and is dangerous to walk with no walking path. Please consider grant funding to complete the path along fenning to school blvd. 1620399 My child drives a bus due to our living 5+ miles from school. Our road is busy and we have many close calls every year with traffic not stopping for the bus stop arm. Crossing the road is especially dangerous due to the amount of distracted driving the number of drivers exceeding the 55mph speed limit on this stretch of road. Weve repeadetly asked the bus company to alter their routes so children do not have to cross a 55mph road. If we live within a mile of school I would still not allow my children to walk or bike to school due to the distracted driving on the streets near the schools and the increase in the number of suspicious individuals in the area lately 1621338 We live a mile from the school and if she were to ride the bus, it would take an hour one way. I don't feel that this is appropriate for a 4/5 year old. We make it work with Magic Adventures for timing and my work schedule. It would be fun to bike/walk to school with her at times, but 39 by our house is very scary as a pedestrian/bicyclist. 1620426 We live in Big Lake so non -vehicle transportation is a tough sell 1620437 Drivers need to slow down and be more caution during arrival and dismissal. 1620438 Our neighborhood needs a safe path leading to other paths to school. 1621388 My child is preschool half day so I have to drive her. 1620451 We live in the middle of know where on a country road. We don't have a snowballs chance in hell of our kid EVER riding his bike or walking to school. One of the many things we scarfice to live where we do. 1620455 The difficult part of my child walking is the busy nature of the four-way stops (specifically the one at the bottom of "Monti Hill") and the roundabout (difficult to cross). MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Monticello Senior High School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 1300 Range of Students Involved in SRTS: Don't Know Number of Questionnaires Distributed: 0 SetID:17874 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: Number of Questionnaires Analyzed for Report: 152 This report contains information from parents about their children's trip to and from school. The report also reflects parents' perceptions regarding whether walking and bicycling to school is appropriate for their child. The data used in this report were collected using the Survey about Walking and Biking to School for Parents form from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Sex of children for parents that provided information I ■ Male ® Female 98 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Grade levels of children represented in survey ,+u— a 30— L U 20- V L C6 MI 0 5 6 7 8 L 10 Grade Grade levels of children represented in survey Responses per grade Grade in School Number Percent 5 4 3% 6 4 3% 7 2 1% 8 2 1% 9 36 24% 10 49 32% 11 28 18% 12 27 18% No response: 0 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 01-1- L1- 50- 50- 40— U 40— U 00— 66 a� L 20- 10- Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school 0 I i < 1/4 mile 1/4 to 1/2 mile 1I2 to 1 mile 1 to 2 miles > 2 miles Distance between Hoene and School Parent estimate of distance from child's home to school Distance between Number of children Percent home and school Less than 1/4 mile 4 3% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 5 3% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 14 9% 1 mile up to 2 miles 47 31% More than 2 miles 80 53% Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 100 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Typical mode of arrival at and departure from school Time of Trip Number Walk Bike School Family Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 149 0.7% 0.7% 34% 58% 6% 0% 1% Afternoon 151 3% 0.7% 37% 53% 5% 0% 1% No Response Morning: 3 No Response Afternoon: 1 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Ua9:10I0]N7:6iIII Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school ■ Morning ■ Afternoon 102 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Typical mode of school arrival and departure by distance child lives from school School Arrival Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding School Departure Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Bus Vehicle Distance Less than 1/4 mile 4 25% 0% 25% 25% 25% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 5 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 13 0% 0% 15% 62% 23% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 46 0% 2% 37% 59% 2% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 80 0% 0% 38% 56% 5% 0% 1% Don't know or No response: 4 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding School Departure Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Ua9a.u1[41:6 1013 Number School Family Distance within Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other Bus Vehicle Distance Less than 1/4 mile 4 25% 0% 25% 50% 0% 0% 0% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 5 20% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 0% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 14 0% 0% 14% 64% 21% 0% 0% 1 mile up to 2 miles 47 4% 2% 45% 45% 4% 0% 0% More than 2 miles 80 0% 0% 40% 55% 4% 0% 1% Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Ua9a.u1[41:6 1013 Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school iuu go- o- 80- 80 - 70 70 L 60 IJ O 50 V 40 L Q6 30 a------ --- 10- 0— i i 1 1 < 1/4 mile 1/4 to II2 mile V21 to 1 mile 1 to 2 miles > 2 miles Distance between Home and School Percent of children who have asked for permission to walk or bike to/from school by distance they live from school 104 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 1/4 mile 1/2 mile More Less than 1 mile up Asked Permission? Number of Children 1/4 mile up to 1/2 up to 1 to 2 miles than 2 mile mile miles Yes 37 25% 40% 43% 36% 14% No 113 75% 60% 57% 64% 86% Don't know or No response: 2 Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 104 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Issues reported to affect the decision to not allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who do not walk or bike to/from school Adults to BikelVVaIk With Crossing Guards Violence or Crime Convenience of Driving Child's Participation in After School Programs Sidewalks or Pathways Time Safety of Intersections and Crossings Weather or climate Speed of Traffic Along Route Amount of Traffic Along Route Distance 1 1 I 0 10 20 30 410 510 61 1 0 70 8( Percent of Responses Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school Adults to Bike/Walk With Crossing Guards Violence or Crime Convenience of Driving Child's Participation in After School Programs Sidewalks or Pathways Time Safety of Intersections and Crossings Weather or climate Speed of Traffic Along Route Amount of Traffic Along Route Distance 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Responses Ua9a.u1[ya.�[6iA Issues reported to affect the decision to allow a child to walk or bike to/from school by parents of children who already walk or bike to/from school 106 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Child does not walk/bike to Child walks/bikes to Issue school school Distance 72% 50% Amount of Traffic Along Route 59% 100% Speed of Traffic Along Route 58% 100% Weather or climate 57% 100% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 48% 50% Time 33% 50% Sidewalks or Pathways 32% 50% Child's Participation in After School 29% 50% Programs Convenience of Driving 27% 50% Violence or Crime 25% 50% Crossing Guards 9% 50% Adults to Bike/Walk With 8% 50% Number of Respondents per Category 111 2 No response: 39 Note: --Factors are listed from most to least influential for the 'Child does not walk/bike to school' group. --Each column may sum to > 100% because respondent could select more than issue --The calculation used to determine the percentage for each issue is based on the 'Number of Respondents per Category' within the respective columns (Child does not walk/bike to school and Child walks/bikes to school.) If comparing percentages between the two columns, please pay particular attention to each column's number of respondents because the two numbers can differ dramatically. 106 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Parents' opinions about how much their child's school encourages or discourages walking and biking to/from school 1 Discourages 1 Strongly Encourages 0 , Strongly Discourage EncciArages Parents' opinions about how much fun walking and biking to/from school is for their child 3 , Very Boring 2 , Very Fun �!1 Ua9:1.u1[y:6�16YA Parents' opinions about how healthy walking and biking to/from school is for their child �6 , Health, 108 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 3 , Unhealthy I , Very Unhealthy v, y , ealL y Comments Section SurveylD I Comment 1623727 Morning traffic, sunrise/still dark and busy intersection is my biggest concerns. 1623868 We live over the river on the Big Lake side of the district. The traffic and major roads are a huge concern. With all the sex trafficking concerns right now, and with Monticello being on the route between St. Cloud and MPLS (two of the big trafficking hubs) walking is a significant concern. 1621466 We live out of the district so my son drives himself to and from school. 1621469 1 prefer my child not walk to school due to the danger of crossing during traffic. 1621475 Unable to provide accurate answers due to limited voice of yes, no, unsure; unable to type in answers from my phone. 1621489 Cty. Rd 39 has had several deaths due to inattentive driving and speed. 1621500 Biking/walking is a great option and encourages exercise. I would like to see clear bike paths and well lit sidewalks and crosswalks for all users. Safety of course is always the biggest concern. 1621503 No change for us, my kids will bus in from Otsego 1621509 Currently, I will not be comfortable with my son walking in freezing weather. The middle school was too far or walking and too risky as far as getting hit by a vehicle. 1621515 My child lives 7 miles from school so I would walking is not an option. 1621517 Need better lighting and some type of notification that there is a pedestrian present at crosswalk, especially early mornings when it is dark, raining or snowing. In some cases it is hard to see someone waiting to cross. Seen too many vehicles not stopping at crosswalk cause they cannot see person standing behind yellow polls in street. VERY scary at times. 1621518 Although we allow our boys to walk home from school at times, it is for a special occasion and they must be with at least one other person, unless it is an unusual circumstance. 1621521 My daughter doesn't attend a school in the Monticello School District - PSEO 1621538 To be clear, I only allow my child to walk home from school with another friend, never alone, and only after school once or twice a week. I would not feel comfortable with her walking in the mornings, or every day. 1621541 We live in a wonderful safe residential area - Sleepy Hollow. However, County Road 14 after exiting Sleepy Hollow is dangerous for kids to bike, walk, run, etc. I never let my kids bike or walk on Cty Road 14. Sidewalks would be wonderful but probably cost prohibitive?? 1621570 This is the last of my 4 children in school. They have all walked home from school; however the 4 way stop sign by Eastviwe has always been a concern as everyone does not yield to pedestrians. 1621574 Coming from across the river and trying to get to high school is less than desirable and dangerous, especially when so many cars don't stop for those in cross walks. 1621612 Question 15 is stupid, no relevance! Uaaa0u3ry:6 rook] 1621632 We live outside of the district boundaries, so driving is our best option. 1621638 Most dangerous is inattentive drivers, and people running very poorly timed stoplights on Hwy 25. 1621655 Has license 1621656 1 would not allow my child to walk or bike to school ever, we live to far away from the High School. 1621667 2 miles is too far for walking, especially with so many books. I drive him because of the lack of safety and discipline on the bus. 1621669 1 don't think kids should have to walk or bike to school. I don't care how close you live from school. It is a safety issue. Also a weather concerned 1621685 For our children to walk or ride their bikes to school, they have to go through a neighbor on the other side of us to access walking/biking paths, which takes 15-20 minutes longer to get to school. We do not have a walking/biking path from our neighborhood to school, and the kids from our neighborhood would have to walk up and then down a hill with a tiny shoulder. The speed limit is 45 on this road with a tiny shoulder, so there is no way we would let our children walk to and from school using this road. 1621411 My child in survey does request to walk to a grandparents house that is closer after school. And I do allow. 1621830 the reason I bring my kids is because our bus stop location is awful. Also I will not have them walk 2 miles as it is too far. 1621765 We live too far away from school, so riding the bus or driving in is the only option for us. There is no walking or bike paths. 1621803 not enough room on bus to facilitate kids in neighborhood. need a bigger bus or 2 to accommodate load. sitting 3 to a seat is dangerous and unacceptable. HWY 25 and school blvd should have walk bridges over it @ points to allow for safe travel. 1621970 Please put stops signs by high school parking lot intersection for safety of walkers, bikers and student drivers! 1621985 Not feasible.. we live 15 miles away with no bike or walking paths 1621987 1 only allowed my child to walk if they had friends to walk with so they were not alone. 1621994 Would love to see sidewalks from our neighborhood all along county rd 14 to Hwy 25 1622013 1 feel monticello does a great job of providing crossing guards, adult supervision, cones and awareness for the safety of the children walking and biking to and from school. If we lived closer I would allow my children to walk or bike. The busyness of the road we live on, distance and after school activities doesn't allow this an option for us. 1622017 1 worry about the white vans and my child being taken. No matter his age. 1622024 We live over 5 miles from school, so I felt these questions really didn't apply to my school age children (past and present) 1621412 Too many scares of violence. This area has become bad- between car break ins, home invasions, child molesters -1/2 mile down, human trafficking- NOT ENOUGH POLICE EVER 110 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 1621413 My daughter is open enrolled students biking, Walking doesn't work for her. 1621416 buses were taken away when my children were in elementary school -- one of them has since graduated. this was a huge inconvenience for us and our daycare provider because we live within a mile of the school. we moved there to be close to the schools, but it was a major disadvantage. buses should be added for all children unless you live 1/4 mile from school. 1/2 - 1 mile is too far for any age to walk in the cold winter unless they choose to. 1621423 Weather in MN is the only true concern, we have access to paths and the intersections have lights and stop signs. I do not feel that it is safe during cold winter months even when dressing for the weather for children to walk 2 miles one way to or from school. The potential for children to be hit by vehicles go up too due to icy conditions and reduced visibility. 1621428 We are out of district. Bus does come to the town but unreasonable times. PU is at 6:20am which requires to be at the bus stop at 6:10 ish which requires the kids to be up by 5:30am for what is a 17-20 minute car ride is over and hour bus ride. 1621433 My child lives too far away to walk to school. 1621439 1 feel that we live to far away from school to be walking/riding g bike. Plus in winter too cold. Plus he has a violin to carry too. 1621443 We live to far to walk/bike. In the winter it would be to cold. 1621453 my child would have to bike/walk on County Road 39 and that road is way too dangerous to allow child to be on. she took a long way around on a bike/walking path. it was in a wood area and near by neighborhood. 1621463 A sidewalk should be put in to allow for safe travel on Fenning Ave (aka "Monti Hill") from the Hillside Farm neighborhood to the intersection of Fenning Ave and School Blvd. The hill doesn't allow for drivers to see bikers, walkers, or runners near the peak of the hill. There isn't an adequate shoulder for travel either on this road. This is a dangerous road that children are currently on and it is an accident waiting to happen. Some vehicles travel at high speeds on this road as well. I have not allowed my child to travel on this road other than by motor vehicle. APPENDICES 111 Appendix G. Student Hand Tally The following pages show summaries of a hand tally of student transportation behavior at each of the five schools. In the fall of 2018, students at each school were asked how they traveled to and from school on a number of mid- week school days. This report is a direct export from the National Safe Routes to School Data Collection System, which processed the tallies and generated this report. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Monticello Middle School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 1500 % of Students reached by SRTS activities: Number of Classrooms Included in Report: 53 SetID:27680 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school. The data used in this report were collected using the in -class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison 112 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Number Walk Bike School Family Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 2964 1% 4% 63% 29% 2% 0% 0.2% Afternoon 2832 3% 3% 62% 29% 3% 0.1% 0.2% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 112 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day ■ Morning Afternoon n_taaa.u1[ya. &F -I Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day Number of Walk Bike School Bus Family Carpool Transit Other Trips Vehicle Tuesday AM 1015 2% 9% 60% 27% 2% 0% 0.3% Tuesday PM 941 3% 5% 60% 29% 3% 0% 0.3% Wednesday AM 1053 1% 1% 64% 31% 3% 0% 0.2% Wednesday PM 1033 2% 2% 62% 29% 4% 0.2% 0.2% Thursday AM 896 2% 2% 66% 28% 2% 0% 0.2% Thursday PM 858 3% 2% 64% 29% 2% 0% 0.2% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. n_taaa.u1[ya. &F -I 5 20 '10 Sunnv Travel Mode by Weather Conditions Rainy overcast 4—i— -A—:— S n over Travel Mode by Weather Condition 0 ■ wall, Bike ❑ School6us ■ Family Vehicle Carpool ■ Transit ■ Other Weather NumberI School Family I Walk I Bike I I I Carpool I Transit I Other Condition of Trips Bus Vehicle Sunny 1754 2% 2% 65% 29% 2% 0% 0.2% Rainy 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Overcast 4042 2% 4% 62% 29% 3% 0.0% 0.2% Snow 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% + 0% I Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 114 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Pinewood Elementary School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 900 % of Students reached by SRTS activities: Number of Classrooms Included in Report: 37 SetID:27681 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school. The data used in this report were collected using the in -class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Number School Family Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 2615 2% 0.6% 72% 24% 2% 0.0% 0.6% Afternoon 2646 3% 0.5% 76% 19% 0.8% 0% 0.8% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Ua9:10I0]N1:6i 11-1 Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day ■ Morning Afternoon Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding 116 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I Number of Trips Walk I Bike I School Bus I I Family Vehicle Carpool I Transit I Other I Tuesday AM 877 2% 0.8% 74% 21% 1% 0.1% 0.6% Tuesday PM 875 2% 0.7% 76% 19% 1% 0% 0.8% Wednesday AM 872 2% 0.3% 71% 25% 2% 0% 0.3% Wednesday PM 878 2% 0.3% 78% 18% 0.6% 0% 0.7% Thursday AM 866 2% 0.7% 70% 24% 2% 0% 0.8% Thursday PM 893 4% 0.6% 73% 20% 0.9% 0% 1% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding 116 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 0 60 CL 30 lu Sunny Travel Mode by Weather Conditions Rainy Overcast Snow? Travel Mode by Weather Condition ■ wall, ® Bike ❑ School6us ■ Family Vehicle ■ Carpool ■ Transit ■ Other WeatherI Number School Family I Walk I Bike I I I Carpool I Transit I Other Condition of Trips Bus Vehicle Sunny 1759 3% 0.6% 72% 22% 2% 0% 0.9% Rainy 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Overcast 3502 2% 0.5% 75% 21% 1% 0.0% 0.6% Snow 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Uaaa0u3cy:6� `rd LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Little Mountain Elementary School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 640 % of Students reached by SRTS activities: Number of Classrooms Included in Report: 24 SetlD:27562 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school. The data used in this report were collected using the in -class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 118 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Family INumberI Walk I Bike I I I Carpool I Transit I Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 1843 5% 3% 57% 34% 0.5% 0% 0.5% Afternoon 1827 8% 3% 59% 29% 0.8% 0% 0.5% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 118 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day ■ Morning Afternoon Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Ua9:10I0]N7Xci11:1 Number of Family I I Walk I Bike School Bus I I I arpool I Transit I Other Trips Vehicle Tuesday AM 600 6% 3% 57% 33% 0.7% 0% 0.5% Tuesday PM 593 8% 3% 57% 31% 1% 0% 0.5% Wednesday AM 625 5% 3% 57% 34% 0.3% 0% 0.6% Wednesday PM 617 8% 3% 62% 26% 0.6% 0% 0.6% Thursday AM 618 5% 3% 57% 34% 0.6% 0% 0.5% Thursday PM 617 8% 3% 59% 29% 0.6% 0% 0.5% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Ua9:10I0]N7Xci11:1 0 CL O L CL. 5C G-1 Travel Mode by Weather Conditions Sunny Rainy Overcast Snow E Wall, 0 Bike ❑ School Bus 0 Family Vehicle 0 Carpool Transit Bike Other I Travel Mode by Weather Condition Weather NumberI School Family I Walk I Bike I I I Carpool I Transit I Other Condition of Trips Bus Vehicle Sunny 1235 7% 3% 58% 32% 0.6% 0% 0.5% Rainy 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Overcast 2435 7% 3% 58% 31% 0.7% 0% 0.6% Snow 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 120 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA EASTVIEW EDUCATION CENTER Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Early Childhood Special Education School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 320 % of Students reached by SRTS activities: Number of Classrooms Included in Report: 14 SetlD:27132 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school. The data used in this report were collected using the in -class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Number Walk Bike School Family Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 836 0.4% 0.7% 67% 32% 0% 0% 0% Afternoon 828 0.5% 0.70% 720% 27% 0% 0% 0% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 0a9:10I0]N1:6i PA I Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day ■ Morning Afternoon Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 122 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA I Number of Trips Walk I Bike I School Bus I I Family Vehicle Carpool I Transit I Other I Tuesday AM 280 0.7% 0.7% 68% 30% 0% 0% 0% Tuesday PM 276 0.4% 0.7% 72% 26% 0% 0% 0% Wednesday AM 273 0% 0.7% 66% 33% 0% 0% 0% Wednesday PM 273 0.4% 0.7% 74% 25% 0% 0% 0% Thursday AM 283 0.4% 0.7% 66% 33% 0% 0% 0% Thursday PM 279 0.7% 0.7% 70% 29% 0% 0% 0% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 122 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA CL 60 30 lu 0 - Sunny Travel Mode by Weather Conditions Rainy CIvercast Snow Travel Mode by Weather Condition ■ wall, ® Bike ❑ School6us ■ Family Vehicle ® Carpool ■ Transit ■ Other WeatherI Number School Family I Walk I Bike I I I Carpool I Transit I Other Condition of Trips Bus Vehicle Sunny 562 0.5% 0.7% 68% 31% 0% 0% 0% Rainy 273 0% 0.7% 66% 33% 0% 0% 0% Overcast 829 0.5% 0.7% 71% 27% 0% 0% 0% Snow 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 124 MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL Student Travel Tally Report: One School in One Data Collection Period School Name: Monticello Senior High School School Group: Monticelllo Public Schools-SRTS School Enrollment: 0 % of Students reached by SRTS activities: Number of Classrooms Included in Report: 39 SetID:27686 Month and Year Collected: October 2018 Date Report Generated: 12/05/2018 Tags: This report contains information from your school's classrooms about students' trip to and from school. The data used in this report were collected using the in -class Student Travel Tally questionnaire from the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison Number School Family Walk Bike Carpool Transit Other of Trips Bus Vehicle Morning 2327 2% 1% 32% 52% 11% 0.0% 0.6% Afternoon 1998 5% 0.8% 30% 53% 11% 0.1% 0.9% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day ■ Morning Afternoon Ua9:1010]N7Xci` -1 Morning and Afternoon Travel Mode Comparison by Day Number of Walk Bike School Bus Family Carpool Transit Other Trips Vehicle Tuesday AM 819 3% 1% 32% 53% 11% 0% 0.7% Tuesday PM 673 5% 1% 28% 53% 11% 0% 1% Wednesday AM 743 2% 0.8% 33% 52% 11% 0% 1% Wednesday PM 627 4% 0.5% 30% 53% 11% 0% 1.0% Thursday AM 765 2% 1% 33% 53% 11% 0.1% 0.1% Thursday PM 698 5% 0.9% 31% 53% 10% 0.1% 0.3% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Ua9:1010]N7Xci` -1 su 0 CL 4.. O G.I U �I G.I f3� Sunny Travel Mode by Weather Conditions Rainy Overcast Snow Travel Mode by Weather Condition E wall, 0 Bike ❑ School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other WeatherI Number School Family I Walk I Bike I I I Carpool I Transit I Other Condition of Trips Bus Vehicle Sunny 1463 3% 1.0% 32% 53% 10% 0.1% 0.2% Rainy 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Overcast 2862 3% 0.9% 31% 53% 11% 0% 1% Snow 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 126 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA App. H. Environment &Policy Assessment O The following pages show responses to the MnDOT Environment and Policy Assessment tool. The questionnaire was completed by each of the five Monticello school principals in the fall of 2018. The survey asks about programs and policies that exist at each school related to walking and biking. It also asks about the condition and presence of infrastructure surrounding each school. Ua9:101PAFA Pinewood Little Mountain Eastview Education Monticello High Monticello Middle School Name Elementary Elementary Center School School students walking and 5225 School Blvd, 800 East Broadway Does your school have a written arrival 1010 W. Broadway No policy or limited No policy or limited Monticello, MN Monticello, MN School Address Monticello, MN 9350 Fallon Ave NE 9375 Ferning Ave. NE 55362 55362 Date Completed (D -M -Y) 11/7/2018 11/7/2018 11/7/2018 11/8/2018 11/8/2018 Enter the 9 -digit number associated with communications students walking and students walking and students walking and students walking and this school or 6 -digit number associated channels (e.g., school biking but does not biking but does not biking but does not biking but does not with a school district as listed on the website, email, flyers, address their unique address their unique address their unique address their unique MDE webpage. 0882-01-010 88201050 0882-01-061 0882-01-020 0882-01-030 Name of person filling out assessment Clay Norman Gabe Hackett Joe Dockendorf Mike Carr Matt Coalwell Phone Number (763)272-2402 (763)272-2601 (763)272-2801 (763)272-3001 (736)272-2102 lower speed limits only when students clay.norman@montic gabe.hackett@monti joe.dockendorf@mo Mike.carr@monticell matt.coalwell@monti Email Address ello.kl2.mn.us cello.kl2.mn.us nticello.kl2.mn.us o.kl2.mn.us cello.kl2.mn.us How does your school or district wellness Walking and biking Walking and biking Walking and biking policy address walking and biking? are not addressed are not addressed Not Applicable are not addressed Not Applicable How does your school or district transportation policy address walking Promotes walking Walking and biking Walking and biking and biking? and biking are not addressed Not Applicable are not addressed Not Applicable Does your school or district collaborate with local law enforcement on enforcing speed limits or other traffic laws in the schoolzone? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Does your school or district have a plan for evaluating Safe Routes to School efforts? Yes Yes No Yes Yes Does your school have or participate in walking and biking events or programs such as Walk to School Day or Walking School Buses? No Yes No No No Does your school have or participate in walking and biking skills and safety training or curriculum? No No No No No How many designated and separated points of entry (e.g., sidewalk, trail, or intersection connection) onto the school property are accessible to walkers or bikers? 3 or more 2 -Jan 2 -Jan 2 -Jan 3 or more Is the bus loading/unloading area separated from parent pick-up and drop- off? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ua9:101PAFA Yes, policy addresses needs and safety of students walking and Does your school have a written arrival biking, and it is No policy or limited No policy or limited No policy or limited No policy or limited and dismissal policy that addresses the communicated to policy that policy that policy that policy that needs and safety of students walking and parents via school's acknowledges acknowledges acknowledges acknowledges biking, such as providing staggered communications students walking and students walking and students walking and students walking and dismissal times or separated physical channels (e.g., school biking but does not biking but does not biking but does not biking but does not arrival/dismissal spaces for students website, email, flyers, address their unique address their unique address their unique address their unique walking and biking? etc.) needs and safety needs and safety needs and safety needs and safety What speed limits are posted within your school zone? Do not include signs that lower speed limits only when students All speed limits 30 Any speed limits 40 All speed limits 30 All speed limits 30 Combination of 30 are present. mph or less mph or more mph or less mph or less mph and 35 mph Ua9:101PAFA Are sidewalks and trails in your school zone maintained in safe condition in winter (e.g., cleared of snow and ice to allow students walking and biking to Pinewood Little Mountain Eastview Education Monticello High Monticello Middle safely navigate them)? Elementary Elementary Center School School Are there signs in your school zone that Acceptable (some (25 - lower the speed limit to less than 30 mph Good (few (< 25%) Good (few (< 25%) 50%) cracked, Good (few (< 25%) Good (few (< 25%) when students are present? No No No Not Applicable Yes Do the streets in your school zone have Yes, present missing sections) sections) Yes, present missing sections) sidewalks, paths, and/or protected throughout with no Yes, but gaps are Yes, but gaps are throughout with no Yes, but gaps are walkways? gaps present present gaps present Are sidewalks and trails in your school zone maintained in safe condition in winter (e.g., cleared of snow and ice to allow students walking and biking to Yes, all trails and Yes, all trails and Yes, all trails and safely navigate them)? sidewalks sidewalks Yes, in some areas sidewalks Yes, in some areas Acceptable (some (25 - What is the condition of the sidewalks in Good (few (< 25%) Good (few (< 25%) 50%) cracked, Good (few (< 25%) Good (few (< 25%) your school zone? (Best guesses are cracked, buckled, or cracked, buckled, or buckled or missing cracked, buckled, or cracked, buckled, or okay). missing sections) missing sections) sections) missing sections) missing sections) How clear of obstacles (garbage bins, signs, utility poles, overgrown plants, trees, etc.) are the sidewalks in your school zone? Few or no obstacles Few or no obstacles Few or no obstacles Few or no obstacles Few or no obstacles Do the streets in your school zone have Yes, present Yes, present dedicated bicycle lanes, trails, and/or off throughout with no throughout with no street paths? gaps No No No gaps Does your school have a designated walking route in the school zone? if yes, consider this route when answering the Yes, but it is not Yes, but it is not following questions promoted promoted No No No Yes, at some Yes, at some Are marked crosswalks present in your crossings (or within crossings (or within school zone? designated route) Yes, at all crossings Yes, at all crossings Yes, at all crossings designated route) Are pedestrian crossing signals or 'countdown' pedestrian crossing signals Yes, at some Yes, at some Yes, at some present at traffic signals in your school crossings (or within crossings (or within crossings (or within zone? designated route) No No designated route) designated route) Are adult crossing guards with safety Yes, at some vests and STOP paddles or flags present crossings (or within within the school zone? designated route) No No No No Yes, at some Yes, at some Is student school patrol present within crossings (or within crossings (or within the school zone? designated route) Yes, at all crossings No No designated route) Complete? Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete 128 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA App. I. School Zone Hazard Observation Tool O The following pages show results from the School Zone Hazard Observation Tool at each of the five schools in Monticello. The assessment was completed in the fall of 2018 and documents hazardous behaviors by people driving, walking, and biking in the area surrounding school. The assessment was done at each school, at multiple locations. MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Instructions: Use this tool for analysis after completing a School Zone Hazard Observation. Add up all the tally marks in each column of the School Zone Hazard Observational Assesment and enter the totals below in the blue cells. The white cells will automatically calculate the percentage of people engaging in each unsafe behavior by mode. If you observed multiple locations, do the analysis for each location separately. 0a9:10101N1XciP4:1 Not driving in Distracted designated Stopping Total Unsafe (e.g. using Does not space (e.g., outside of Behaviors Total Drivers phone, yield to Other: driving wrong designated Observed by texting, pedestrian eating, etc.) direction, in space Drivers bike lane, etc.) Number 4 2 0 04 10 Percentage (auto calculates) 36 11% 6% 0% 0% 11% Total Unsafe Wearing Unsafe Total Using Behaviors headphones crossing Other: Other: Pedestrians phone Observed by or earpiece behavior Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking in Total Unsafe Wearing designated Using Not wearing Behaviors Total Bicyclists headphones area or Other: phone helmet Observed by or earpiece correct side Bicyclists of road Number 0 0 0 0 00 Percentage (auto calculates) 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0a9:10101N1XciP4:1 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 33 4 0 0 38 Percentage (auto calculates) 118 1% 28% 3% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 If #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 130 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percentage (auto calculates) 7 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) ( 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 3 03 Percentage (auto calculates) 3 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0aaa.u1[ya.�lei i School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 3 0 0 0 Percentage (auto *Total calculates) 113 3% 0% 0% 0%0% Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 1 0 0 0 1 Percentage (auto calculates) ( 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 2 Percentage 70W (auto calculates) 7 0% 0% 0% 29% 132 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 11 Percentage (auto calculates) g 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 31 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0»:1101011411Xci[Cie] School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 0 0 0 0 1 Percentage (auto calculates) 36 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 134 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 2 14 0 0 0 16 Percentage (auto calculates) 15 13% 93% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 19 0 0 0 0 19 Percentage (auto calculates) 117 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 1 0 1 Percentage (auto calculates) 1 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% r_1»:11►10]N7:6iICA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total (e.g. using space (e.g., Stopping Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number Percentage (auto *Total calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number Percentage (autocalculates) *Total #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Wearing in Unsafe Total Using headphone designated Not Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 136 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Monticello Middle School SRTS School Hazard Observation Notes from 10/11/18 & 10/12/18 • People seem confused where to go • Speed • Homecoming on 10/12/18 • Hard to tell pedestrians and who is being picked up • 30 cars parks on Washington & 3rd at 2:20pm • Many kids don't press ped beacon • No crosswalk on SE side of intersection (Washington & 3rd) • Cars backed up on Washington to 4th and parked all along the streets • U-turns mid road • Some parents park in parking lot to pickup students • Some cars stop at state law sign to stop for peds • Students being picked up in middle of road (Washington st) • Drinking coffee while driving • Pets in lap while driving • Half -parked cars • Pedestrians are cautious crossing Broadway • Rolling stops • Stopping way after stop sign • Long crosswalk north to south (Broadway) • No crosswalk on north or west side • Sidewalk dips in on Broadway • People making own parking spots on north entrance • U-turns going west turning east • Speeds generally seem good • U-turns on Washington • People are very cautious crossing Broadway Ua9a.u1[ya.�KiA PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Instructions: Use this tool for analysis after completing a School Zone Hazard Observation. Add up all the tally marks in each column of the School Zone Hazard Observational Assesment and enter the totals below in the blue cells. The white cells will automatically calculate the percentage of people engaging in each unsafe behavior by mode. If you observed multiple locations, do the analysis for each location separately. 138 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Not driving in Distracted designated Stopping Total Unsafe (e.g. using Does not space (e.g., outside of Behaviors Total Drivers phone, yield to Other: driving wrong designated Observed by texting, pedestrian eating, etc.) direction, in space Drivers bike lane, etc.) Number 3 Percentage (auto calculates) 84 4% 0% 0% 0%Ali Total Unsafe Wearing Unsafe Total Using Behaviors headphones crossing Other: Other: Pedestrians phone Observed by or earpiece behavior Pedestrians Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking in Total Unsafe Wearing designated Using Not wearing Behaviors Total Bicyclists headphones area or Other: phone helmet Observed by or earpiece correct side Bicyclists of road Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 138 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 4 Percentage (auto J04 calculates) 117 3% 0% 0% 0% ota Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% IM Uaa:[010]N1:6 11 '7 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 2 80 Percentage (auto calculates) 95 2% 0% 0% 0% 8% Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 140 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 11 0 0 0 Percentage (autocalculates) *Total 121 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 00 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0aa4010]N1XciCS1 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 8 0 0 1 0 9 Percentage (auto calculates) 59 14% 0% 0% 2% 00o Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 7 0% 0% 0% 0%I Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number Percentage (auto calculates) 3 0% 0% 0% 0%70W 142 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Uaaa0u3ry:6 EEM School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 84 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 23 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) p If #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 144 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 20 0 0 0 0 20 Percentage (auto calculates) 67 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) p IF #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Uaaa0u3ry:6�«y Pinewood Elementary School SRTS School Hazard Observation Notes from 10/11/18 & 10/12/18 • Some backup leaving school at about 8:50am • No sidewalk on north side of 3rd. • Cars using parking lane to turn right on to 3rd • Outdated truncated dome • Rolling stops • Crossing sign • Speeds seem reasonable but some cars fast • 2 static crossing signs • Parent drop off signage and arrows • People not pulling forward in drop off • Kids getting out on drivers side in drop off zone (hazard with oncoming traffic from behind) • Speed • Crossing guards present at trail crossing • Concerns about cars passing in student drop-off area. • Crosswalk sign on Broadway is broken • Some parents park at legion and walk to school to pick up child • Crossing guard on duty at 3:25pm • Some parents pick up in legion parking lot • Walk/bikes across crosswalks • Some parents start to line up before 3pm 146 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY 4 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Instructions: Use this tool for analysis after completing a School Zone Hazard Observation. Add up all the tally marks in each column of the School Zone Hazard Observational Assesment and enter the totals below in the blue cells. The white cells will automatically calculate the percentage of people engaging in each unsafe behavior by mode. If you observed multiple locations, do the analysis for each location separately. 0a9a.u1[ya.�[fN Not driving in Distracted designated Stopping Total Unsafe (e.g. using Does not space (e.g., outside of Behaviors Total Drivers phone, yield to Other: driving wrong designated Observed by texting, pedestrian eating, etc.) direction, in space Drivers bike lane, etc.) Number 30 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto N30 calculates) 278 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Unsafe Wearing Unsafe Total Using Behaviors headphones crossing Other: Other: Pedestrians phone Observed by or earpiece behavior Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto ::0-W calculates) 16 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking in Total Unsafe Wearing designated Using Not wearing Behaviors Total Bicyclists headphones area or Other: phone helmet Observed by or earpiece correct side Bicyclists of road Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0a9a.u1[ya.�[fN School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 10 0 0 0 Percentage (auto *Total calculates) 59 17% 0% 0% 0%0% Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto *Total calculates) 12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Not biking Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 148 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 2 Percentage (auto *Total calculates) 102 1% 0% 2% 0%0% Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number Percentage (autocalculates) *Total #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0a9a.u1[ya.�EVII School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total (e.g. using space (e.g., Stopping Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number Percentage (auto *Total calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 150 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 0 0 0 Percentage (auto *Total calculates) 11 9% 0% 0% 0%0% Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 00 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 51 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 Percentage 70W (auto calculates) 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0a9:1010]N1Xci 1--11 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 0 0 0 0 1 Percentage (auto calculates) 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number Percentage (auto *Total calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 152 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 17 0 0 2 0 19 Percentage (auto calculates) 142 12% 0% 0% 1% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 00 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 22 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 Percentage 70W (auto calculates) 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0a9a.u1[ya0�1*1 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 0 0 0 0 1 Percentage (auto calculates) ] 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 154 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Little Mountain Elementary School SRTS School Hazard Observation Notes from 10/8/18 & 10/15/18 • 8:40am slight rush of traffic • 8:46am traffic backed up • 8:58am normal traffic • A lot of rolling stops • Stop bars are way after the stop sign • Group of students waiting at intersection 5+ minutes for crossing. • Speed • Not pulling fwd in drop zone • Students getting out on driver side. • Speed • All parents park and walk in to get students • 2 parents pulled up to curb • Flows smoothly for the most part • One car stopped in middle of school blvd to drop kids off • Many cars stopping after stop bar • Some traffic congestion Ua9a.u1[41:6 �-*I EASTVIEW EDUCATION CENTER School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 19 1 0 0 (autocalculates) J28 N48Percentage 287 7% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 If #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 156 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Instructions: Use this tool for analysis after completing a School Zone Hazard Observation. Add up all the tally marks in each column of the School Zone Hazard Observational Assesment and enter the totals below in the blue cells. The white cells will automatically calculate the percentage of people engaging in each unsafe behavior by mode. If you observed multiple locations, do the analysis for each location separately. 0a9:1010]N1XciM Not driving in Distracted designated Stopping Total Unsafe (e.g. using Does not space (e.g., outside of Behaviors Total Drivers phone, yield to Other: driving wrong designated Observed by texting, direction, in space pedestrian Drivers eating, etc.) bike lane, etc.) Number 3 0 0 0 0 3 Percentage (auto calculates) 83 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Unsafe Wearing Unsafe Total Using Behaviors Pedestrians phone headphones crossing Other: Other: Observed by or earpiece behavior Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 00 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/O! Not biking in Total Unsafe Wearing designated Using Not wearing Behaviors Total Bicyclists phone headphones area or helmet Other: Observed by or earpiece correct side Bicyclists of road Number 0 0 0 0 01 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0a9:1010]N1XciM School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 0 0 0 0 1 Percentage (auto calculates) 91 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 158 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 2 0 0 0 0 2 Percentage (auto calculates) 125 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0a9a.u1[ya.��*] School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total (e.g. using space (e.g., Stopping Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number Percentage (auto *Total calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number Percentage (auto *Total calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Wearing in Unsafe Total Using headphone designated Not Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 160 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 2 0 7 0 0 9 Percentage (auto calculates) 35 6% 0% 20% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 1 Percentage 70W (auto calculates) 4 0% 0% 0% 25% 0a9:1010]N1Xci Eli School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 2 1 0 0 0 3 Percentage (auto calculates) (( 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 162 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 31 1 0 0 0 32 Percentage (auto calculates) 318 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 Percentage 70W (auto calculates) ( 0% 0% 0% 0% 0a9a.u1[ya0�1*1 Eastview Education Center SRTS School Hazard Observation Notes from 10/8/18 & 10/12/18 Why do some park and walk child to curb? Some illegal lane movements inside roundabout Rushes at 8:51am, 8:56am, 8:58am, 8:59am but went smoothly Stoplights are timed perfect to allow vehicles to move through Vehicles pulling into bus only zone Rolling stops People turning left at right turn only. People stopping to let buses turn on School Blvd Speed 3:16pm Car rush 3:22pm traffic heavy 3:30pm parked cars mostly cleared Come speeds high going into school parking lot Feels dangerous to cross streets at roundabout No texting signage No bus traffic Crosswalks fading Possible solution: speed limit advanced warning Cars line up along east entrance or park Pick-up seems efficient Clear signage for pickup/drop off w. arrows Very few distracted drivers going south Speed Turning right at left turn only. 164 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL 4 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Instructions: Use this tool for analysis after completing a School Zone Hazard Observation. Add up all the tally marks in each column of the School Zone Hazard Observational Assesment and enter the totals below in the blue cells. The white cells will automatically calculate the percentage of people engaging in each unsafe behavior by mode. If you observed multiple locations, do the analysis for each location separately. 0a9a►u1[yx0�1-4-1 Not driving in Distracted designated Stopping Total Unsafe (e.g. using Does not space (e.g., outside of Behaviors Total Drivers phone, yield to Other: driving wrong designated Observed by texting, direction, in space pedestrian Drivers eating, etc.) bike lane, etc.) Number 0 0 0 00 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 222 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Unsafe Wearing Unsafe Total Using Behaviors Pedestrians phone headphones crossing Other: Other: Observed by or earpiece behavior Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 00 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking in Total Unsafe Wearing designated Using Not wearing Behaviors Total Bicyclists phone headphones area or helmet Other: Observed by or earpiece correct side Bicyclists of road Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0a9a►u1[yx0�1-4-1 School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 0 0 4 0 5 Percentage (auto calculates) 80 1% 0% 0% 5% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 19 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 3 03 Percentage (auto calculates) 3 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 166 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0a9a01 01141:6�I-YA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total (e.g. using space (e.g., Stopping Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 Percentage (auto calculates) #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 168 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 5 19 0 00 24 Percentage (auto calculates) 46 11% 41% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 1 1 2 00 4 Percentage (auto :: calculates) 3 33% 33% 67% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 00 Percentage (auto calculates) 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0a9:1010]N1Xci I*] School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 2 0 0 0 0 2 Percentage (auto calculates) 43 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 1 1 1 0 0 3 Percentage (auto calculates) 13 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 1 1 0 2 0 4 Percentage (auto calculates) 3 33% 33% 0% 67% 0% 170 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 75 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 2 4 0 0 0 6 Percentage (auto calculates) 27 7% 15% 0% 0% 0% Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 3 0 3 Percentage (auto calculates) 3 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0a9a.u1[ya.�r4i School Zone Hazard Analysis Tool Not driving in Distracted designated Total Stopping (e.g. using space (e.g., Does not Unsafe Total outside of phone, driving yield to Other: Behaviors Drivers designated texting, wrong pedestrian Observed eating, etc.) direction, space by Drivers in bike lane, etc.) Number 1 1 0 0 0 2 Percentage (auto calculates) 21 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% Total Wearing Unsafe Unsafe Total Using headphone Behaviors Pedestrians phone s or crossing Other: Other: Observed behavior earpiece p b Y Pedestrians Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Not biking Total Wearing in Unsafe Not Total Using headphone designated Behaviors Bicyclists phone s or area or wearing Other: Observed helmet earpiece correct side by of road Bicyclists Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage (auto calculates) 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 172 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Monticello High School SRTS School Hazard Observation Notes from 10/8/18 & 10/15/18 • Parking lot lights not on • Crosswalks are missing • No crosswalk at Chelsea entrance (north) • No crosswalk internally at main student entrance • East side of building bus drop off/staff parking only but some mixing of parent drop offs • Possible designated turn -only times (but is it enforced?) • No designated student drop/pickup signage • At School & Fallon only 3 of the 4 lanes of traffic have crosswalks painted • No sidewalk on southside of school blvd • No sidewalk on south side of Chelsea • Speeding • Some drivers don't stop at stop sign if the road is clear to go • Lots of speeding on school blvd • Sysco truck came in and caused back-up • Students speed out of lot onto school blvd • Lots of backup from student vehicles leaving • People turning left when it is right turn only • People driving in handicap spots near visitor parking. They were waiting in the pick-up line • Many people parked in random spots waiting for students to come out. • Many kids not even looking both ways before crossing the road • Many with headphones one • People getting in cars in the middle of the drop off road so traffic cannot get through • People not pulling all the way forward • Back up on School Blvd. • Speed • Some students outside before dismissal • Not stopping at stop sign • Law enforcement passed by • Vehicles mostly stop after stop sign • Several pedestrians using Pelican crossing • Busses stop for pedestrians • Cars parking in middle of trail crossing • Biker cutting through parking lot • Busses and vehicles mixing while exiting. Ua9a.u1[y:6�V*1 Appendix J. Engagement Summary INTRODUCTION Monticello Public Schools As a part of the 2018 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn - DOT) provided Monticello Schools with technical assistance which included engagement with the Monticello community (e.g., parents, students, staff, etc.). SRTS staff hosted "pop-up" tables with activities and information at the following schools and events in fall 2018: Monticello Middle School, Family Conferences, November 15, 2018, 40 people Pinewood Elementary School, Family Conferences, November 19, 2018, 35 people Little Mountain Elementary School, Family Conferences, November 20, 2018, 20 people Presentation materials and activities included a walk/bike trivia game to grab attention, a giant table top "place - mat" graphic with a post it note activity about identifying issues and opportunities, and an interactive barriers mapping activity. There was also a SRTS "zine" activity book as a handout with resources for additional informa- tion, and links to the project website. In total, staff interacted with approximately 95 people at the three Monticello events combined. , "W 'sx Program Findings MONTICELLO MIDDLE SCHOOL Monticello Middle School, located at 800 East Broadway Monticello, MN, includes grades 6 — 8 SRTS staff hosted a "pop-up" activity table at Monticello Middle School's family conferences on November 15, 2018. During the event, staff talked with approximately 40 par- ents, students, and staff from the Monticello Middle School community about walking and biking to school. Highlights Opportunities People are interested in making walking and biking to school safer. There is already a fair amount of students who walk to get to school and other nearby destinations, and students and parents recognize the benefits of walking and biking more. Barriers Unsafe and high traffic roads are a large barrier to walking and biking safely to school, with Broadway St being the most commonly cited problematic road. Infrastructure Findings Parents and staff are looking for better crossings on high traffic roads like Broadway St and would like to see better driver compliance at controlled intersections. Parents and students showed interest in enforcement programs that would lead to better driver compliance as well as encouragement programs like walk or bike to school days to create excitement around walking and biking. Existing Conditions 174 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Opportunities Many students walk and bike to get to Monticello Middle School, and there is interest for better walking and biking infra- structure to make it safer for students to get to and from school. Students also walk and bike to get to places other than school; they walk to Target and to Caribou Coffee after school, among other nearby destinations. Barriers The biggest barriers to walking and biking to school are unsafe and high traffic roads. Many parents and staff are worried about students crossing unsafe streets or intersections and said that drivers sometimes do not comply the traffic controls at 4 -way stops or marked crosswalks. They also said that busy roads make it uncomfortable to walk and bike, especially on problem- atic roads. Other barriers included winter weather conditions, a lack of lighting when it is dark in the mornings and evenings, and con- cerns regarding security when walking and biking. One parent said that some students do not obey road rules when riding their bikes when crossing Broadway. This happens because the marked crossings is at least a block away in the opposite direction of travel from their destination. Problematic Routes • 4th St • Broadway St • Fenning Ave • Pine St The most commonly cited problematic road to walking and biking was Broadway St. People believe it is difficult to cross due to the width of the road, the lack of controlled crossings, and the speed of traffic. Additionally, 4th St, Fenning Ave, and Pine St south of 1-94 are uncomfortable to walk on without separated walking/biking paths or lighting. Some people suggested improvements on these roads by adding additional infrastructure. Problematic Intersections • Broadway St — Fenning Blvd • Broadway St — Hart Blvd • Broadway St — Pine St • Broadway St — Washington St Broadway St had several intersections that students, parents, and teachers described as difficult to cross when walking and biking to school including at Fenning Blvd, Hart Blvd, Pine St, and Washington St. The most commonly cited intersection was at Broadway St and Washington St where students have difficulty crossing by foot or bike due to a lack of driver compliance at the crosswalk and the high speeds on Broadway. The other problem inter- sections at Pine St and Hart Blvd also feel unsafe to cross even with the marked crossing due to the speed and high number of cars. Findings Infrastructure Many people suggested better crossing on Broadway due to a lack of driver compliance at controlled intersections or a lack of control altogether at others where students want to cross. A couple of people suggested better paths and crossings around the Target, as it is a major destination both for students and the Monticello community. One per- son called for a sidewalk on 4th St between Cedar Ave and Washington St. One person suggested a walking or biking path on Pine St at the southern end of Monticello. Programs The following programs were discussed with or suggested by parents, students, or staff: Enforcement—Parents and students indicated that there are issues with a lack of driver compliance on roads near Monticello Middle school, especially on Broadway St. Increased enforcement or a driver safety campaign could be a helpful reminder for vehicles to slow down near the school and to obey the marked crosswalks. Education—Walking and biking education could be helpful for students to learn about how to safely walk and bike to school. Education programs such as Walk! Bike Fun! could help ease parent concerns about safety and teach students how to safely share the roadways while walking and biking to school. Walk/Bike to School Day—Monticello Middle families had some interest in a Walk or Bike to School day as well. A walk to school day could create excitement by creating a day to celebrate walking or biking to school. PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Pinewood Elementary School, located at 1010 West Broadway Monticello, MN, includes grades 1 — 5 SRTS staff hosted a "pop-up" activity table at Pinewood Elementary School's family conferences on November 19, 2018. During the event, staff talked with approximately 35 parents, students, and staff from the Pinewood commu- nity about walking and biking to school. Highlights Opportunities There is a lost of support from families for improved walking and biking infrastructure and for growing walking and biking programs at school. Barriers The Pinewood community would like to see safer crossings on high traffic, especially on Broadway St, and want better driver compliance at controlled intersections. Infrastructure Findings Parents and staff are looking for better crossings on high traffic roads like Broadway St and would like to see bet- ter driver compliance at controlled intersections. Program Findings Leverage existing excitement around walking and biking at Pinewood through encouragement programs like walking school bus or bike rodeos. Existing Conditions Opportunities Students who live near Pinewood like to walk and bike to school and many at the event said they like walking and 176 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA biking with their families for fun. There is a lot of support from Pinewood families for improving walking and biking infrastructure in the community, with many saying they wish there were safer crossings or improved facilities to get to Pinewood. There is interest in growing existing walking and biking efforts at Pinewood. For example, several people said the crossing guard at Elm St and 3rd St helps students safely cross Elm St and said they would like to see more support for the crossing guard program. Barriers Many people said that car traffic is unsafe near Pinewood and it makes getting to school by walking and biking dangerous. People complained that cars travel too fast on large roads and that the amount of traffic makes it feel uncomfortable when walking along busy roads. Additionally, one person pointed out that the railroad can also be a barrier for students walking and biking to school as well. Problematic Routes • Broadway St • Golf Course Rd • Pine St Broadway St was the most commonly cited problematic road. Staff and parents said it is a high speed, heavy traffic road that is hard to cross do to the amount of traffic and the long crossing distance. Golf Course Rd and Pine St were other problematic roads that people brought up during the tabling event. People said that all both are uncomfortable to cross or walk/bike along. One person specifically said that crossing Pine St on the bridge above 1-94 is uncomfortable because there is no separation between car travel lanes and the sidewalk. Problematic Intersections Broadway St — Otter Creek Rd Broadway St — Willow St Broadway St has a couple of problematic intersections that people described as difficult to cross when walking and biking. Some said that there aren't marked crossings at the intersection of Broadway St and Willow St and that students will run across the street here to avoid traffic. One person said that they appreciate the marked crossing and pedestrian light at Broadway St and Otter Creek Rd, but that a lot of students do not use the light or cross at other intersections. Some said that cars do not obey the pedestrian light at Otter Creek Rd and said that a bicy- clist was hit at the crossing. Findings Infrastructure Parents, students, and staff requested more protection from cars when walking and biking to and from school, with many people wanting improved crossings on Broadway St. People said that traffic moves too fast on wide roads like Broadway St near Pinewood to make walking or biking comfortable. Programs The following programs were discussed with or suggested by parents, students, or staff: Crossing Guards—One program to continue to improve on is the crossing guard used at 3rd St and Elm St. One person specifically suggested working with Wright County Sheriff to get volunteers to help staffing crossing guards at 3rd St and Elm St. Another person said that even with the crossing guard, there is still problems with driver behavior at the intersection at the same time students are walking and biking to school. Bike Rodeo—One program discussed with participants was a bike rodeo to create excitement around biking to school. The rodeo would include education on safe riding habits and could be coupled with a bike or bike lock giveaway. Ua9a.u11y:6�V*A Walking School Bus/Bike Trains—Pinewood could use walking school buses and bike trains as a way to give students more opportunities to walk and bike to school and to help groups of students cross problematic roads. Adult supervisors leading the walks or bikes could help students cross the road safely. Having a group of students and adults walk or bike to school together helps alleviate concerns about students walking and biking to school alone. LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Little Mountain Elementary School, located at 9350 Fallon Avenue Monticello, MN, includes grades 1 — 5 SRTS staff hosted a "pop-up" activity table at Little Mountain Elementary School's family conferences on No- vember 20, 2018. During the event, staff talked with approximately 20 parents, students, and staff from the Little Mountain community about walking and biking to school. Highlights Opportunities Students at Little Mountain like walking and biking and wish they could do it more. There are opportunities to leverage the desire to walk and bike through encouragement programs and through better enforcement of safe driver behavior near school. Barriers Walking and biking to the Little Mountain can be unsafe, especially when crossing problematic roads and intersec- tions and particularly on School Blvd. Infrastructure Findings School Blvd is difficult to cross and uncomfortable to walk or bike along, with driver compliance at intersections being an issue. Program Findings Increased driver enforcement or a safety education campaign to help remind drivers to slow down and to stop at crosswalks along School Blvd was a common suggestion. Existing Conditions Opportunities • Based on the comments received, students at Little Mountain like walking and biking and wish they could do it more. Some families with students who live near school find walking to school convenient and easy. Additionally, there is already some walking and biking support in place in the form of crossing } r guards at the intersections of School Blvd and Fallon Ave and at School Blvd and Elder Ln. There are also other schools near- r by and a park on the other side of School Blvd that generate " s some walking and biking demand. Barriers The biggest barriers to walking and biking to school are unsafe '�- roads that have high speed traffic near Little Mountain. Many people said that driver compliance at controlled intersections and crosswalks is a big issue on these roads and they wish drivers would be more conscious of students. Problematic Routes • Fenning Ave 178 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA • School Blvd The most commonly cited problematic road was School Blvd. People are concerned that it is both difficult to walk along and difficult to cross. There is only a path on the north side of School Blvd and people wish there was better lighting along the route. There is also concern about Fenning Ave as being high speed and difficult to cross. Problematic Intersections • Fenning Ave — School Blvd • Fenning Ave — Chelsea Blvd • School Blvd — Elder Ln • School Blvd — Fallon Ave • School Blvd — Pelican Ln Most of the problematic intersections that Little Mountain families are concerned about are on School Blvd. The intersections cited most often were School Blvd and Fallon Ave, School Blvd and Elder Ln, and School Blvd and Flenning Ave. Lack of driver compliance was an issue at all of these intersections, even the two at Fallon Ave and Elder Ln that have crossing guards. Other problematic intersections mentioned included School Blvd and Pelican Ln and Fenning Ave and Chelsea Blvd. Findings Infrastructure Parents and students requested more protection from cars when walking and biking to and from school, with School Blvd being the clear barrier. Many people said walking along and across School Blvd is uncomfortable and feels unsafe with speeding vehicles that do not complie with traffic controls. Programs The following programs were discussed with or suggested by parents, students, or staff Bike Rodeo—One program discussed with participants was a bike rodeo to create excitement around biking to school. The rodeo would include education on safe riding habits and could be coupled with a bike or bike lock giveaway. Walk/Bike Buddies—One idea suggested was walking buddies. Students at Little Mountain could be partnered with students from nearby Monticello High to learn about safe walking and biking habits and to make parents more comfortable with allowing elementary school students to walk or bike to school. Crossing Guards—One person suggested expanding the crossing guard coverage and adding a guard at the intersection of Fenning Ave and School Blvd. A crossing guard here could help address the crossing issues at this intersection. Enforcement—Parents and students indicated that there are issues with a lack of driver compliance on roads near Little Mountain school, especially on School Blvd. Increased enforcement or a driver safety campaign could be a helpful reminder for vehicles to slow down near the school and to obey the marked crosswalks. Ua9a.u1[41:6 V -1 Appendix K. Infrastructure Toolbox This infrastructure toolbox provides an overview of different infrastructure projects. Each infrastructure project in- cludes a pictorial representation, a brief description, a typical and estimated cost, and a list of resources for more specific engineering guidelines. References are shown at the end of this section. ADVANCED STOP LINES Description An advanced stop line is a solid white line painted ahead of crosswalks on multi -lane approaches to alert drivers where to stop to let pedestrians cross. It is recommend- ed that advanced stop lines be placed twenty to fifty feet before a crosswalk. This encourages drivers to stop back far enough for a pedestrian to see if a second motor ve- hicle is approaching, reducing the risk of a hidden -threat collision. Advanced stop lines can also be used with smaller turning radii to create a larger effective turning radius to accommodate infrequent (but large) vehicles. Estimated CostsA,E • $8.50 per linear foot; $85 for a ten foot travel lane Resources • Reducing Conflicts Between Motor Vehicles and Pedestrians: The Separate and Combined Effects of Pavement Markings and a Sign Prompt • FHWA Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide — Pages: 192-193 • MN MUTCD: Part 3. Markings — Page: 313-32 • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Pages: 109-116,144 CROSSING GUARD Description Facilitated crossings are marked crossing locations along student routes where adult crossing guards or trained student patrols are stationed to assist students with safely crossing the street. Facilitated crossings may be located on or off campus. Determining whether a location is more appropriate for an adult crossing guard or student patrol may be based on location including distance from school, visibility, and traffic characteristics. Adult crossing guards and student patrols receive spe- cial training, and are equipped with high -visibility traffic vests and flags when on duty. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 25-26 • MnDOT Minnesota Safe Routes to School: School Crossing Guard Brief Guide • MN MUTCD: Part 7. Traffic Controls for School Areas — Pages: 7D-1-2 Estimated Costs° • $14.00 per hour average wage for a crossing guard 180 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA CURB EXTENSION/BULB OUT Description Curb extensions extend the sidewalk and curb into the motor -vehicle parking lanes at intersections or mid -block crossings. Also called bump -outs or bulb -outs, these facilities improve safety and convenience for people crossing the street by shortening the crossing distance and increasing visibility of people walking or biking to those driving. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 11-12 • FHWA Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior — Pages: 6-11 • FHWA Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide — Pages: 190-192 • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Pages: 45-59 Estimated CostsE • $13,000 for a single corner CURB RADIUS REDUCTION Description Curb radii designs are determined based on the design vehicle of the roadway. In general, vehicles are able to take turns more quickly around corners with larger curb radii. Minimizing curb radii forces drivers to take turns at slower speeds, making it easier and safer for people walking or biking to cross the street. An actual curb radius of five to ten feet should be used wherever possible, while appropriate effective turning radii range from 15 to 30 feet, depending on the roadway and land use context. Resources • FHWA Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide — Pages: 187-189 • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Pages: 117-120, 144-146 Estimated CostsF,G • $2,000-$40,000, depending on need for utility relocation and drainage I CURB RAMPS Description Curb ramps provide access for people between road- ways and sidewalks for people using wheelchairs, stroll- ers, walkers, crutches, bicycles, or who have mobility restrictions that make it difficult to step up or down from curbs. Curb ramps must be installed at intersections and mid -block crossings where pedestrian crossings are lo- cated, as mandated by federal law. Separate curb ramps should be provided for each direction of travel across the street. Resources MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 1-2 FHWA Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide — Pages: 47-50 United States Access Board Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in Public Right -of -Way — Pages: 66-67, 78-83 Estimated Costs • Varies depending on retrofit or new construction, material used. HAWK SIGNALS Description The High -Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK), also referred to as a Pedestrian Hybrid Bea- con System by MnDOT, remains dark until activated by pressing the crossing button. Once activated, the signal responds immediately with a flashing yellow pattern which transitions to a solid red light, provid- ing unequivocal 'stop' guidance to motorists. HAWK signals have been shown to elicit high rates of motorist compliance. Resources MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 13-15 FHWA Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment FHWA Evaluation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Engineering Countermeasures: Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacons, HAWKS, Sharrows, Crosswalk Markings, and the Development of an Evaluation Methods Report — Pages: 19-28 Estimated Costs" • $80,000. Includes one HAWK signal in each direction 182 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HIGH -VISIBILITY CROSSWALK Description High -visibility crosswalks help to create a continuous route network for people walking and biking by alert- ing motorists to their potential presence at crossings and intersections. Crosswalks should be used at fully controlled intersections where sidewalks or shared -use paths exist. .a Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 3-8 • MnDOT Guidance for Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks on Minnesota State Highways — Page: 3 • MN MUTCD: Part 3. Markings — Pages: 3B-34-38 • MN MUTCD: Part 7. Traffic Controls for School Areas — Pages: 7A-1-3, 7B-5-8, 7C-1 • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Pages: 109-116 Estimated CostsE • $25,000 each, depending on materials: paint vs. thermoplastic LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL Description A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) provides pedestrians with a three to seven second head start when entering an intersection with a corresponding green signal in the same direction of travel. LPIs enhance the visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk, and reinforce their right-of- way over turning vehicles. LPIs are most useful in areas where pedestrian travel and turning vehicle volumes are both high. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 20-22 • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Page: 128 Estimated CostsA • $0-$3,500, depending on the need for new hardware vs. revising existing signal timing 0a9:1010]N1:6i MCI MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND Description Median refuge islands (also known as median crossing islands) make crossings safer and easier by dividing them into two stages so that pedestrians and bicyclists only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Median refuges can be especially beneficial for slower walkers including children or the elderly. Crossing medians may also provide traffic calming benefits by visually narrowing the roadway. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 9-10, 43-44 • FHWA Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior — Pages: 17-20 • FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures: Medians and Pedestrian Crossing Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas • MN MUTCD: Part 3. Markings — Page: 31-2 • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Page: 116 Estimated CostsE • $13,500, $10 per square foot RAISED CROSSWALKS Description Raised crosswalks are wide and gradual speed humps placed at pedestrian and bicyclist crossings. They are typically as high as the curb on either side of the street, eliminating grade changes for people crossing the street. Raised crosswalks help to calm approaching traffic and improve visibility of people crossing. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 3-4 • FHWA Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior — Pages: 12-15 • MN MUTCD: Part 3. Markings — Pages: 313-46-49 • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Page: 54 Estimated Costs' • $8,170 each 184 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACON Description One type of activated flashing beacon is a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB). It uses an irregular stutter flash pattern with bright amber lights (similar to those on emergency vehicles) to alert drivers to yield to people waiting to cross. The RRFB offers a higher level of driver compliance than other flashing yellow beacons, but low- er than the HAWK signal. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 16-17 • FHWA Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacon on Yielding at Multi -lane Uncontrolled Crosswalks • FHWA Evaluation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Engineering Countermeasures: Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacons, HAWKs, Sharrows, Crosswalk Markings, and the Development of an Evaluation Methods Report — Pages: 13-18 Estimated CostsB $36,000 for two assemblies on poles ROAD DIET Description A classic road diet converts an existing four -lane roadway to a three -lane cross-section consisting of two through lanes and a center two-way left turn lane. Road diets improve safety by including a protected left -turn lane, calming traffic, reducing conflict points, and reduc- ing crossing distance for pedestrians. In addition, road diets provide an opportunity to allocate excess roadway for alternative uses such as bike facilities, parking, transit lanes, and pedestrian or landscaping improvements. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 29-31 • FHWA Road Diet Desk Reference • FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Page: 14 Estimated CostsE • $120,680 per mile, assuming eight blocks in a mile. Estimate includes 16 symbols, 16 signs, six curb extensions, one mini traffic circle 0a9a.u1[ya.�[=i-1 SCHOOL SPEED ZONE Description School speed zones reduce speed limits near schools, and alert motorists that they are driving near a school. School speed zones are defined as the section of road adjacent to school grounds, or where an established school crossing with advance school signs is present. Each road authority may establish school speed zone limits on roads under their jurisdiction. In general, school speed limits shall not be more than 30 mph below the established speed limit, and may not be lower than 15 mph. Speed violations within school speed zones are subject to a double fine. Resources MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 48-51 MnDOT School Zone Speed Limits MN MUTCD: Part 7. Traffic Controls for School Areas — Section: 7E Estimated CostsA,C • $600 for sign and post in each direction SHARED USE PATH Description Shared -use paths provide off-road connections for people walking and biking. Paths are often located along wa- terways, abandoned or active railroad corridors, limited access highways, or parks and open spaces. Shared -use paths may also be located along high-speed, high-vol- ume roads as an alternative to sidewalks and on -street bikeways; however, intersections with roadways should be minimal. Shared -use paths are generally very com- fortable for users of all ages and abilities. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Page: 2 • MnDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual — Pages: 123- 168 • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities — Chapter 5 Estimated Costs' • $55 per linear foot, 10 ft trail with aggregate base and associated costs 186 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA SIDEWALKS Description A well-connected sidewalk network is the foundation of pedestrian mobility and accessibility. Sidewalks provide people walking with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. Sidewalks are associated with significant reductions in motor vehicle / pedestrian collisions. Resources • MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 1-2 • AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Pages: 37-44 • United States Access Board Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in Public Right -of -Way Estimated CostsA,B • $84 per linear foot of 6 ft sidewalk with aggregate base TRAFFIC CIRCLES (MINI ROUNDABOUTS) Description Traffic circles are raised circular islands constructed in the center of residential intersections. They may take the place of a signal or four-way stop sign, and calm vehicle traffic speeds by forcing motorists to navigate around them without requiring a complete stop. Signage should be installed with traffic circles directing motorists to pro- ceed around the right side of the circle before passing through or making a left turn. Resources MnDOT Minnesota's Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety — Pages: 43-44 FHWA Technical Summary: Mini -Roundabouts FHWA Technical Summary: Roundabouts — Page: 7 (mention of school area siting) MN MUTCD: Part 3. Markings — Pages: 30-15 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide — Page: 99 Estimated CostsE • $35,000-$50,000 each Sources A: httiD://www.dot.state.mn.us/bidIet/avaPrice/AVGPR162015.iDdf B: http://www.hennepin.us/'/media/hennepinus/residents/transportation/bottineau-docu- ments-mels-ov/estimated-infrastructure-costs-and-fundina.Ddf?la=en C: httD://www.trafficsian.us/siancost.html D: httr)s://www.bls.ciov/oes/current/oes339091.htm E: httD://www.iDedbikeinfo.ora/cros/downloads/Countermeasure%2OCosts_ReiDort_Nov2O13.iDdf F: httiD:Hauide.saferoutesinfo.ora/enaineerina/reduced_ corner_radii.cfm G: htti)://www.r)edbikeinfo.ora/cros/downloads/Countermeasure_Costs_Summarv_Oct2013.Ddf H: httD://www2.ku.edu/'kutc/r)dffiles/LTAPFS11-Mid-Block.iDdf Appendix L. Bike Parking for Schools Bicycle parking at schools does more than just provide space for storage during the school day. Depending on design, bicycle parking can actually encourage students and staff to choose to ride their bikes to school. Here are some things to think about when planning bicy- cle parking at school. For HOW MUCH PARKING SHOULD BE PROVIDED? zo°°' tias eacti clas The amount of bike parking needed will depend on the capacity of your school, the ages c/ass oNde'nts av�d caibacity op of students, and the number of staff. But remember: be aspirational! Provide parking for the o%s sl O f s'spgce F ��S are 10 number of students and staff you'd like to see biking! The following are some guidelines: Id to aa, e pv^ov/are o bicy_ • Aim for 25 percent of the maximum student capacity of the school. a�a'staFfr a'sO e fol faO"'t city • Provide additional parking to encourage staff and faculty to bike to school WHERE SHOULD PARKING BE LOCATED? Well -located bike parking will be: • visible to students, staff, and visitors • near the primary school entrance/exit • easily accessed without dismounting • clear of obstructions which might limit the circulation of users and their bikes • easily accessed without making a rider cross bus and car circulation • installed on a hard, stable surface that is unaffected by weather • often found near kindergarten and daycare entrance, which allows parents to conveniently pick up their children on their bikes CAN MY SCHOOL PROVIDE ADDI- TIONAL AMENITIES? Bike parking shelters and lockers provide extra comfort and security for those choosing to ride to school. They're also a great project for a shop class. Both can be very simple in construction and go a long way towards making biking attrac- tive and prioritized! WHICH RACKS ARE BEST? INVERTED U 77 POST & RING LM WHEELWELL SECURE These racks provide two points of contact with tine bicycle, accommodate varytIng styles of bike, al- low for at least one wheel to be U -locked, and are intuitive to use! 188 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA U WHICH RACKS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED? fl.11.fl IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII WAVE COMB These racks do not provide support at two places on tine bike, can damage the wheel, do not provide adequate SPIRAL security, and are not intuitive to use! WHEELWELL Graphics courtesy of Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Essentials of Bike Parking report (2015). SPACE REQUIREMENTS 36" I I I I II I I I 711esbace 72" I 84" s/'Owv<Ke9uive I pevso� tieKe asst, ev<ts Space bike woPal-ki"9 t%i a required for a access fo�Id tia�e oet pe1 single hitch I Fvo betii vd aid I I 36" 36" 72» -rke, space requirevvxev<ts slnowV'L there assume tine area is cov<fi 'e d °v` either side (left . located A, right). Access lvcl bott°"^ ` at tine top e requiriv`g of tine i vvtag a cev`ter aisle for circu- latiovf- ` 36" N � Aisle Circulation 114" 36" I — Space T_ 72" I required for a 36" I single hitch � I � I 42" 42" 30" 30" 42" 42" 84" 60" 84" RESOURCES FOR EQUIPMENT Dero Soortworks Urban Racks MORE INFORMATION APBP Essentials of Bike Parking Bike Shelter Development Guide -Portland Public Schools Appendix M. Maintenance Planning ANNUAL MAINTENANCE School routes and crosswalks should be prioritized for maintenance. To ensure high visibility crosswalks maintain their effectiveness, review all crosswalks within one block of the school each year. If there is notable deterioration, crosswalks should be repainted annually. In addition, crosswalks on key school walk routes should be evaluated annually and repainted every other year or more often as needed. SEASONAL PLANNING AND MAINTENANCE Walking and cycling generally diminish during the cold winter months as poorly maintained infrastructure and unpleasant weather conditions create barriers for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, maintaining infrastructure and planning inviting winterscapes for students can facilitate the convenience of biking and walking as well as provide new opportunities to encourage students to be outside more. Snow removal and maintenance of school routes should be prioritized. Snow removal is a critical component of pedestrian and bicycle safety. The presence of snow or ice on sidewalks, curb ramps, or bikeways will deter pedestrian and cyclist use of those facilities to a much higher degree than cold temperature alone. Families with children will avoid walking in locations where ice or snow accumulation creates slippery conditions that may cause a fall. Curb ramps that are blocked by ice or snow effectively sever access to pedestrian facilities. Additionally, inadequately maintained facilities may force pedestrians and bicyclists into the street. Identified routes to school should be given priority for snow removal and ongoing maintenance. While it is important to prioritize maintenance, additional planning should be employed to create new opportuni- ties to encourage students to be outside more through design. According to the City of Edmonton's Winter Design Guidelines, the five main design principles for designing cities that are inviting and functional for outdoor public life year-round include blocking wind, capturing sunshine, using color, lighting, and providing infrastructure that supports desired winter activities. Lighting is important year-round, but becomes increasingly important in the winter for creating more inviting win- terscapes for pedestrians and bicyclists. Lighting can contribute to inducing a sense of warmth and safety, as well as be used for wayfinding and as passive public art displays. Lastly, providing infrastructure that supports desired winter activities can also encourage more active transpor- tation. Some particularly encouraging strategies beyond providing ice skating rinks that have been employed in Edmonton, Canada include harnessing plowed snow piles and stored snow to create new play opportunities for students. These snow piles can be strategically placed in parks along walking routes and mounded into winter slides. Other practices have included regularly compacting snow to make it malleable enough for students to con- struct their own snow house structures, with maintenance crews compacting the snow every few days to prevent it from forming into denser ice. Resources Winter Design Guidelines: Transforming Edmonton into a Great Winter City httDs://www.edmonton.ca/citv_oovern ment/documents/PDF/WinterCitvDesicinGu idelines_draft. odf 190 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Appendix N. Equity in SRTS Planning O When planning and implementing your SRTS programming, it is important to design events and activities that are inclusive of students of all backgrounds and abilities. This appendix identifies potential obstacles to participation and suggests creative outreach, low-cost solutions, and flexible program implementation to address language barriers, students with disabilities, personal safety concerns, and barriers related to school distance. LANGUAGE AND/OR CULTURAL BARRIERS To encourage families that do not speak English, are learning English, or have recently immigrated to participate in Safe Routes to School programs, it is important to communicate how the program can benefit families and address parental concerns. Hiring a bilingual staff person is the best way to communicate and form relationships with a community. Provide Materials in Multiple Languages Some concepts can lose their meaning and be confusing when translated literally. Also, words may have different meanings depending on the regional dialect. • Ask families with native speakers to help communicate the message to others. • Use images to supplement words so that handouts are easy to read and understand. Use a Variety of Media In schools where families speak different languages, it can be a good idea to present information in multiple ways. • Use a variety of mechanisms to communicate the benefits of walking and bicycling to parents. • Have students perform to their parents, such as through a school play. • Encourage youth -produced PSAs to educate parents on why biking and walking are fun and healthy events. • Provide emails, print materials, etc., in multiple languages. • Use a phone tree, PTA, or events to reach parents. • Engage an assistant who speaks multiple languages to reach out to parents at events. • Employ staff from similar ethnic backgrounds to parents at the school. • Parents increasingly use texting more than emails. Find out how parents communicate with each other and use their methods. Meet People Where They Are Some families may not feel comfortable coming to your events or participating in formal PTA and organizations. • Attend established meetings to reach groups who may not participate in school PTAs or other formal meetings. • State required English Learner Advisory Committees (ELACs) are good partners. • Conduct outreach or table at school events (such as: Movie nights, family dance nights, Back to School nights, etc.). Residents are often aware of traffic and personal safety issues in their neighborhoods, but don't know how to address them. • Provide a safe place for parents to voice concerns to start the conversation about making improvements. Listen to their concerns, help parents prioritize, and connect them with the responsible agency to address the concerns. • Encourage staff or parent volunteers to host house meetings, in which a small group gathers at the home of someone they know to voice concerns and brainstorm solutions. • Seek common goals for community improvement that can be addressed through collaborative efforts with all parent groups. • When looking for volunteers, start by looking to friends and neighbors to build your base group. • Be creative; consider going to community events like Farmer's Markets and neighborhood gathering spots to recruit. Try different ways of engaging with participants; the City as Play Design Workshops have creative ideas for asking attendees to build their visions. 0a9a01 01141:6�111 • Look for small victories: adding a crossing guard, signage and paint gives parents confidence that their issues can be addressed. Host Parent Workshops All parents desire for their children to be successful. Workshops are a good opportunity to articulate how services and programs can reduce barriers to students' success and help them be successful. • Create simple ways for parents to get involved and help put on events and activities with their children, who can often help navigate the situation. • Hold a "Parent University," or workshops where parents can voice their concerns. • Listen to and act on parents' suggestions to build trust in the community and address concerns. • Include an icebreaker activity to introduce yourself and to make the participants more comfortable sharing their thoughts and opinions. Establish Flexible Programs Create a trusting and welcoming environment by not requiring participants to provide information about them- selves, which could be a deterrent to undocumented immigrants. • Establish a training program for volunteers that does not require background checks or fingerprints since some parents who would like to volunteer may not be able to pass background checks. Often working parents have limited time to volunteer with their children's schools. The hours and benefits associated with manyjobs can make it challenging for parents to be available for school activities and take paid time off. • Host meetings and events at varying times to accommodate differing work schedules. • Make specific requests and delegate so no single person has to do the majority of the work. Communicate Health Benefits Families who are not as well-connected to the school community may not be as aware of the benefits of SRTS programming. • Publicize to parents that walking and biking to school is exercise and to children that it is fun, like an additional recess. • Encourage caregivers to attend health fairs that highlight biking and walking to create an association between those commute options and their benefits. Encouragement competitions such as the Golden Sneaker Award and Pollution Punch Card can show how many calories students have burned. STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Some students may not be able to walk or bike to school because of physical or mental disabilities, but they can still be included in SRTS programs. • Invite children with physical disabilities to participate in school infrastructure audits to learn how to improve school access for all. • Understand that students with mental disabilities may have differing capacities for retaining personal and traffic safety information, but programs like neighborhood cleanups and after-school programs can be fun ways to socialize and participate with other students. • Involve special education instructors and parents of disabled students in the planning and implementation of these programs to better determine the needs of children with disabilities. • Create SRTS materials that recognize students with disabilities. Include pictures of students with disabilities in program messaging to highlight that SRTS programs are suitable for all students. Additional Resources • National Center for SRTS's Involving Students with Disabilities • SRTS National Partnership's: Serving Students with Disabilities 192 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA PERSONAL SAFETY CONCERNS In some communities, personal safety concerns associated with crime activity is a significant barrier to walking and bicycling. These can include issues of violence, dogs, drug use, and other deterrents that can take prece- dence over SRTS activities in communities. These neighborhoods may lack sidewalks or other facilities that offer safe access to school, and major roads may be barriers. Neighborhood Watch Programs Establishing neighborhood crime watches, parent patrols, and safety zones can involve the community in address- ing personal safety concerns as supervision reduces the risk of bullying, crime, and other unsafe behavior. • Set up parent patrols to roam areas of concern. Safe Passages or Corner Captain programs station parent or community volunteers on designated key street corners to increase adult presence to watch over children as they walk and bicycle to school. • Issue special hats, vests, orjackets to give the volunteers legitimacy and identify them as patrol leaders. • Provide walkie-talkies to allow parents to radio for help if they are confronting a situation they have not been able to resolve. • Work to identify "safe places" like a home along the route where children can go to in the event of an emergency, or create a formal program with mapped safe places all children can go to if a situation feels dangerous. SchoolPool with a Group SchoolPool, or commuting to school with other families and trusted adults, can address personal safety concerns about traveling alone. • Form Walking School Buses, Bike Trains, or carpools. For information about how to set up a SchoolPool at your school, read the Spare the Air Youth SchoolPool guidebook at htto://www.sDaretheairvouth.ora/schoolgool- auidebook. More information about organizing a Walking School Bus or Bike Train is available online at httloW www.soaretheaIrvouth.ora/waIkino-school-buses-bike-trains. Sponsor Neighborhood Beautification Projects Clean neighborhoods free of trash and graffiti can create a sense of safety and help reduce crime rates. • Host neighborhood beautification projects around schools, such as clean-up days, graffiti removal, and tree planting to help make families feel more comfortable and increase safety for walking or biking to school. • Host a community dialogue about positive and negative uses of public space Education Programs Teach students and their families about appropriate safety issues. Parents may not want students to walk or bike if they are not confident in their child's abilities. Safety Information for Students • Use time at school, such as during recess, PE, or no -cost after school programs, to teach children how to bike and walk safely. • Utilize either existing curricula or bring in volunteer instructors from local advocacy groups and non-profit organizations. • Teach children what to do in the event of an emergency and where to report suspicious activity or bullying. • Provide helmets and bikes during the trainings will allow all students to participate regardless of whether or not they have access to these items. • Organize an Open Streets event as a strategy to create safe zones to teach new skills in the street. Safety Information for Parents • Provide information about how to get to around safely. • Develop and distribute suggested routes to school maps that highlight streets with amenities like sidewalks, lighting, low speeds, and less traffic. • Identify informal shortcuts and cutthroughs that students may take to reduce travel time. Consider whether these routes may put students at risk (for example, by cutting through a fence, across a field, or near railroad tracks) and work with your city planners to improve the route. • Provide flyers for parents about how to find other families groups to commute with or what to do in the event of an emergency to educate themselves and their children. 0a9a.u1[ya.�Ex3 • Offer pedestrian safety training walks. Make these fun and interactive and address parents' safety concerns as well as provide tips for them to teach their children to be safe while walking. Resources • SRTS National Partnership's Implementing Safe Routes to School in Low -Income Schools and Communities httiD://www.saferoutesiDartnership.ora/sites/default/files/iDdf/LowlncomeGuide.iDdf BARRIERS RELATED TO SCHOOL DISTANCE Some students simply live too far from school to reasonably walk or bike. However, there are programs that may be implemented to include these students in healthy physical activities, such as walking or biking. Remote Drop-off • Suggest remote drop-offs for parents to drop their children off a couple blocks from the school so they can walk the rest of the way. Volunteers wait at the drop-off and walk with students at a designated time to ensure they arrive to school safely and on time. • Remote drop-off sites can be underutilized parking lots at churches or grocery stores that give permission for their property to be used this way. • Identify potential park and walk areas on route maps. Walk to School Bus Stops • Incorporate physical activity into students' morning schedule by encouraging them to walk to bus stops. • Utilize walking school bus programming to organize nearby students to walk in groups to a more centrally located bus stop, which may translate into fewer bus stops because more students will be boarding at each sto P. Frequent Walker Programs • Implement programs that identify walking opportunities on campus, which can be defined in terms of routes or by amount of time spent walking. This will allow students who arrive to school by bus or parent vehicle to benefit from the physical benefits provided by walking or biking to school. Additional Resources • Safe Routes to School National Partnership Rural Communities: Making Safe Routes Work • Safe Routes to School National Partnership Rural Communities: Best Practices and Promising Approaches for Safe Routes • Safe Routes to School National Partnership Rural Communities: A Two Pronged Approach for Improving Walking and Bicycling 194 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA This page intentionally left blank. Ua9:101.]N7Xci 6'1-7 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2L. Consideration of approving purchase of four new portable radios for Fire Department from Motorola/Ancom in the amount of $20,676 (DK) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to accept a quote from Motorola/Ancom for the purchase of four new portable radios. This purchase will be funded by a donation from the Ellison Family Foundation. Our current radios have been discontinued therefore we are unable to get them repaired should they break down. These radios are imperative for firefighters to communicate with dispatch or each other. The purchase of the new radios will be made through the state contract from Motorola/Ancom for $20,676. These radios are a sole source purchase due to the fact that Motorola is the only vendor for our statewide radio system. Al. Budget Impact: This item will be funded by a donation from the Ellison Family Foundation. A2. Staff Workload Impact: These radios are essential for communication. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve purchase of four new portable radios for Fire Department for cost of $20,676. 2. Motion to deny purchase. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • Invoice from Motorola/Ancom Quote Number: QU0000478697 AOFOTORCPLA SOLUTIONS Effective: 24 MAY 2019 Effective To: 31 JUL 2019 Bill -To: Ultimate Destination: MONTICELLO, CITY OF MONTICELLO, CITY OF 505 WALNUT ST STE 1 505 WALNUT ST STE 1 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 United States United States Attention: Name: Dan Klein Email: dan.klein@ci.monticello.mn.us Phone: 763-271-7463 Sales Contact: Name: Randy Beach Email: randy.beach@ancom.org Phone: 763-428-7884 Request For Quote: 4 APX6000XE Model 2.5 PBLS in GRN with Accessories Contract Number: MINNESOTA DOT Freight terms: FOB Destination Payment terms: Net 30 Due Item Quantity Nomenclature Description List price Your price Extended Price 1 4 H98UCF9PW6BN APX6000 700/800 MODEL 2.5 $3,026.00 $2,203.50 $8,814.00 PORTABLE la 4 QA05100AA ENH:STD WARRANTY APPLIES -NO - - SFS Ib 4 Q806BM ADD: ASTRO DIGITAL CAI $515.00 $386.25 $1,545.00 OPERATION I 4 QA01427AB ALT: IMPACT GREEN HOUSING $25.00 $18.75 $75.00 1 d 4 QA02006AA ENH: APX6000XE RUGGED RADIO $800.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 le 4 QA09000AA ADD: DIGITAL TONE SIGNALING $150.00 $112.50 $450.00 if 4 H38BT ADD: SMARTZONE OPERATION $1,200.00 $900.00 $3,600.00 Ig 4 Q361AR ADD: P25 9600 BAUD TRUNKING $300.00 $225.00 $900.00 2 4 PMNN4547A BATT IMPRES 2 LIION TIA4950 R IP68 $169.00 $126.75 $507.00 3100T 3 4 NAR6595A ANT 1/4 WAVE 7/800 STUBBY $29.00 $21.75 $87.00 4 4 NNTN8860A CHARGER, SINGLE -UNIT, IMPRES 2, $165.00 $112.50 $450.00 3A, 115VAC, US/NA 5 4 PMMN4106D AUDIO ACCESSORY -REMOTE $616.00 $462.00 $1,848.00 SPEAKER MICROPHONE,AUDIO ACCESSORY -AUDIO ADAPTER,APX XE500 REMOTE SPEAKER MIC, HIGH IMPACT GREEN Total Quote in USD $20,676.00 OPT/PROG Not Included - NTP to follow upon request - Thank you for your order!! Randy w/ANCOM-MSI THIS QUOTE IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1 This quotation is provided to you for information purposes only and is not intended to be an offer or a binding proposal. If you wish to purchase the quoted products, Motorola Solutions, Inc. ("Motorola") will be pleased to provide you with our standard terms and conditions of sale (which will include the capitalized provisions below), or alternatively, receive your purchase order which will be acknowledged. Thank you for your consideration of Motorola products. 2 Quotes are exclusive of all installation and programming charges (unless expressly stated) and all applicable taxes. 3 Purchaser will be responsible for shipping costs, which will be added to the invoice. 4 Prices quoted are valid for thirty(30) days from the date of this quote. 5 Unless otherwise stated, payment will be due within thirty days after invoice. Invoicing will occur concurrently with shipping. MOTOROLA DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDERED PRODUCTS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MOTOROLA'S TOTAL LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE ORDERED PRODUCTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCTS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH LOSSES OR DAMAGES ARE CLAIMED. IN NO EVENT WILL MOTOROLA BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 2M. Consideration of adontinLY Resolution 2019-56 callinLy for uublic hearinLy to receive comments on the draft ADA Transition Plan. (ML) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City of Monticello has been conducting a self-evaluation of its facilities within public rights-of-way and has developed an Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Transition Plan consistent with federal requirements. A transition plan is required for public agencies that solicit federal funding for trail and sidewalk facilities. An ADA transition plan details agencies current services, policies, and practices to ensure persons with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the basis of a disability. The ADA transition plan includes a self-evaluation of all sidewalks and pedestrian ramps and details the city's intention to upgrade these facilities to meet ADA standards in an orderly process. It also further describes the process for filing concerns relating to ADA facilities and having these concerns investigated. The draft ADA transition plan will be available on the City's website and hard copies will be available at City Hall for review. A public hearing will be scheduled for Monday September 9, 2019 at approximately 6:30 PM to receive comments on the draft plan. Al. Budget Impact: N/A A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff impacts are expected to be minimal. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve adopting Resolution 2019-56 calling for a public hearing to receive comments on the draft ADA Transition Plan. 2. Motion to deny. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff supports recommended alternative 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: • Resolution 2019-56 City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2019-56 CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON CITY OF MONTICELLO AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has drafted an Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Transition Plan consistent with federal requirements; and WHEREAS, the an ADA transition plan is required for public agencies that solicit federal funding for trail and sidewalk facilities; and WHEREAS, an ADA transition plan details agencies current services, policies, and practices to ensure persons with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the basis of a disability. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: The City Clerk shall prepare and publish in the official paper a public notice for persons seeking to provide comment on the ADA Transition Plan in the City of Monticello; said notice to be published on August 22, 2019. 2. A public hearing shall be held for persons to provide comment on the City of Monticello ADA Transition Plan on the 9th of September, 2019, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 6:30 p.m. Adopted by the Monticello City Council this 12th day of August, 2019. Brian Stumpf, Mayor ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 4A. Consideration to approve a request for Conditional Use Permit for a 92 unit Multi-familv/Assisted Living Facilitv in the R-4 (Medium -High Densitv Residence) District. Applicant: Monticello Senior Housing Owner, LLC — Michael Hoagberg (NAC) Property: Legal: Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square Address: Unassigned Planning Case Number: 2019-010 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Conditional Use Permit to allow an assisted living facility in an R-4 zoning district Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation Zoning Designation: Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: Current Site Use: Surrounding Land Uses: May 31, 2019, extended to July 30th, 2019 — Applicant has authorized extension to allow for August City Council review. Places to Live R-4, Medium -High Density Residential District The purpose of the "R-4" Medium -High Density Residential District is to provide for medium to high density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per building, and at densities of between 10 and 25 units per acre. Wild and Scenic Recreational River District Vacant North: Single Family Residential / Places to Live (R-1) South: Commercial and Vacant / Places to Shop (B -2/B-4) East: Institutional (Church) and Single Family Residential / Places for Community and Places to Live (R -A/R -2) West: Commercial and Vacant / Places to Shop (B-4) Project Description: Headwaters Development is requesting approval of a 125 -unit senior living facility to be constructed upon a 5 -acre site located south of County Road 39 (Riverview Drive) and east of Hart Boulevard. The senior living facility is to be developed in two phases, with the initial phase being comprised of 92 units. In the initial phase, 78 units are to be devoted to assisted living while 14 units are to be devoted to City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 memory care. The building is to measure three stories in height. ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria. Assisted living facilities are listed as a conditional use in the R-4 District. Therefore, such uses are subject to conditional use permit processing. This allows for detailed review of the proposed development to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, promote high-quality development, and provides the City with the authority to impose conditions so that the public health, safety and welfare is not detrimentally impacted by the development. Earlier this year, the City approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject site, changing from Places to Work (Commercial) to Places to Live (Residential). As a companion action, the City approved a rezoning of the site from B-4, Regional Business to R-4, Medium and High Density Residential District. The City Council, in its resolution rezoning the property, made note of the intent for residential uses on this property to occur without the need for departures from the zoning ordinance regulations, and a definite preference for senior housing, rather than general market multi -family, based on the location and proximity to other land uses in the area, and the low -impact aspects of senior housing on traffic, parking, lot coverage, and several other land use elements. According to Section 2.4.D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, recommendations and decisions on conditional use permit requests must be based on a certain set of criteria. The following is a listing of each criterion followed by a Staff response: (i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property; Staff Response. The subject property has been vacant for a substantial amount of time. Considering that R-4 District performance standards (applicable to "assisted living facilities") are intended to ensure a high-quality development product, the proposed use is not expected to diminish area property values. (ii) The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working near the use; Staff Response. The proposed use is not expected to be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or welfare or persons working or residing near the subject site. (iii) The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area; Staff Response. The subject site is bordered on the north by single family residential uses, on the south by a commercial use and vacant, commercially - K City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 zoned parcel, on the east by an institutional use (church) and single-family residential uses, and on the south by a commercial use and a vacant, commercially -zoned parcel. The design of the senior living project, including building placement, site access locations and landscape buffering efforts have been situated such that impacts upon nearby residential uses will be minimal. (iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided; Staff Response. Utilities are presently available to the subject site. The proposed development is not expected to overburden the City's public service capacity. A traffic study for the proposed use and site was completed by the developer and evaluated with the prior Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning request. The proposed use will not pose an undue burden on the road system. (v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City Code requirements; Staff Response. According to the Table 4-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes off- street parking supply requirements for various uses, "senior housing" must provide one off-street parking space for each unit. Thus, a total of 125 off- street parking spaces are required for the senior living facility at full project build -out. For the first phase, a minimum of 92 off-street parking stalls are required. According to the submitted site plan, a total of 111 off-street parking spaces are proposed as part of the first phase of the project. Of these stalls, 61 are to be surface stalls (including 3 ADA stalls) and 50 are to be underground stalls (including 2 ADA stalls). Thus, the parking supply for Phase 1 of the project exceeds the minimum parking supply requirements of the Ordinance. It is unclear if additional off-street parking is planned as part of Phase 2 of the project. A summary of required and proposed parking is provided below: Proposed Ratio Proposed Spaces Required Units Spaces Phase 1 92 1 space 111 (61 surface stalls and 92 per unit 50 underground stalls) Phase 2 33 1 space None or information not 14* per unit specified Total 125 111 125 Supply deficiency addressed via excess Phase 1 supply 3 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 As a condition of conditional use permit approval, it is recommended that the site plan be modified to demonstrate that a total of 125 off-street parking stalls can be provided upon the subject site. A loading space is proposed on the west side of the building. (vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor, noise, or sight pollution; Staff Response. The proposed use is not anticipated to create any odor or noise nuisance conditions. Appropriately, the site plan demonstrates compliance with the required 60 -foot green space setback from the County Road 39 (Riverview Drive) right-of-way which is intended to mitigate potential visual impact issues. Further, a clear open space setback of 40 feet has been proposed along all other property lines, and includes appropriate landscaping meeting the City's buffering and landscaping requirements. With the preceding in mind, the proposed use is not expected to have any nuisance -related impacts. (vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands, wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled, Staff Response. The subject site does not have any wetlands or shorelands. Submitted erosion control and site landscape plans include measures to reduce erosion during and after construction. A total of 12 deciduous "non -specimen" trees presently exist upon the site. While all existing trees are to be removed to accommodate the senior living facility, the amount of new vegetation provided on the site (as depicted on the landscape plan) will significantly exceed that which is to be removed. (viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5 for the proposed use. Staff Response. As a condition of project approval, all use standards identified within the City's Zoning Ordinance must be satisfied unless otherwise granted via variance. These items are discussed in the analysis to follow. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Size. Within R-4 zoning districts, a minimum lot area of 30,000 square feet is required. At 5.02 acres (218,666 square feet) in size, the subject property meets this requirement. Access. The subject site is to be accessed from the west via two 24 -foot wide driveways along Hart Boulevard. Such driveways align with access points which presently exist to the west side of the site and have been found to be acceptable by the City Engineer. Site access -related issues should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. L! City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 Phasing. The 125 -unit senior living center is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The initial phase is comprised of 92 units, 78 units of which are to be devoted to assisted living. The remaining 14 units are to be devoted to first floor memory care. The Phase 2 expansion is proposed on the south side of side of the building and is intended to provide 33 additional units. While a building footprint of 8,700 square feet in specified, it is unclear if a multi -story addition with underground parking is planned. Recognizing that Phase 2 of the senior living project appears to be conceptual at this point, it is recommended that such future phase be subject to conditional use permit amendment processing. Density. The R-4 District is intended to accommodate multiple family residential structures having 13 or more units per building and development densities of 10-25 dwelling units per acre. The proposed senior living facility calls for 125 dwelling units within a single stricture (Phases 1 and 2) and exhibits a density of 25 units per acre. Thus, the density requirements of the Ordinance have been satisfied. Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed development meets applicable R-4 District setback requirements. Front Yard Side Yards Rear Yard Clear open Space from ROW Clear Open Space from Property Line Required Setback 100 feet 30 feet (interior) 40 feet (corner) 40 feet 60 feet 40 feet (no more than 50% of yard facing a street covered with parking/drive aisles Proposed Setback 115 feet (north) 58 feet (east) 60 feet (west) NA 60 feet 40 feet Open Space. Within R-4 zoning districts, 500 square feet of common open space must be provided per dwelling unit. Thus, not less than 62,500 square feet of green space must be provided upon the subject property. In satisfaction of this requirement, 128,361 square feet of green space is proposed (58 percent of the total site area). In addition, not less than 30 percent of the area of sites which are devoted to assisted living facilities must be devoted to open space. According to the applicants, 2.94 acres (or 58 percent) of the 5.02 -acre site is to be devoted to pervious surface area. In this regard, the minimum open space requirement has been significantly exceeded. Further, the applicant's plans detail the continuation of sidewalk along Hart boulevard, and the installation of paved pathway along CSAH 39 in accordance with the City's Pathway Connections Guide Plan. 5 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 Council will note that conversations with Wright County regarding the location of the pathway relative to the CSAH 39 right of way are on-going at this time. Staff will continue to work with the County and the developer on a final trail alignment. Off -Street Parking. As noted earlier in this report, the off-street parking supply requirements of the Ordinance have been satisfied for the first phase of the project. Further, all off-street parking stall and drive aisle dimensions have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. Staff does recommend however, that the site plan be modified to illustrate a total of 125 off-street parking stalls upon the subject site to accommodate Phase 2 development. This will result in 14 additional parking spaces upon the site. It should be noted that the ordinance grants the Community Development Department the ability to modify the applicable parking requirements if appropriate evidence exists to justify a departure from the listed standards. The Ordinance states that a maximum of 1.1 spaces per dwelling unit may be uncovered. Considering that only one parking space per unit is required for assisted living facility uses by ordinance, this standard does not directly apply. The site plan illustrates 61 uncovered (surface stalls) and 50 covered (underground stalls) and therefore meets the requirement, regardless. Drop-off/Pick-up Activities. Drop-off and pick-up activities are proposed to take place on the north side of the building beneath a canopy feature. While the inclusion of the canopy is considered a positive, concern exists related to possible vehicle congestion which could take place in the area. The drive lane beneath the canopy measures 24 feet in width. To ensure that drop-off and pick-up activities will not disrupt two-way traffic circulation, consideration should be given to providing an additional drop-off/pick-up lane beneath the proposed entrance canopy (within which senior transit vans, for example, may park for the boarding and unloading of senior passengers). Off -Street Loading. According to Section 5.2(D)(2) of the Ordinance, assisted living facilities must provide one off-street loading space. As illustrated on the submitted site plan, a loading area is proposed on the west side of the building. Such loading area measures approximately 60 feet in depth and illustrates ample turning radii (30 feet) for delivery vehicle backing maneuvers. Landscaping. An extensive number of plantings have been proposed upon the site, including plantings along the perimeter of the site, within off-street parking areas and around the perimeter of the building. The following is a generalized summary of proposed plantings (see landscape plan for specific plant varieties): PLANT TYPE QUANTITY Coniferous Trees 24 Ornamental Trees 90 Overstory Trees 34 Coniferous Shrubs 308 Deciduous Shrubs 307 6 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 Perennials 62 Ground Covers 337 In regard to site landscaping, the following comments are offered. Caliper Inch Requirements. According to the Ordinance, two average caliper inches (ACI) of landscaping must be provided for each 2,500 square feet of open (green) space upon the subject site. In this regard, 50 ACI is required upon the site (62,500 sf green space / 2,500 sf). The applicants have proposed a total ACA of 393 inches. Thus, the total ACI requirement has been satisfied. Perimeter Plantings. The Ordinance also requires 4 shrubs per 10 feet of building perimeter length. Phase 1 of the project has a building perimeter length of 1,152 feet (does not include 60 linear feet to be a shared wall with the Phase 2 expansion). Phase 2 of the project has a perimeter length of 320 feet. For Phase 1, a total of 231 perimeter shrubs are required. In satisfaction of this requirement, 232 perimeter shrubs (evergreen and deciduous) have been proposed. The landscape plan does not illustrate any plantings around the perimeter of the Phase 2 expansion. In the opinion of Staff, such detail can be addressed as part of future conditional use permit amendment processing (associated with Phase 2 development). Parking Islands. According to the Ordinance, there may be no more than 12 off- street parking spaces between parking islands. Further, each island must have one tree and 25 percent coverage by shrubs. This requirement has been satisfied. Perimeter Vehicle Use Area. According to the Ordinance, where a vehicular use area abuts a street right-of-way, perimeter landscaping strips must be provided and maintained between the vehicle use area and the abutting right-of-way or property line. This planting strip must at least 6 feet wide and include at least 8 ACI of canopy trees per 100 linear feet of landscaping strip. This requirement (along Hart Boulevard) has been satisfied. Courtvard Areas. The site plan identifies a courtyard area on the east side of the building. Appropriately, a significant amount of landscaping has been provided in such area. Ground Cover. The bulk of the site will be sodded or seeded with lawn grass (a bluegrass mix). As a condition of conditional use permit approval, the subject site should be irrigated. It is noted that there are existing trees on the site which the City Engineer has been recommended for removal due to vehicle site line considerations. The new plantings will comply with sight line recommendations. In addition, the City Engineer has made a recommendation regarding the location of plantings near the southeast corner of the site; the applicant will be required to adjust the location of the plantings but within the same area. VA City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 Buffer Yards. The City's Zoning Ordinance provides for a specific buffer yard treatment that identifies separation and plantings dependent on the potential for conflicts with adjoining land uses. For the proposed use, the "basic buffer" requirements (labeled an "A" buffer in the landscaping section of the zoning ordinance) apply to the north and east property lines. For "basic buffers", the required planting area must be 20 feet in width and must provide 2 average caliper inches (ACI) of canopy trees, 10 ACI of understory trees, plus 15 small shrubs per 100 linear feet. The site's northern boundary measures 510 feet in length while the eastern boundary measures 669 feet in length. As a result, the following plantings are required in the north and east buffer yards: North Buffer Yard East Buffer Yard (510 feet) (669 feet) Canopy Trees 11 ACI 14 ACI Understory Trees 52 ACI 67 ACI Shrubs 77 101 The submitted landscaping plan meets this preceding buffer yard landscaping requirements. Building Finish Materials. Building elevations have been submitted which illustrate fagade designs and intended building colors, including exterior finish materials. In regard to exterior finish materials, the Zoning Ordinance provides that: ". . . districts with multiple family housing shall be subject to building material standards as follows: all building walls facing a public street shall be covered with stone, brick, cultured masonry simulating brick or stone, or other enhanced materials acceptable to the City Council to an extent not less than 20% of the exposed wall silhouette area. In addition, multiple family structures of thirteen (13) or more units shall, when lap horizontal siding, be constructed of heavy gauge steel or cement -board, with no use of vinyl or aluminum permitted. Natural wood or species that is resistant to decay may be permitted where approved by the City Council. The plans illustrate the use of brick wainscot around much of the building, and brick finish facing on the exposed wall that provides access to the underground garage. Cultured stone is applied to the full first floor height along the corner of the building surrounding the primary entrance areas, as well as to canopy post bases. The remainder of the siding is cement board in a variety of finishes — lapped siding and panels. The plans appear to meet the requirements listed above. Staff would encourage the addition of more brick or stone on architectural features such as the deck/porch extensions, however, this comment is included as a consideration for the applicant's option, rather than added as a condition. Building Height. The R-4 District does not specifically limit height. The proposed height of the three-story building is 35 feet as measured from the top of the parapet. City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 In previous review, the City has actively sought the opinion of the Department of Natural Resources regarding building height on this property. Under the (revised) Wild and Scenic Recreational River overlay district, the building height would be limited to 25 feet. However, DNR staff indicate that due to the history of the property's annexation and platting, the previous 35 foot height allowance would be applicable. As such, the proposed height meets the requirements without need for variance. As a condition of conditional use permit approval, the Fire Marshal should provide comment and recommendation regarding fire protection issues/requirements for the building. Trash/Recycling. As a condition of site plan approval, the applicants should provide details including elevation drawings and materials details related to waste storage and removal. A trash -handling location is identified as a part of the service/loading area on the west side of the building. Lighting. To date, an exterior lighting plan has not been received. As a condition of conditional use permit approval, a photometric lighting plan should be submitted subject to City review and approval. Such lighting plan should specify exterior lighting locations, styles, mounting and light distribution. According to the Ordinance, the height of outdoor lighting, whether mounted on poles or walls or by other means, must not exceed 25 feet in height. Further, the maximum allowed illumination level for residential uses, as measured at the property line is 0.5 foot-candles. Signage. A freestanding monument sign plan in included on the building elevation sheet (Sheet A203). Its intended location is to be the front lawn of the site, behind the building setback lines. In this regard, it is recommended that the site plan (Sheet C400) be modified to specify the proposed monument sign location. The submitted building perspective and elevations illustrate a conceptual wall sign location on the north facade of the building. No size details have however, been provided. As a condition of conditional use permit approval, all signs erected upon the subject site must meet applicable Sign Ordinance requirements and be subject to sign permit. Unit Areas. Appropriately, detailed floor plans have been submitted which specify unit sizes. According to the Zoning Ordinance, efficiency units within assisted living facilities must have a minimum floor area of 440 square feet and must not exceed 20 percent of the number of apartments in the building. The Ordinance further states that one -bedroom units within assisted living facilities must have a minimum floor area of 520 square feet. Just 24 of the proposed first - phase units are below the 520 square foot threshold, 14 of which are memory care units, rather than assisted living units. As such, 10 of the 78 assisted living units (12.8%) are below that threshold, consistent with the maximum requirement of 20 percent. E City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 Units within the senior living facility should conform with applicable minimum floor area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. This issue is subject to further review and recommendation by the City Building Official. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities should be subject to review comment by the City Engineer. The City Engineering Department has provided a comment letter relating to the site and utility plans. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed this item and held a public hearing on the request on June 4th, 2019. The Planning Commission confirmed that the upcoming improvements, paired with the proposed tree removal and the grading on site would support an improved visibility condition at Hart and CSAH 39. It was also noted that a transportation study was completed by the applicant with the Comprehensive Plan amendment application, which demonstrated that the volume of traffic for the proposed use is significantly lower than that of a commercial use for the site. Commission asked that engineering staff review whether any turn lane configuration into the Kwik Trip or this facility would be necessary. It was noted that the engineers have reviewed the traffic study and the access configuration and have not recommended any turn lanes. It was also noted that a pathway along CSAH 39 and sidewalk along Hart is being installed with the project to provide pedestrian access. The Commission inquired as to the ponding for the site. It was noted by the applicant's engineer that the on-site stormwater design will provide infiltration and will reduce the flow of entering the regional pond to the east. The Commission also inquired as to the height requirement in the Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational River District. Steve Grittman confirmed that as the parcel was platted and zoned under the prior MWSRR rules setting the height at 35', the project meets the required height limit for the MWSRR. The Commissioners also briefly discussed the brick and stone treatment on the building, with planning staff noting that the building meets the 20% requirement with a significant amount of window coverage. During the public hearing, a resident inquired as to past project approvals for the site. It was noted that no project had been previously approved for the site, either commercial or residential. However, the City Council's decision to approve the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request by the current applicant has allowed the CUP application to move forward for consideration. No other public addressed the Commission on the item. Following the discussion and hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit unanimously. Conditional Use Permit Site Improvement Performance Agreement A conditional use permit and site improvement contract for the development has been prepared and is attached for Council review and approval. As the subject site is a 10 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 platted parcel, the agreement is not a standard development contract, but rather a site improvement agreement which specifies the conditions of the approval and required site improvements. Similar to development agreements, the site agreement does require payment of development related charges, including trunk area charges. The agreement further specifies the required securities for the public improvements within the plat (pathway and sidewalk), as well as landscaping and grading and restoration of the plat site. Height Variance and MWSRR Ordinance Amendment On July 15th, 2019 the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, reviewed a request from the applicant for variance from the 25' height allowance in the MWSRR Overlay District. As noted in the prior Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests, as well as the current CUP request, the applicant proposes a building of 35' in height. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the variance request. Those who addressed the Commission on the item expressed concern with the City process regarding the height, noting that the proposed 35' height had been clear throughout the review process. It was noted by the applicant and staff that without the variance, the project would have greater impacts on site, including the ability to provide site green space and impact to stormwater conditions. Further, staff suggested that the variance results in a more reasonable use of the property. Without the additional height considered by this variance request, it is possible that a much more massive structure would occupy the property to house the same number of units, resulting in negative impacts noted above, in addition to significant negative visual impacts on the neighborhood. Additionally, as height is measured at the average height of a roofline, a gabled roof could be foreseen with a ridge line of 30 feet or more, and still meet the technical 25 - foot measured height. Staff explained to the Commission that the City Council had also directed staff to pursue an ordinance amendment to allow 35' in height for principal structures in the MWSRR, which is consistent with state rules. Following discussion and public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to approve the variance. Commissioner Murdoff voted in dissent, stating concerns with the variance justification. The Planning Commission acts as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on variance requests. Therefore, decisions of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals are final unless a written appeal is filed within 10 business days of the decision. No appeal of the decision was filed. As such, the July 15th, 2019 decision on the variance request is considered final. In relationship to the proposed ordinance amendment to allow heights of up to 35' for principal structures in the MWSRR Overlay District, staff prepared a proposed amendment and submitted the ordinance for review to the DNR. On August 2nd, the DNR issued a conditional approval of the ordinance amendment. Planning 11 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 Commission reviewed the ordinance amendment on August 6th, 2019, tabling the item to September to allow additional review. The item is expected to come before the City Council for consideration in September. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request, Alternative 1 below. 1. Motion to approve the conditional use permit and conditional use permit and site improvement agreement to allow a senior multi -family and assisted living facility an R-4 District based on findings in Resolution PC -2019-013. 2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit and conditional use permit and site improvement agreement to allow a senior multi -family and assisted living facility in an R-4 District. Findings for denial should added as a part of this motion. 3. Motion to table action on the requested conditional use permit to allow a senior and assisted living facility in an R-4 District pending additional information as identified by the City Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The R-4 District makes a specific allowance for assisted living facilities as a conditional use. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z and based on the findings in the accompanying resolutions. As noted in the report, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning as recently adopted by the City Council. Although there are conditions included in staff's recommendation, those conditions are considered minor adjustments to meet the technical requirements of the ordinance, rather than significant land use issues. The major concerns, including use, building height, density, traffic generation, and visibility at the intersection of County 39 and Hart Boulevard have been addressed as a part of the project design and variance approval. It should be noted that the City's standard of review on Conditional Use Permit requests is based in the presumption that the use is allowed, subject to the ability of the applicant to meet the conditions identified for the use in the ordinance, and other reasonable conditions based on the location and setting. As noted, staff believes that this threshold has been met, subject to compliance with the terms identified in Exhibit Z. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC -2019-013 B. Subject Property Aerial Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Development Plans E. Building Floor Plans 12 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 F. Exterior Elevations G. City Engineer's Letter, dated May 30th, 2019 H. Wright County CSAH 39 Improvement Information I. Conditional Use Permit and Site Improvement Performance Agreement J. Finance Plan K. Planning Commission Minutes, July 15th, 2019 L. Resolution PC -2019-022 Approving Height Variance Z. Conditions of Approval 13 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 EXHIBIT Z Monticello Senior Living Facility Conditional Use Permit Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square 1. The site plan shall be modified to demonstrate that a total of 125 off-street parking stalls can be provided upon the subject site, subject to review for modification of requirements at the time of the second phase. 2. Phase 2 of the senior living facility shall be subject to conditional use permit amendment processing. 3. All landscape areas upon the subject site shall be irrigated. 4. Building finish materials are found to be consistent with Ordinance requirements. 5. The Fire Marshal provide comment and recommendation regarding fire protection issues/requirements for the building. 6. The applicants shall provide details related to waste storage and removal activities. 7. A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted subject to City review and approval. 8. The submitted site plan shall be modified to illustrate the proposed monument sign location. 9. All signs erected upon the subject site shall meet applicable Sign Ordinance requirements and be subject to sign permit. 10. Units within the senior living facility shall conform with applicable minimum floor area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. This issue shall be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Building Official. 11. Compliance with the comments of the City Engineer's review letter, dated May 30th, 2019. 12. To ensure that drop -off -pick and up activities will not disrupt two-way traffic circulation, consideration be given to providing a designated (separate) drop-off/pick- up lane beneath the proposed entrance canopy. 13. The developer shall execute the required project development agreement, stormwater maintenance agreement and encroachment agreement. 14 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC -2019-013 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR -ORIENTED MULTIPLE FAMILY BUILDING CONSISTING OF 42 ASSISTED AND MEMORY -CARE UNITS IN THE R-4, MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to construct a 92 -unit senior housing project on a platted parcel in the R-4 District; and WHEREAS, the site is zoned R-4, Medium -High Density Residential with a designation upon its rezoning for senior -oriented housing, and subject to the Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District; and WHEREAS. the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of "Places to Live" for the site; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting compliance with the teens of the applicable zoning regulations related to land use, building height. parking supply, traffic generation, landscaping, building materials, and other project elements; and WHEREAS, the uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the R-4 zoning district; and Ji"HERE.AS, the uses will not create any unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on or around the site: and WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission held a public hearing on June 4"'.2019 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to Present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report. which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS. the Planning Cornmission of the City of Monticello snakes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the R-4, Medium -High Density Residential Zoning District. ?. The proposed uses are consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, serving as a transitional development between lower density residential and commercial areas, 3. The impacts of the improvernents are those anticipated by the land use plan and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted, CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC -2419-013 4. The proposed senior housing project meets the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, pursuant to the conditions attached to the Conditional Use Pennit. and listed below. 5. Parking, landscaping, building materials. and other project elements are found to be adequate based on the proposed improvements to the property. NO If, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of tine City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for Office use, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows: 1. The site plan shall be modified to dernonstrate that a total of 125 off-street parking stalls can be provided upon the subject site. subject to review for modification of requirements at the time of the second phase. 2. Phase 2 of the senior living facility shall be subject to conditional use permit amendment processing. 3. All landscape areas upon the subject site shall be irrigated. 4. Building finish materials are found to be consistent with Ordinance requirements. 5. The Fire Marshal provide comment and recommendation regarding fire protection issues/requirements for the building. 6. The applicants shall provide details related to waste storage and removal activities. 7. A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted subject to City review and approval. S. The submitted site plan shall be modified to illustrate the proposed monument sign location. 9. All signs erected upon the subject site shall meet applicable Sign Ordinance requirements and be subject to sign pen -nit. 10. Units within the senior living facility shall conform with applicable minimum floor area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. This issue shall be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Building Official, 11. Compliance with the comments of the City Engineer's review letter, dated May 30. 2019. 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC -2019-013 12. To ensure that drop -off -pick and up activities will not disrupt two-way traffic circulation, consideration he given to providing a designated (separate) drop-off/pick- up lane beneath the proposed entrance canopy. 13. The developer shall execute the required project development agreement, stormwater maintenance agreement and encroachment agreement. ADOPTED this 4h day of dune, 2019 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. ATTEST: MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Development Director 3 Monticello Senior Housing Owner, LLC - Michael Hoagberg I Request for Conditional Use Permit Lot 1, Block 2 Riverview Square I PID#155-117-002010 Created by: City of Monticello Headwaters Develovment - Monticello Senior Livinu CUP Narrative 1 April 2019 From: Headwaters Development #1 The following describes the overall project summary. The Proiect: The proposed senior living development will be managed by Ebenezer and will have 92 units in the first phase with an additional 33 units planned for the second phase. The total units of assisted living, independent living, and memory care suites will total 125 units. This would consist of approximately 14 memory care units on the first level and a blend of 78 varying levels of assisted living units on the first, second, and third levels. The rent structure is comparable to neighboring facilities and other new campuses that are currently being constructed across the region. The building will incorporate typical senior building amenities such as dining rooms, family dining room, multi-purpose rooms, chapel, beauty shop, activity rooms, theater room, medical clinic space, therapy, library, fitness room, spa room, pantry, management office and commercial kitchen. It will also have underground parking. This community doubles as the resident's homes as well as a community full of activity and care provided by our operator. The operations of the building will be 24/7, although the majority of activity occurs during the The exterior of the three-story building will incorporate brick, stone and Hardi-type siding (cementitious siding) with a sloping asphalt shingle roof. The building will be set back off of the two adjacent streets with extensive landscaping, patios, gardens, walks and courtyards. The Management Team - Ebenezer Senior Services: Founded in 1917 by Minneapolis Lutherans to provide community -centered care for homeless older adults and others in need, Ebenezer Senior Services programs and services today include: • Independent Living (including condominiums, cooperatives and senior apartments) • Assisted Living • Memory Care • Transitional and Long-term Care • Adult and Intergenerational Day Programs • Community-based Services • Management and Consulting Services • The Ebenezer Foundation Part of Fairview Health Services since 1995, their combined resources and expertise offer access to a full range of choices for vibrant senior living. In partnership with the University of Minnesota, they are also part of an academic health system improving the patient's clinical experience, conducting nation -leading research and achieving academic prominence. Ebenezer will assist in analyzing the market, establishing a strategic marketing plan, producing sales collateral, coordinating a public relations plan, and training sales staff. Through Ebenezer's system for managing leads, maximizing sales, and monitoring programs to reach occupancy projections, the new development hopes to exceed projected occupancy. Ebenezer will provide effective on-site management as well as consulting services in all areas of management. Ebenezer has proven that quality patient care and a positive bottom line can go hand- in-hand. Ebenezer will also continue to assist Headwaters Development in evaluating the facilities' strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, they will assess current programs, any service gaps, as well as opportunities and threats in the external market environment. From this, recommendations for new service options tailored to the needs of seniors will be developed and include an individualized implementation plan. #2 CUP Criteria: (i) We expect a building and use like what is being proposed is advantageous to a community in many ways. We anticipate, given the quality of building and operations that will go on this site, values in surrounding properties at worst will stay neutral, and likely will increase. (ii) The senior community in no way will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or welfare of persons near the site, in fact, these factors will likely improve in the persons impacted by this site. (iii) The conditional use will in no way impede the normal or orderly development of surrounding property. (iv) The proposed senior community will have minimal impact on the site and use of public utilities or roads. The seniors will not use the roadways or utilities at peak times and the overall usage is considerably lower than any other alternate use for this site. (v) Sufficient on grade and below grad parking will be provided at the site. All loading spaces and storage are adequately hiding from primary public view and will be incorporated into the overall structure. (vi) Great attention to detail has been made to make sure the building is aesthetically appealing to the general public. Landscape will be eloquently groomed and maintained for the public and the residents. Furthermore, most activity is ceased by 530/630pm in the community, limiting noise and any congestion concerns. (vii) The proposed use has coordinated in depth with civil engineers and architects to ensure minimal impact to the existing site, proper erosion / water control and limited to no erosion concerns. (viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined by City governing documents. Employee counts: The anticipated number of employees for the proposed Senior Living project will be approximately 50 employees (including full and part time positions). This will include an executive director, a clinical services director, mix of RN's and/or LPN's, nursing assistants, and staff for activities, marketing, dietary, housekeeping, maintenance and other administration. c� M M C) O N 0 .Q w w U) ry LU 0 U 6 U) r_ (10 n 0 U 2) U) 0 M c J 0 U) Z 0 U C O a� U 0 U) Q W r) J PROJECT TEAM: ENGINEER KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Klom e ))) Horn PREPARED BY: ALAN L. CATCHPOOL , PE 2550 UNIVERSITY AVE W, SUITE 238 N ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTACT: RYAN HYLLESTAD, PLA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 11001 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 TELEPHONE: (952) 995-2000 FAX: (952) 995-2020 CONTACT: JAKE A. WOTCZAK, PE SURVEYOR CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. 6750 STILLWATER BLVD. N., SUITE #1 STILLWATER, MN 55082 TELEPHONE: (615) 275-8969 FAX: (615) 275-8976 CONTACT: DANIEL THURMES SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR MONTICELLO SENIOR LIVING SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 121 N, RANGE 25W MONTICELLO, COUNTY, MN OWNER/DEVELOPER MONTICELLO SENIOR HOUSING OWNER,LLC 17550 HEMLOCK AVENUE LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 TELEPHONE: (952) 378-4386 CONTACT: MICHAEL HOAGBERG GENERAL CONTRACTOR ENGELSMA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7119 31 ST AVENUE N. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427 TELEPHONE: (763) 536-9200 CONTACT: BRIAN TEETERS ARCHITECT AYRES ASSOCIATES f a- VICINITY N.T.S. -Tow 4W :'�li k 4 r k SITE NORTH 215 NORTH SECOND STREET, SUITE 204 NOTES: RIVER FALLS, WI 54022 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS INCLUDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. TELEPHONE: (715) 831-7550 2. IF REPRODUCED, THE SCALES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON A Previous paper CONTACT: DANIEL BURNAM size (34.00 x 22.00 Inches) SHEET. 3. ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICES COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDING POSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION OF SERVICES. Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C000 COVER SHEET V100 ALTA NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY C100 GENERAL NOTES C200 TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN C201 DEMO PLAN C300 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PHASE 1 C301 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PHASE 2 C302 SWPPP C400 SITE PLAN C500 GRADING PLAN C501 STORM SEWER PLAN C600 UTILITY PLAN C700 CIVIL DETAILS C701 CIVIL DETAILS C702 CIVIL DETAILS C703 CIVIL DETAILS L100 LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT L102 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE L103 LANDSCAPE DETAILS Know what's below. Call before you dig. } 00 W Q 0 W Z 0 W 0 Z � W m o 0 J W I<Z c0 L0 �o2. W _ W W z E jLLuL W O 10�zQ o �ja O o = �a= F ~ 0 H J U Z U Q J O c..> Q W W W W Z< U= p J H Z LL O J Q O W �z �o 0 �OIrpz O< Wp Q Q W C() > O co < LU co LLJ — Z W ww0Q�z U m , O O N rn U 0 0 J (n 0 � Z LU _ U) W o w 0 o Q CO m m a ( aoo m o C W Z Z Y U U Z U) Q 0� O (0w Z WJ Z LL W 2i O W z Y 0 OZ O0 Z d U)J W Z — �Q W � W o o W Q Y } UJ c ♦— LU C) U) amp Waco Q a W `Z o Z D J W LL 0 U_ 0 L0 Z Z w N � W m o 0 J W I<Z c0 azo �o2. W _ W W z E jLLuL W O 10�zQ o �ja O o = �a= F ~ 0 H U Z U Q J Cn Q �ac�zJ c..> Q W W W W J U= p J H Z LL O J Q O W �z �o 0 �OIrpz O< Wp Q Q o 3 Z :E w > O co < LU co LLJ — Z W ww0Q�z Uj W xa xz— _(nW 0 Z 0 0 J p 0 0 o Q LU _ U) o w 0 o Q CO m m a ( aoo m o Y W Z Z Y U U U) 0 o U F LU W Z t� O I—W U LU p U) Z U O U 0� O Z LL I— OZ O0 Z U)J — W W � W o o W Q C G UJ ♦— LU H0 Z— amp Waco Q a (n `Z o O J W LL U_ 0 Z Z w 0 SHEET NUMBER C0 C000 M M M 0 O N O .Q a� H Q 0 C _M 0 U 27)U a) C J O a) (n z O a) U C O a) M U O U) w 0 J U� H a Q�. ------ + I cli �l a � l i I I 0 / I O / / ot ��. LL +929 I SAN. NH -- \ I2IM=g32.q MISSISSIPPI Nv-q'sq(SE) g30 NV=q 18.6 (N) DRIVE LL (BITUMINOUS PUBLIC ROAD) I --SET 1/2" IRON PIP ryh5 01 (EXISTING PIPE MA KED I+p +oLh 11 #15233 1LEANING SE) 926) I I ) ) ) / �11� h N N �a I 12" DRAINAGE AND ��. UTILITY EASEMENT I l l » I 18" RCP >> I � I AI I X34 M l �� h I O U I I z 93s I I � I � Q w ► �/ OO 4 U CC 7 a ° I � � r 7 � I I z m 6 °A `\9? I h o � I LU 11 \\ I I LU II a II ry r + 1 \ + f \ q0 \ 90,41 D �1,D + . +p�h. 01 +110 1/2" IRON PIPE #14345 _--x +�. h^ c0 ci z LU 92i� +Ary • N- _� +�h aryh� EXISTING BUILDING p\, IRON IPIPE HART BLVDIRIVERVIEW DR. NE T 99-P&�G RIM -_g28.1 � N ('1; ry = N ,• F a_ U_ INV=915.5(E) \\ 6 oryh`� - �7 8 �'0 6 L — J ° ° E > > �"i`Y�it o o - O +°ry + ip co o �? `` +3 �- cn _ _ m cn o< ? 4Q0 ! w � � o� f MONTICELLO MN 9 \m S.. FORCEM 1 ,p +Q� �� s th h+ a �� V �l I p 6 _ ry QANDON? h ' FM a M Q - II II II a3 FM -FM) FM Fi� FM FM pZ '� +u• 9 A`La►—'+ a + + \\ �`� v V1 OC ? NOL TY SEMEN ? + ' a �„ < « 93U <<< < / 6$i< < `> h , 36" RCP 3 > `L'a _ -931 2� �3 I -' q33 /1 I � RIM -929.4 ------------- � < Q O a- I Rc q I CONTACT: INV_g23.64 S --PLA A a� h+ = -P + Pah. ALAN CATCHPOOL 938 \ �----� _ _ _ _ _ _ Q — — ''-- 70 KIMLEY HORN ---- -- — ----------------- n EDGE OF / Row - 2550 University Avenue W. + SUM c SU g ^ Suite 238N 94O ani St. Paul, Minnesota 5 51 14 � s a + b a Tel: 651-393-6164 +oP/0 �� , 4 v+Email: catchpool@ cB° '4 kimle -horn.com RIM=g36.3(g37.68 PLAN) 6 N %/ INV=FABRIC/FILLEDWIT O �� INVHg31056 (PLAN) 6 \0 / COUNTY/CITY: / , 942 °� / 0 `b �� I� W R 1 G H 7117- + Pa`Lk oaP o.�\ +aa +Pn + + 15 (PLAN) 0 �z F � P airy 9� I 4q43 r ` Y. F D 1/2" IRON PIPE /t�VAULT �, MAR #14345 E ' (Y a - Z �+ a�ry� NORTH --- ° ��. RIM=941.7 INV=g36.2J / i OV Jam\ / 0 30 60 +o° 6" SERV. / i ` pJS / 1 .(PLAN)� H� 944 6� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: qPT _ O/ E a to J4/• a cr \ The following legal description is shown ber The First +� j h ��93 4 / , O Q F > /•,,.; American Title Insurance Company Title Commitment No. lyNCS-921340-MPLS, dated August 16, 2018 FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE/ -7 7T _ " ` MARKED #14345 "-�� // yc o A �J \ LP\ /REVISIONS: 145 I / �g r 0\P Lot 1, Block 2, RIVER VIEW SQUARE, Wright County, ^�\�� \2 � IQ�PtJ '� / Minnesota. Abstract Property. ,►,i , / �v0 - DATE REVISION 09-07-2018 INITIAL ISSUE /' TABLE A NOTES: \ N \Ye / �' \6 +°' ��a The following exceptions appear on the First American Title A / / Insurance Company Title Commitment No. NCS-921340-MPLS, / 36 \ �� / dated August 16, 2018 hwa 10. Easement for -7 / �^' / hi A2 \ / 7� / g y purposes per Final Certificate Doc. / 10 No. 227949, conveyed by Doc. No. 360234, and partially vacated Doc. No. 491943. 11 11. Easement for utility purposes, per Doc. No. 379143. (Shown \ +tb - / graphically). / EXISTING PARKING: 12. Wright County Highway Right of Way Plat No. 6, per 6 Document No. 436443. Partially conveyed to the City of a THERE ARE 0 VISIBLE PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED Monticello Doc. No. 467778. Partially vacated per Doc. No. ON THIS PARCEL. 467909. (Does not affect the subject parcel). 7 / 13. Easement for highway purposes er Final Certificate Doc. No. 484055, re-recorded per Doc. No. 651677. Partially vacated m v, =�M / LEGEND: BENCHMARKS 14 per Doc. No. 491943. (Does not affect subject parcel). PROJECT LOCATION: z14. Developer's Agreement River View Square per \ E z FOUND MONUMENT f� FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION 1 S Doc. No. 681165. (Not shown affects entire parcel). O SET 1/2"IRON PIPE HYDRANT ELEVATIONS BASED ON INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON 15. Easements per plat of River View Square per Doc. No. MARKED RLS NO. 25718 ® CURB STOP THE MNDOT GEODETIC WEBSITE. SURVEY DISK BAUER ED CABLE Tv PEDESTAL 681167. (Shown Graphically). O WATER WELL MNDOT AZ MK WITH AN ELEVATION OF 957.34 WAS \ Ac AIR CONDITIONER OWATER MANHOLE USED TO ESTABLISH VERTICAL CONTROL FOR THIS 16. Wright County Highway Right of Way Plat No. 55 per Doc. _ W OE ELECTRIC MANHOLE yry., \ WATER METER No. 951313. (Does not affect subject parcel). ELECTRIC METER ❑ SURVEY (NAND 88) ® PID# 1 55117002010 ® POST INDICATOR VALVE 17. Agreement per Doc. No. 1020863. (Does not affect subject EP ELECTRIC PEDESTAL WATER VALVE parcel.) \ O ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER O BOLLARD 7{S LIGHT POLE FLAGPOLE SURVEY NOTES: CERTIFICATION: \ GUY WIRE MB MAIL BOX �. -0- POWER POLE TRAFFIC SIGN \ @ GAS MANHOLEO UNKNOWN MANHOLE 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY To: MMC Land Holdings, First American Title Insurance ® GAS METER 0 SOIL BORING THE WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE.BEARINGS Company and their successors and assigns: This is to Suite #1 TELEPHONE MANHOLE X x50.0 SPOT ELEVATION FROM THE PLAT HAVE BEEN ROTATED, BUT INTERIOR certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. 10 TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ® TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANGLES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED. is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Stillwater, MN 55082 CO SANITARY CLEANOUTPhone 651.275.8969 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ® SANITARY MANHOLE= CONIFEROUSTREE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys, jointly established and Fax 651.275.8976 O or CATCH BASIN ll'zk dan@ f'y CITY OF MONTICELLO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, or 0 STORM DRAINi DECIDUOUS TREE ® FLARED END SECTION �1 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, 4, 7(a), 7(b)(1), 7(c), 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of css u rve y ELECTRIC ETC NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED net Off` �0 VAULT 1 i p 5El 1\ L 411 AO RIM=845.4 / / INV=942.3 I / 3j / in Cn 00 Ln + Q� -7 RCP Ln o co ca P�PG� h 949 Q ' 3 F UND 1/2" IRON PIPE �� 15 y M RKED #14345 -11 r `k / QK 0 z$ / \ _ FE5Fg44.8 r � \ a xl PD \ N / Op \ � '' \ IU 9.18 \ FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE' J� P "' UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: o O STORM MANHOLE , Table A thereof. The field work was completed on UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \\ TABLE A NOTES: August 27, 2018. Vr UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN 0U OVERHEAD UTILITY CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND IG UNDERGROUND GAS 16. THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF RECENT EARTH Dated: 9-07-2018 EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO > SANITARY SEWER MOVING WORK/BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ON THE Revised: GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN >> STORM SEWER / \ COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN I WATERMAIN SUBJECT PROPERTY. SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES —x FENCE 17. NO PROPOSED CHANGES IN RIGHT OF WAY ARE KNOWN. BY ----------------------- - NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CURB iTYPICALI 18. NO MARKERS OF WETLANDS DELINEATED BY A QUALIFIED Daniel L. Thurmes CORNERSTONE / SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED 1230 CONTOURS SPECIALIST WERE OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF Minnesota License No. 25718 ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS CONDUCTING THE FIELDWORK. LAND SURVEYING, INC. The First American Title Insurance Company Title ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION FLOOD INFORMATION: Commitment No. NCS-921340-MPLS, dated August 16, ro- AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 2018 as listed on this survey was relied upon for I \ . ; THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FILE NAME SURVKH03 `LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) 182112611. SOME MAPS WERE Gopher State One Call THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL matters of record. Other easements may exist that PROJECT NO. KH18003 were not shown in this commitment and are not shown 1-500-252-1166 BOUNDARY TOPOGRAPHIC RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO TWIN CITY� TOLL FREE: AREA: 651-454-0002 FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE on this survey. THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH MAP NUMBER 270541 0005 B HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OF NOV. 1, 1979. SURVEY DRAWING IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND NOT TO SCALE w I- 0 CO z O U) W W O z z O J z a W U) Z U w O O N rn U wL6z Q O z U) Q H W Z U) J O wo w — Q Y } 00 N Of U) LU U z C:) l Ln N } LL ❑ ❑ J OX W of <Z X X r` r� , D �1,D + . +p�h. 01 +110 1/2" IRON PIPE #14345 _--x +�. h^ c0 ci z LU 92i� +Ary • N- _� +�h aryh� EXISTING BUILDING p\, IRON IPIPE HART BLVDIRIVERVIEW DR. NE T 99-P&�G RIM -_g28.1 � N ('1; ry = N ,• F a_ U_ INV=915.5(E) \\ 6 oryh`� - �7 8 �'0 6 L — J ° ° E > > �"i`Y�it o o - O +°ry + ip co o �? `` +3 �- cn _ _ m cn o< ? 4Q0 ! w � � o� f MONTICELLO MN 9 \m S.. FORCEM 1 ,p +Q� �� s th h+ a �� V �l I p 6 _ ry QANDON? h ' FM a M Q - II II II a3 FM -FM) FM Fi� FM FM pZ '� +u• 9 A`La►—'+ a + + \\ �`� v V1 OC ? NOL TY SEMEN ? + ' a �„ < « 93U <<< < / 6$i< < `> h , 36" RCP 3 > `L'a _ -931 2� �3 I -' q33 /1 I � RIM -929.4 ------------- � < Q O a- I Rc q I CONTACT: INV_g23.64 S --PLA A a� h+ = -P + Pah. ALAN CATCHPOOL 938 \ �----� _ _ _ _ _ _ Q — — ''-- 70 KIMLEY HORN ---- -- — ----------------- n EDGE OF / Row - 2550 University Avenue W. + SUM c SU g ^ Suite 238N 94O ani St. Paul, Minnesota 5 51 14 � s a + b a Tel: 651-393-6164 +oP/0 �� , 4 v+Email: catchpool@ cB° '4 kimle -horn.com RIM=g36.3(g37.68 PLAN) 6 N %/ INV=FABRIC/FILLEDWIT O �� INVHg31056 (PLAN) 6 \0 / COUNTY/CITY: / , 942 °� / 0 `b �� I� W R 1 G H 7117- + Pa`Lk oaP o.�\ +aa +Pn + + 15 (PLAN) 0 �z F � P airy 9� I 4q43 r ` Y. F D 1/2" IRON PIPE /t�VAULT �, MAR #14345 E ' (Y a - Z �+ a�ry� NORTH --- ° ��. RIM=941.7 INV=g36.2J / i OV Jam\ / 0 30 60 +o° 6" SERV. / i ` pJS / 1 .(PLAN)� H� 944 6� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: qPT _ O/ E a to J4/• a cr \ The following legal description is shown ber The First +� j h ��93 4 / , O Q F > /•,,.; American Title Insurance Company Title Commitment No. lyNCS-921340-MPLS, dated August 16, 2018 FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE/ -7 7T _ " ` MARKED #14345 "-�� // yc o A �J \ LP\ /REVISIONS: 145 I / �g r 0\P Lot 1, Block 2, RIVER VIEW SQUARE, Wright County, ^�\�� \2 � IQ�PtJ '� / Minnesota. Abstract Property. ,►,i , / �v0 - DATE REVISION 09-07-2018 INITIAL ISSUE /' TABLE A NOTES: \ N \Ye / �' \6 +°' ��a The following exceptions appear on the First American Title A / / Insurance Company Title Commitment No. NCS-921340-MPLS, / 36 \ �� / dated August 16, 2018 hwa 10. Easement for -7 / �^' / hi A2 \ / 7� / g y purposes per Final Certificate Doc. / 10 No. 227949, conveyed by Doc. No. 360234, and partially vacated Doc. No. 491943. 11 11. Easement for utility purposes, per Doc. No. 379143. (Shown \ +tb - / graphically). / EXISTING PARKING: 12. Wright County Highway Right of Way Plat No. 6, per 6 Document No. 436443. Partially conveyed to the City of a THERE ARE 0 VISIBLE PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED Monticello Doc. No. 467778. Partially vacated per Doc. No. ON THIS PARCEL. 467909. (Does not affect the subject parcel). 7 / 13. Easement for highway purposes er Final Certificate Doc. No. 484055, re-recorded per Doc. No. 651677. Partially vacated m v, =�M / LEGEND: BENCHMARKS 14 per Doc. No. 491943. (Does not affect subject parcel). PROJECT LOCATION: z14. Developer's Agreement River View Square per \ E z FOUND MONUMENT f� FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION 1 S Doc. No. 681165. (Not shown affects entire parcel). O SET 1/2"IRON PIPE HYDRANT ELEVATIONS BASED ON INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON 15. Easements per plat of River View Square per Doc. No. MARKED RLS NO. 25718 ® CURB STOP THE MNDOT GEODETIC WEBSITE. SURVEY DISK BAUER ED CABLE Tv PEDESTAL 681167. (Shown Graphically). O WATER WELL MNDOT AZ MK WITH AN ELEVATION OF 957.34 WAS \ Ac AIR CONDITIONER OWATER MANHOLE USED TO ESTABLISH VERTICAL CONTROL FOR THIS 16. Wright County Highway Right of Way Plat No. 55 per Doc. _ W OE ELECTRIC MANHOLE yry., \ WATER METER No. 951313. (Does not affect subject parcel). ELECTRIC METER ❑ SURVEY (NAND 88) ® PID# 1 55117002010 ® POST INDICATOR VALVE 17. Agreement per Doc. No. 1020863. (Does not affect subject EP ELECTRIC PEDESTAL WATER VALVE parcel.) \ O ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER O BOLLARD 7{S LIGHT POLE FLAGPOLE SURVEY NOTES: CERTIFICATION: \ GUY WIRE MB MAIL BOX �. -0- POWER POLE TRAFFIC SIGN \ @ GAS MANHOLEO UNKNOWN MANHOLE 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY To: MMC Land Holdings, First American Title Insurance ® GAS METER 0 SOIL BORING THE WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE.BEARINGS Company and their successors and assigns: This is to Suite #1 TELEPHONE MANHOLE X x50.0 SPOT ELEVATION FROM THE PLAT HAVE BEEN ROTATED, BUT INTERIOR certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N. 10 TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ® TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANGLES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED. is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Stillwater, MN 55082 CO SANITARY CLEANOUTPhone 651.275.8969 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ® SANITARY MANHOLE= CONIFEROUSTREE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys, jointly established and Fax 651.275.8976 O or CATCH BASIN ll'zk dan@ f'y CITY OF MONTICELLO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, or 0 STORM DRAINi DECIDUOUS TREE ® FLARED END SECTION �1 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, 4, 7(a), 7(b)(1), 7(c), 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of css u rve y ELECTRIC ETC NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED net Off` �0 VAULT 1 i p 5El 1\ L 411 AO RIM=845.4 / / INV=942.3 I / 3j / in Cn 00 Ln + Q� -7 RCP Ln o co ca P�PG� h 949 Q ' 3 F UND 1/2" IRON PIPE �� 15 y M RKED #14345 -11 r `k / QK 0 z$ / \ _ FE5Fg44.8 r � \ a xl PD \ N / Op \ � '' \ IU 9.18 \ FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE' J� P "' UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES: o O STORM MANHOLE , Table A thereof. The field work was completed on UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \\ TABLE A NOTES: August 27, 2018. Vr UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN 0U OVERHEAD UTILITY CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND IG UNDERGROUND GAS 16. THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF RECENT EARTH Dated: 9-07-2018 EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO > SANITARY SEWER MOVING WORK/BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ON THE Revised: GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN >> STORM SEWER / \ COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN I WATERMAIN SUBJECT PROPERTY. SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES —x FENCE 17. NO PROPOSED CHANGES IN RIGHT OF WAY ARE KNOWN. BY ----------------------- - NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CURB iTYPICALI 18. NO MARKERS OF WETLANDS DELINEATED BY A QUALIFIED Daniel L. Thurmes CORNERSTONE / SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED 1230 CONTOURS SPECIALIST WERE OBSERVED IN THE PROCESS OF Minnesota License No. 25718 ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS CONDUCTING THE FIELDWORK. LAND SURVEYING, INC. The First American Title Insurance Company Title ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION FLOOD INFORMATION: Commitment No. NCS-921340-MPLS, dated August 16, ro- AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 2018 as listed on this survey was relied upon for I \ . ; THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FILE NAME SURVKH03 `LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) 182112611. SOME MAPS WERE Gopher State One Call THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL matters of record. Other easements may exist that PROJECT NO. KH18003 were not shown in this commitment and are not shown 1-500-252-1166 BOUNDARY TOPOGRAPHIC RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO TWIN CITY� TOLL FREE: AREA: 651-454-0002 FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE on this survey. THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH MAP NUMBER 270541 0005 B HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OF NOV. 1, 1979. SURVEY DRAWING IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND NOT TO SCALE w I- 0 CO z O U) W W O z z O J z a W U) Z U w O O N rn U wL6z Q O z U) Q H W Z U) J O wo w — Q Y } 00 N Of U) LU U z C:) l Ln N } LL ❑ ❑ J OX W of <Z X X Qz0� w0�� L> mow= Z LL � W O LL O � 3: 0- U) Z F~FwQ 2J l a U Z J Q LLI W W F U) W 2 U = ��❑�� X L� X X LLO��W FZ �❑ of O Of ❑ z W X W F Q- Q U Z 2 W ~O X X wl�oaz Z l F3 z z J ZXX U U) 0O X X X X ED o �_ _ U) J LU O Q Q m O Q o m LU m w Y W z z Y 3 U U U W �[if 2 U ❑ ❑ U W z LU J > z O a I—U) Cl) C-) Z W � J U) F z J F_ O Q U 0. O z LL Oz 0 0 Cl J O > 0 H � w � a LU G = Q LUv LU HO z a LU Q 0 0 Z a (n ` O O J J W LL F- 0 z LU Z) U) SHEET NUMBER W V100 cv M M O _') O N C) .Q Q U) Lu 0 J ry Lu Z W C.� N N U) c D_ 0 U c 2) U) O 0 M c J O O U) Z 75O U c O a� M U 0 W N Q W 0 J I H GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" (LATEST EDITION) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM AS APPLICABLE TO THESE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ALL MATERIAL AND LABOR TO CONSTRUCT THE FACILITY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE APPROVING AUTHORITIES, SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB ALL AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, REMOVING TREES, STUMPS, ROOTS, MUCK, EXISTING PAVEMENT AND ALL OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. 3. THE EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS QUALITY LEVEL "D" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ACSE 38/02, ENTITLED STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF SUBSURFACE QUALITY DATA BY THE FHA. EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER. GUARANTEE IS NOT MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN OR THAT THE LOCATION OF THOSE SHOWN ARE ENTIRELY ACCURATE. FINDING THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AND SHALL BE DONE BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORK IN THE VICINITY. FURTHERMORE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE OWNER OR ENGINEER WILL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES SUSTAINED OR COST INCURRED BECAUSE OF THE OPERATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, NOR FOR TEMPORARY BRACING AND SHORING OF SAME. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO SHORE, BRACE, SWING OR RELOCATE A UTILITY, THE UTILITY COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT AFFECTED SHALL BE CONTACTED AND THEIR PERMISSION OBTAINED REGARDING THE METHOD TO USE FOR SUCH WORK. 4. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES WHICH MAY HAVE BURIED OR AERIAL UTILITIES WITHIN OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION AREA BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 48 HOURS MINIMUM NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND BONDS IF REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES ONE COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND COPIES OF ANY REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. 7. ANY DISCREPANCIES ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER AND ENGINEER BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NO FIELD CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND NOTIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER. 8. ALL COPIES OF COMPACTION, CONCRETE AND OTHER REQUIRED TEST RESULTS ARE TO BE SENT TO THE OWNER DIRECTLY FROM THE TESTING AGENCY. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOCUMENTING AND MAINTAINING AS -BUILT INFORMATION WHICH SHALL BE RECORDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES OR AT THE COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION INTERVALS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AS -BUILT DRAWINGS TO THE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CERTIFICATION TO JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES AS REQUIRED. ALL AS -BUILT DATA SHALL BE COLLECTED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR WHOSE SERVICES ARE ENGAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 10. ANY WELLS DISCOVERED ON SITE THAT WILL HAVE NO USE MUST BE PLUGGED BY A LICENSED WELL DRILLING CONTRACTOR IN A MANNER APPROVED BY ALL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY WELL ABANDONMENT PERMITS REQUIRED. 11. ANY WELL DISCOVERED DURING EARTH MOVING OR EXCAVATION SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER DISCOVERY IS MADE. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY KNOWN EXISTING OR OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. IF ANY CONFLICTS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THE SITE WORK THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OWNER OF AN IDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH INSTALLATION RELIEVES OWNER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR A RELATED CHANGE ORDER. 13. SHOULD CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER ANY DEBRIS LADEN SOIL, STRUCTURES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS, OR OTHER SOURCE OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION, THEY SHALL IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE ALL MEASURES STATED ON THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, AND IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FULLY FUNCTIONAL CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY ALL JURISDICTIONS UNTIL NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASE OF WORK OR FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CHECKED BY A CERTIFIED PERSON AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A 0.5" RAINFALL EVENT, AND CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: INLET PROTECTION DEVICES AND BARRIERS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED IF THEY SHOW SIGNS OF UNDERMINING, OR DETERIORATION. 1. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREAS SHOULD BE FERTILIZED, WATERED AND RESEEDED AS NEEDED. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS REFER TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. SILT FENCES SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IF DAMAGED. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SILT FENCES WHEN IT REACHES ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S) SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 4. THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION (SUITABLE FOR PARKING AND STORAGE). THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE TEMPORARY PARKING AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 5. ALL MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SHALL BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 2 CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING THE INSPECTION. TYPICAL OWNER/ENGINEER OBSERVATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: - PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING, SUBGRADE PREPARATION, BASE INSTALLATION ASPHALT INSTALLATION, UNDERGROUND PIPING AND UTILITIES INSTALLATION, INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES, CHECK VALVES, HYDRANTS, METERS, ETC., SIDEWALK INSTALLATION, CONNECTIONS TO WATER AND SEWER MAINS, TESTS OF UTILITIES EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ("SWPPP") IS COMPRISED OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN, THE STANDARD DETAILS, THE PLAN NARRATIVE, ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SWPPP, PLUS THE PERMIT AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. 2. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND THE STATE OF MN NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT (NPDES PERMIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CONTENTS. 3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) AND CONTROLS SHALL CONFORM TO FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS OR MANUAL OF PRACTICE, AS APPLICABLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL CONTROLS AS DIRECTED BY THE PERMITTING AGENCY OR OWNER. 4. SITE ENTRY AND EXIT LOCATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT THE TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO A PUBLIC ROADWAY, IT SHALL BE DONE IN AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN. ALL FINES IMPOSED FOR DISCHARGING SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC AREAS SHALL BE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS OF STABILIZATION SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THE LAST DISTURBANCE ON ANY AREA OF THE SITE. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE CLEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL OR AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PERMIT. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE ON PLAN THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA WHICH SHALL ALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AREA, EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA, AND AREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACILITIES, OFFICE TRAILERS, AND TOILET FACILITIES. 8. ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS, VEHICLE CLEANING, EQUIPMENT CLEANING, ETC.) SHALL BE DETAINED AND PROPERLY TREATED OR DISPOSED. 9. SUFFICIENT OIL AND GREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE OR READILY AVAILABLE TO CONTAIN AND CLEAN-UP FUEL OR CHEMICAL SPILLS AND LEAKS. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL ON SITE. THE USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOXIC LIQUIDS FOR DUST SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED. 11. RUBBISH, TRASH, GARBAGE, LITTER, OR OTHER SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO SEALED CONTAINERS. MATERIALS SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE PREMISES THROUGH THE ACTION OF WIND OR STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO DRAINAGE DITCHES OR WATERS OF THE STATE. 12. ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS IS PRACTICABLE. 13. ALL STAGING AREAS, STOCKPILES, SPOILS, ETC. SHALL BE LOCATED SUCH THAT THEY WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT STORM WATER QUALITY. OTHERWISE, COVERING OR ENCIRCLING THESE AREAS WITH SOME PROTECTIVE MEASURE WILL BE NECESSARY. 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RE-ESTABLISHING ANY EROSION CONTROL DEVICE WHICH THEY DISTURB. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE ESTABLISHED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THAT MAY LEAD TO UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE OR STORM WATER POLLUTION, SEDIMENTATION, OR OTHER POLLUTANTS. UNAUTHORIZED POLLUTANTS INCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO) EXCESS CONCRETE DUMPING OR CONCRETE RESIDUE, PAINTS, SOLVENTS, GREASES, FUEL AND LUBRICANT OIL, PESTICIDES, AND ANY SOLID WASTE MATERIALS. 15. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE PROJECT. 16. ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. CHANGES ARE TO BE APPROVED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ENGINEERING DIVISION. 17. IF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AS APPROVED CANNOT CONTROL EROSION AND OFF-SITE SEDIMENTATION FROM THE PROJECT, THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE REVISED AND/OR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE REQUIRED ON SITE. ANY REVISIONS TO THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. PAVING AND STRIPING NOTES 1. ALL PAVING, CONSTRUCTION, MATERIALS, AND WORKMANSHIP WITHIN JURISDICTION'S RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL OR COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) OR MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) IF NOT COVERED BY LOCAL OR COUNTY REGULATIONS. 2. ALL SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (M.U.T.C.D) AND CITY STANDARDS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR FIRE LANES, ROADWAY LANES, PARKING STALLS, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOLS, ACCESS AISLES, STOP BARS AND SIGNS, AND MISCELLANEOUS STRIPING WITHIN THE PARKING LOT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 4. ALL EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL EXTEND THROUGH THE CURB. 5. THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF OFFSET JOINTS AT RADIUS POINTS SHALL BE 2 FEET. 6. ALL JOINTS, INCLUDING EXPANSION JOINTS WITH REMOVABLE TACK STRIPS, SHALL BE SEALED WITH JOINT SEALANT. 7. THE MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES OF ALL CONCRETE SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS IN THE A.C.I. (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A SECOND COATING OVER ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER FOLLOWED BY A COAT OF GLASS BEADS AS APPLICABLE PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 9. ANY EXISTING PAVEMENT, CURBS AND/OR SIDEWALKS DAMAGED OR REMOVED WILL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. 10. BEFORE PLACING PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SUITABLE ACCESSIBLE ROUTES (PER A.D.A). GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2%. IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 11. MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING IS TWICE THE DEPTH OF THE CONCRETE PAVEMENT IN FEET. GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES 1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS INCLUDING GRADES AND DIMENSIONS BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO THE ELEVATIONS INDICATED AND SHALL ADJUST BMP'S AS NECESSARY AND REGRADE WASHOUTS WHERE THEY OCCUR AFTER EVERY RAINFALL UNTIL A GRASS STAND IS WELL ESTABLISHED OR ADEQUATE STABILIZATION OCCURS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THERE IS POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS SO THAT SURFACE RUNOFF WILL DRAIN BY GRAVITY TO NEW OR EXISTING DRAINAGE OUTLETS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE NO PONDING OCCURS IN PAVED AREAS AND SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IF ANY GRADING DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND IN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT OR UTILITIES. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL MANHOLE COVERS, VALVE COVERS, VAULT LIDS, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, GUY WIRES, AND TELEPHONE BOXES THAT ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES TO REMAIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADES. 5. BACKFILL FOR UTILITY LINES SHALL BE PLACED PER DETAILS, STANDARDS, AND SPECIFICATIONS SO THAT THE UTILITY WILL BE STABLE. WHERE UTILITY LINES CROSS THE PARKING LOT, THE TOP 6 INCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED SIMILARLY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT. UTILITY DITCHES SHALL BE VISUALLY INSPECTED DURING THE EXCAVATION PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT UNDESIRABLE FILL IS NOT USED. 6. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 4" OF TOPSOIL AT COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL UNPAVED AREAS IN EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REGRADED AND SODDED. 7. AFTER PLACEMENT OF SUBGRADE AND PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST AND OBSERVE PAVEMENT AREAS FOR EVIDENCE OF PONDING. ALL AREAS SHALL ADEQUATELY DRAIN TOWARDS THE INTENDED STRUCTURE TO CONVEY STORM RUNOFF. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY OWNER AND ENGINEER IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE DISCOVERED. 8. WHERE EXISTING PAVEMENT IS INDICATED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW CUT FULL DEPTH FOR A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT JOINT AND REPLACE THE PAVEMENT WITH THE SAME TYPE AND DEPTH OF MATERIAL AS EXISTING OR AS INDICATED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PROTECTION OVER ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT BY THE OWNER. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AS REQUIRED DURING AND AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FLOWS. 10. IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ANY APPLICABLE REQUIRED PERMITS. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 11. FIELD DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN AT INTERVALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY OR TO MN/DOT STANDARDS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 12. ALL SLOPES AND AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE GRADED AS PER PLANS. THE AREAS SHALL THEN BE SODDED OR SEEDED AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS, FERTILIZED, MULCHED, WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL HARDY GRASS GROWTH IS ESTABLISHED IN ALL AREAS. ANY AREAS DISTURBED FOR ANY REASON PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOB SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ALL EARTHEN AREAS WILL BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND MULCHED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTROL OF DUST AND DIRT RISING AND SCATTERING IN THE AIR DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE WATER SPRINKLING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHODS OF CONTROL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL GOVERNING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 14. SOD, WHERE CALLED FOR, MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED ON EXPOSED SLOPES WITHIN 48 HOURS OF COMPLETING FINAL GRADING, AND AT ANY OTHER TIME AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT EROSION, SEDIMENTATION OR TURBID DISCHARGES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT LANDSCAPE ISLAND PLANTING AREAS AND OTHER PLANTING AREAS ARE NOT COMPACTED AND DO NOT CONTAIN ROAD BASE MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO EXCAVATE AND REMOVE ALL UNDESIRABLE MATERIAL FROM ALL AREAS ON THE SITE TO BE PLANTED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL UNDERGROUND STORM WATER PIPING PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATION. 17. ALL CONCRETE/ASPHALT SHALL BE INSTALLED PER GEOTECH REPORT, CITY OF MONTICELLO AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. 18. SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FLOWLINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 19. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. 20. IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE OWNER ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 21. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING EXISTING UTILITIES, AND SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES THAT OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT COMPENSATION. 22. BLEND NEW EARTHWORK SMOOTHLY TO TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING GRADE. 23. ALL PROPOSED GRADES ONSITE SHALL BE 3:1 OR FLATTER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. ANY SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 REQUIRE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BLANKET. 24. ADHERE TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS NECESSARY IN THE GENERAL N.P.D.E.S. PERMIT AND STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 25. ADJUST AND/OR CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE A SMOOTH FIT AND CONTINUOUS GRADE. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE MINIMUM GRADES ARE MET WITHIN PAVED AREAS, 1.2% FOR ASPHALT PAVING AND 0.6% FOR CONCRETE PAVING. 3RD PARTY TEST REPORTS REQ'D TEST REPORTS REQUIRED FOR CLOSE OUT INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: - DENSITY TEST REPORTS - BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS OF WATER SYSTEM - PRESSURE TEST OF WATER/SEWER - LEAK TESTS ON SEWER SYSTEM AND GREASE TRAPS - ANY OTHER TESTING REQUIRED BY THE AGENCY/MUNICIPALITY WATER STORM SEWER & SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT GRAVITY SEWER LATERALS, MANHOLES, GRAVITY SEWER LINES, AND DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, TOOLS, MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN FULL AND COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH THE SHOWN, DESCRIBED AND REASONABLY INTENDED REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 2. ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY LOCATION AND COORDINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTES CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SECTION OF THIS SHEET. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL DISTURBED VEGETATION IN KIND, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 4. DEFLECTION OF PIPE JOINTS AND CURVATURE OF PIPE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SECURELY CLOSE ALL OPEN ENDS OF PIPE AND FITTINGS WITH A WATERTIGHT PLUG WHEN WORK IS NOT IN PROGRESS. THE INTERIOR OF ALL PIPES SHALL BE CLEAN AND JOINT SURFACES WIPED CLEAN AND DRY AFTER THE PIPE HAS BEEN LOWERED INTO THE TRENCH. VALVES SHALL BE PLUMB AND LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. 5. ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE CAREFULLY STORED FOLLOWING MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE COATING OR LINING IN ANY D.I. PIPE FITTINGS. ANY PIPE OR FITTING WHICH IS DAMAGED OR WHICH HAS FLAWS OR IMPERFECTIONS WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER OR OWNER, RENDERS IT UNFIT FOR USE, SHALL NOT BE USED. ANY PIPE NOT SATISFACTORY FOR USE SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE JOB SITE, AND SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 6. WATER FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLES BEING BROUGHT ON SITE. 7. ALL UTILITY AND STORM DRAIN TRENCHES LOCATED UNDER AREAS TO RECEIVE PAVING SHALL BE COMPLETELY BACK FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNING JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY'S SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 8. UNDERGROUND LINES SHALL BE SURVEYED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR PRIOR TO BACK FILLING. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, ANY AND ALL TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR ANY AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION. THESE TESTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, INFILTRATION AND EXFILTRATION, TELEVISION INSPECTION AND A MANDREL TEST ON GRAVITY SEWER. A COPY OF THE TEST RESULTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE UTILITY PROVIDER, OWNER AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE OF 10' AND A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 18" BETWEEN WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES AND LINES. 11. IF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS NECESSARY TO RETURN IT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BETTER. 12. ALL STORM PIPE ENTERING STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED TO ASSURE CONNECTION AT STRUCTURE IS WATERTIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED BY CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 13. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ALL STORM SEWER MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT, AND SHALL HAVE TRAFFIC BEARING RING & COVERS. MANHOLES IN UNPAVED AREAS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. LIDS SHALL BE LABELED "STORM SEWER". EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE. 14. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY LAND SURVEYORS. IF THE CONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY, AT THEIR EXPENSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW. 15. CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO SAME. 16. ALL STORM STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH UNIFORM POURED MORTAR FROM INVERT IN TO INVERT OUT. 17. ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO STORM SEWER BY PREFABRICATED WYES OR AT STORM STRUCTURES. ROOF DRAINS AND TRUCK WELL DRAIN SHALL RUN AT A MINIMUM 1% SLOPE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, AND TIE IN AT THE CENTERLINE OF THE STORM MAIN. 18. ALL ROOF AND SANITARY SEWER DRAINS SHALL BE INSULATED IF 7' OF COVER CANNOT BE PROVIDED. 19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THAT ARE TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 20. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND OTHER ABOVE AND BELOW -GRADE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AS SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATIONS OF EACH PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 21. A MINIMUM OF 5SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN UTILITIES AND TREES UNLESS A ROOT BARRIER IS UTILIZED. 22. GAS, PHONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICES SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DRY UTILITY COMPANIES MAY ALTER THE DESIGN LAYOUT DURING THEIR REVIEW. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE FINAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 23. COORDINATE UTILITY INSTALLATION WITH IRRIGATION DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. 24. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FLOW LINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PERIMETER WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO INSIDE WALL FACE. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT WALL WIDTH AND SPECIFICATIONS. 25. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS). FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS, AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS. 26. REFERENCE M.E.P. PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 27. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE STRUCTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND PAD PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONS. 28. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE M.E.P PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR LIGHT POLE WIRING. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. B1900672 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 11001 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE S. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 DATED MARCH 8, 2019 } 00 w Q D W z O w 0 z r W m U Q J W 0) co Q Z Q ¢z0F V move w Ww z a z � = Q U O O w aQ of LL O o = z �,jm0 = F U) ~ K Lu U z U Q J OJ L) Q W W W W z Q z LL 02 J Q O W H z D 0 U) o ofOIroz O F Wp Q Q o U) g z -zw ww�QC7z ui O �m Nrn U w W U U)w On z C) U) O a m m a a o o m o o D Z Z Y C7 U z w Ir _ U) Q L.1_ O w z (n J LL W O 3: z Y Lu 0 Oz 0 z a U) w z J - w Q 'j W > J O o W Q Y } 2 ww W LU o u) a >. Waco 0 N 0 a w `Z a O z D J J W LL 0 U_ 0 Lo ~ Z w N r W m U Q J W 0) co Q Z Q ¢z0F V move w Ww z a J � = Q U O O w aQ of LL O o = z �,jm0 = F U) ~ K Lu U z U Q J Co Q �aUzJ L) Q W W W W J =KIrU= p H z LL 02 J Q O W H z D 0 o ofOIroz O F Wp Q Q o U z w > O w�01Qwcn -zw ww�QC7z ui Lu =um)2Hw o ~ z w W U z On (n J ( 0 Q C) U) o w0 0 (14 C14 o Q a m m a a o o m o Y W Z Z Y C7 U v w Ir _ U) 0 o U L.1_ O cn Lu 0 Z z O_ J Q U L.L Lu ~ z v!^ z Lu O C7 U L.1_ O Z LL Oz 0 z U) J - w W 'j W > J O o W Q � 2 ww W LU H z- a >. Waco 0 0 a (n `Z a O O J J W LL U_ 0 ~ Z w SHEET NUMBER W C100 M O cy) O N O .Q O) z J a_ z O ry W Lu ry 0 z Q ry O z w z Lu Lu ry J a� a� U) c c� 0 U c 2) U) ai 0 c� J O U) z 0 U C O M .0 0 U) N Q W 0 J I U H Y 1 I I I I I I I I I ► I �� H --- I I I I I I III I o,��c II II I II I II 1 Z MISSISSIPPI I I DRIVE�a I II II � - _ \\ I >�I-yI I I I I I II I I I I I m II II II I I o I I li I I I z I I I I I I I o I I I I I U I II w I II I I I II I - p II I I II I 6 I II w I I I II i t I I I 5 I I 1 �1 4 I 1 1 11 II �1 II 1 \I 1 \ \ \\ \ A \ O \ \ \\ z \ \ \\ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET \\ \ 20 40 80 \ i 0 DD(1TC(`T CYIQTIAI(] TDCCQ ()nl i 7 / o 1 i LEGEND PROPERTY LINE TREE TO REMAIN TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING VEGETATION EDGE - — — — — - LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ----------------- TREE PROTECTION FENCE TREE MITIGATION DATA NO SPECIMEN TREES PRESENT ON THIS SITE NON -SPECIMEN TREES SAVED: NON -SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL: NON -SPECIMEN TREE MITIGATION REQUIRED TREE PROTECTION NOTES 0 CAL. IN. 94 CAL. IN. 0 CAL. IN. 1. PRUNING WILL BE DONE BY PROFESSIONALS DURING APPROPRIATE PRUNING SEASON. 2. NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, OPERATION OF MACHINERY, OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SORT WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE FENCE -LINE WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM CITY. 3. SITE GRADING TO BE DONE ONLY AFTER PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN, CITY HAS APPROVED FENCING LOCATIONS, AND ALL CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN BREIFED ON TREE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES. 4. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN OR REMOVED TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED, WITHIN DISTURBANCE LIMITS AND 10' OUTSIDE OF THE DISTURBANCE LIMITS. 5. TREE PRESERVATION TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND PER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. KEYNOTE LEGEND O EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED (TYP.) OB EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) OC LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) O TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) REMOVED (TYP.) TAG # SPECIES CAL. IN. MULTI -STEM STATUS 1 DECIDUOUS 6 NO REMOVED 2 DECIDUOUS 6 NO REMOVED 3 DECIDUOUS 6 NO REMOVED 4 DECIDUOUS 6 NO REMOVED 5 DECIDUOUS 6 NO REMOVED 6 DECIDUOUS 8* NO REMOVED 7 DECIDUOUS 5 YES REMOVED 8 DECIDUOUS 15 NO REMOVED 9 DECIDUOUS 8* NO REMOVED 10 DECIDUOUS 6 NO REMOVED 11 DECIDUOUS 12* NO REMOVED 12 DECIDUOUS 10* NO REMOVED * DENOTES CANOPY TREES GREATER THAN 7 CALIPER INCHES THAT COUNT TOWARD TREE PRESERVATION CREDIT NOTE: A SPECIMEN TREE IS DEFINED AS ANY CANOPY TREE WITH A DBH OF 36 INCHES OR MORE AND ANY UNDERSTORY OR ORNAMENTAL TREE WITH A DBH OF 10 INCHES OR MORE DRIP LINE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TREE PROTECTION SIGN FURNISH AND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE AT THE TREE'S DRIPLINE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SPECIFIED, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. WHEN POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25 FEET BEYOND THE DRIP LINE. PLACE PROTECTION SIGNS ALONG FENCE AT 20' INTERVALS. TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION FENCE PLACEMENT 1 SCALE: N.T.S. C200 z O U �Z/ L.L U) z O U O LL O z Lu N� L.L O LL 0 Lu Z) U) m L c �az, az0`- w c co L zaSiL_ �cno"0� 0-aL =F(nO� o 1-s W _ ¢aww� = W d U L ~ � � "of 'If cLl 'L > U z < coED w -01—c } 00 w Q 0 W z O w 0 z z J z a w c Q z U O (n LL1 z 0 U)O z a F- � w WJ O W z0 Y w a Q Y } 0 C) c) o w z D 0 L0 N W N 00 J a O Lu z F z U W J J x z o a N � o 0 cr W W Q Dz W U) H J D wo c) z = oO _ _ C) a C) a w 0 Q o a m o m m o Y Lu W z c� U) D z Y o U W Q a�V Z O �p� z° O LuQ F O F_ O z< Lu a > z <Z < W J Z a W a V♦ cn Lu Lu W w W a F z E 00 c) J — w W Lu J 0 o W Q a�V �p� z° LuQ O O a 'Lu^ a 0 V♦ J J W U H z O 2 SHEET NUMBER C200 CO M 0 rn 0 N 0 .Q Z J 75 W N a� a� W c c� a 0 U 27)c cn 0 C J O O U) Z O 7 U C O N O U O W U cn W J UI Y UUN I KAU I UK 6HALL F'KU I LU I IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITY PEDESTALS. I lI x ------- ❑ __ _ 0-ELC S00.4�4T`5 68.87' __ i i i i i I I I I I I I I — — — 0—ELC I I i i ----r-- f -r- '�� I I I I I I I t' I' I I I I I I I I I 1'1'1'1'1'1 I'I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I G I �j I I I I I I I ISR"c I' Z I I I I � I I/I I II I I I I I1_� T.TIYES�ME�,TII I I I I I I I Z$ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 '1 TEV ID&I Nod 7�14� I I I I I I I �Iwal I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- IIIIII- I I I L' 1 1 1 J_II I I .I I L 1 1 1 J I L l `-4-�-�---t-t=J= -I--r-r Q i�-1`4- -1 1--�- -+- I I- -I ---T-_T Y 1 I--II T 1 �7-I--F-F T 7 I -I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIVARIABLEHRDWI I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I I I L L -� -I-I-I-I- I- I- CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT IN PLACEI I I RIM -9W .01 1 1 1 IN�'IT EXISTING 10 IN PVC l I SANITARY SEWER. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- - / I IIIIII,,��I I�`�IIIII`IIII �I'`IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111IIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 1111111/III I II I�IIIIIIIIII1�111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11H 11111111111111111111111 1111111 11 ( I IIIIIIIIII XIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111 111111/11 // I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1+ I I , I ✓I I I I I /j IB I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d 1 1 1 1 I)I �'��1 1 1 1 ISI I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I/W"'tib 1 1 1 1 1 II II I O I II III 1 U I I II I I II III 11 III It'-4Ro., 11 fll-----1 I I I�AIc }iNDI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IA i t � III O I I Iu�lyrY �AsdM Nlf II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '�' Iz 1� / I I � II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I�1111111�1 III \ � /% � I IIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111%1111111111111%�11A � %// � I I I d l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I/I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I 1111 / 01 ® I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISI I I I I I I I ISI I E I I I L.IJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111 I�I�111111111111111 LI'I�II I � � � II/ / I II I p l l l l l� l l l l j l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I 11�1� I II IIIIIIIrA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1�1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I� ��/ 7�� // \ I II IIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111 111111111111j_T 11/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONTRACTOR SHALL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COORDINATE PRIVATE UTILITY I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RELOCATION OF FIBER AND I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I II I I I /I 7 // \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VAULT. I I I I I� � I I I I I\III IIIII\I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I�I'IIIIIIII 1�1 /jam � _ �� \\ I I I IIIIIII I I I I I I111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I�� / Q, / I I III\IIIIIIIIIIII\IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII,�f/I 7 I I I I I I Ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ 71 IN, \ \ III\IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII\IIIIIIIIIIIIIf�IIIIIIIIlI�1 O � CONTRACTOR SHALL \ \ I I I 1 1 P COORDINATE PRIVATE UTILITY A EI \\ \ I `�jI 1 1 LOCATION OF FIBER AND I �1< \ I I I I l I I I VAULT. I I I I I �� E F CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT IN I I\� I 1 I I ��-►%�� / P` III / PLACE EXISTING PRIVATE ELECTRIC POLES. THE CONTRACT SHALL COORDINATE GUY WIRE RELOCATION. DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL (IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNING 8. CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES, ENCLOSURES, ETC. (AND OTHER AUTHORITIES) ALL STRUCTURES, PADS, WALLS, FLUMES, FOUNDATIONS, PARKING, DRIVES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC. APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AS APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SUCH THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PLANS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. ALL FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO CONTROL SHALL BE COORDINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTICELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY AND MN/DOT. SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOTIFY ALL 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER. PROPERTIES IF ACCESS WILL BE INTERRUPTED OR ALTERED AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE PERMIT AND RECEIPTS OF DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS TO THE OWNER AND OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. 10. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OCCURRING, ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL UTILITY SERVICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL TIMES. UTILITY SERVICES SHALL NOT 11. CONTRACTOR MAY LIMIT SAW -CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESE BE INTERRUPTED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND COORDINATION WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT IF ANY DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AND/OR THE CITY. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY CONCERNING PORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY'S FORCES AND ANY FEES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL FEES AND CHARGES. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WATER MAIN WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPT. AND THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT TO PLAN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IS CONSTANTLY AVAILABLE TO THE SITE THROUGHOUT THIS SPECIFIC WORK AND THROUGH ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING/PROVIDING ANY REQUIRED WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO EXTRA 5. THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BEST INFORMATION COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED. AVAILABLE AND ARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY DEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR 13. REFER TO SURVEY FOR ALL EXISTING INVERT AND RIM ELEVATIONS. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ALL AREAS OF PROPOSED WORK. 14. ALL UTILITIES SHOWN ARE EXISTING UTILITIES. 6. ALL EXISTING SEWERS, PIPING AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS ANY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE. VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROCEED WITH CAUTION AROUND ANY ANTICIPATED15. IN THE EVENT A WELL IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY. ALL WELLS SHALL FEATURES. GIVE NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND CAP ALL BE SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE OF MN REQUIREMENTS. LINES BEFORE PRECEDING WITH THE WORK. 16. IN THE EVENT THAT UNKNOWN CONTAINERS OR TANKS ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER 7. ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE, CABLE, WATER, FIBER OPTIC, AND/OR GAS LINES NEEDING TO BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED SHALL BE AND/OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. ALL CONTAINERS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT A PERMITTED LANDFILL PER THE COORDINATED WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY. ADEQUATE TIME SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR RELOCATION AND CLOSE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. COORDINATION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION IN UTILITY SERVICE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ANY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF ANY EXISTING DRAINTILE IS ENCOUNTERED ON SITE. NO ACTIVE DRAINTILE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. KEYNOTE LEGEND OA REMOVE EXISTING CURB O PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE, REFER TO GRADING PLAN FOR ADJUSTED RIM HEIGHTS OC REMOVE EXISTING FLARED END SECTION OREMOVE AND RELOCATE EXISTING HYDRANT OE REMOVE EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND VALVE OF FULL DEPTH SAWCUT OG REMOVE EXISTING RCP STORM LINES OH REMOVE EXISTING STORM STRUCTURES OREMOVE EXISTING TREE, REFERENCE C200 FOR FURTHER DETAIL LEGEND I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII X X X X X X X -® ® ® ® ®- 0-ELC x x x n n D I GAS TEL CTV PROPERTY LINE W Q REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE CLEARING & GRUBBING OFFSITE CLEARING & GRUBBING FULL DEPTH SAWCUT Z W a z REMOVE TREE J O z a 07 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER > W O REMOVE UTILITY LINES FILL & ABANDON UTILITY LINES LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION W EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE Q EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE EXISTING J -BARRIER EXISTING RETAINING WALL U o EXISTING SANITARY SEWER z EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN v EXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE O Z c� J Z — W W EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE 0 aLu C G U = W♦� v EXISTING CONTOURO H z— a Waco Q Q Z EXISTING Q (n CURB & GUTTER - a a o NORTH O mr (n J EXISTING SIGN H W U_ EXISTING FLARED END SECTION U � w O EXISTING STORM MANHOLE p v) N w rn U Z EXISTING STORM CATCHBASIN O U) ❑ U) CD EXISTING GAS METER z w EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVE Z Lu bi g EXISTING WELL O 3: z Y EXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER } � EXISTING ROOF DRAIN _j w EXISTING GATE VALVE �-�, Q } EXISTING HYDRANT 0 EXISTING METAL COVER N Lu EXISTING ELECTRICAL METERz z EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER O LO EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE N EXISTING CABLE BOX EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE m w ❑ ❑ O �QzQ L EXISTING TREE OU O o�CL Z d - w = J EXISTING TREE LINE U) W O LL O o ��ja0 = z ~ W 2 J a U Z '*1 Q U awwww FU = rn p H O Z Q O LL w ofz 0,❑ o �O� ❑z Lu Lu D o } U Z W O w'�0-1 OQzz Wz Lu Z U) U) J 0O H ❑ 0 Q Lu o _ Lu 0 o Q � o ow °}° w Y w z � z � Y U W ❑ ❑ U Z a J z a O O U W Q U) z O U ry Z O LL Oz O c� J Z — W W 1 F_w.j 0 aLu C G U = W♦� v L H z— a Waco Q Q a (n `Z a o NORTH O (n J LL W U_ H z GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET L1J0 0 20 40 80 U) SHEET NUMBER W C201 C'7 0 cy) O N O .Q z J 2 r 67 ry W A a) L W C U 27)C U a) M C J O a) U) z O m U C O a) U O W U O W J U� H Y n 0—ELC 0—ELC O--E`LC�� _ I- ----sr --t—r-�--� I - �--_ - - _ - - —~ ►► D III I -��f ---� \ II I �I 1 I r - - \ B A -� - Ali _ \ _ A Id \� ^ --- -- ---- — --- 7' ,1111 FI. \\ 1 1--�---i VAROWgLE_--- — — — — — / ' Ow c)- \G �l I 1�0 \� 111 l� \ \ \ \ -\ _ r l 111 I 11 I II 111 / / B \ \ \ \ \A A \ rr \ \ \ \ \ \ D A \ \ \ \ 13776 \\ -- ! /�► rir i //k I \ \ \ rri i \Iz I / / _\<7 /" I I�l O\ D I I II \\ I II, I \ IIII I f� \ � 4 I I I I N I \ "^III A I/\zf _ !�� / � 406 0 A I I I I \ 11 G ' / 1 \ 1 \III - — 7 / C) \A\ \A \ ,� � —/ /��` \ \ \ \\ \ /ell A\000, - \ / \ KEYNOTE LEGEND SITE DATA OA CHECK DAM LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (ACRES) ±5.41 OE ROCK ENTRANCE LEGEND TOTAL SITE AREA (ACRES) ±5.02 OB TEMPORARY DIVERSION 406 SILT FENCE — PRE -DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±5.41 DORSET -TWO INLETS COMPLEX, PRE -DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±0.00 OC SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN j H aQW�� POST DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±3.06 j d O POST DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±2.35 OD INLET PROTECTION DEVICE 2 J OE ROCK ENTRANCE LEGEND LIMITS OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT I Ji ROCK ENTRANCE INLET PROTECTION 406 SILT FENCE — LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE LIMITS OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT I Ji CHECK DAM TEMPORARY DIVERSION 406 DORSET SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 2 Qz0� PERCENT SLOPES 13776 DORSET -TWO INLETS COMPLEX, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES 1. ALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 4. WITHIN ONE WEEK (7 DAYS) OF SITE GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MATERIALS. 5. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, STATE, AND WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 7. ANY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8. REMOVAL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO EXISTING STREETS AND PAVED AREAS AND SHALL SWEEP ADJACENT STREETS AS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10. IF BLOWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER FROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION: UPON IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: TRAILER, PARKING, LAYDOWN, PORTA-POTTY, WHEEL WASH, CONCRETE WASHOUT, FUEL AND MATERIAL STORAGE CONTAINERS, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS, ETC., IMMEDIATELY DENOTE THEM ON THE SITE MAPS AND NOTE ANY CHANGES IN LOCATION AS THEY OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. BMP AND EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SEQUENCE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AT EXISTING STORMWATER CULVERTS. 2. CONSTRUCT STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (1), CONCRETE WASHOUT PIT (1) AND INSTALL SILT FENCE. 3. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA. 4. CONSTRUCT AND STABILIZE DIVERSIONS AND TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS. 5. PERFORM CLEARING AND GRUBBING OF THE SITE. PERFORM MASS GRADING. ROUGH GRADE TO ESTABLISH PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS. 6. START CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES. 7. TEMPORARILY SEED WITH PURE LIVE SEED, THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL BE INACTIVE FOR 7 DAYS OR MORE OR AS REQUIRED BY NPDES AND/OR CITY OF MONTICELLO GRADING PERMIT. SWPPP UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS THE GC MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE JOBSITE BINDER AND SITE MAPS, TO REFLECT THE PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND GENERAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT SITE. UPDATES SHALL BE MADE DAILY TO TRACK PROGRESS WHEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES OCCUR: BMP INSTALLATION, MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (E.G., PAVING, STORM SEWER INSTALLATION, FOOTING INSTALLATION, ETC.), CLEARING, GRUBBING OR GRADING, OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION. IMPORTANT: THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) TO THE ENGINEER AND OBTAIN WRITTEN ENGINEER APPROVAL BEFORE DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. MODIFYING EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS (SUBSTITUTIONS ARE TYPICALLY ONLY APPROVED IF SPECIFIED MATERIALS ARE NOT AVAILABLE OR THERE IS A VALID REASON THE SPECIFIED BMP WILL NOT WORK) 2. ADDING/DELETING EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS; 3. MODIFYING THE SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION SEQUENCE; OR 4. PERFORMING ANY ACTIONS OR IN ANY MANNER THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE SWPPP. THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY OR ADD ADDITIONAL BMPS, WITHOUT ENGINEER APPROVAL, IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO PREVENT SEDIMENT DISCHARGE OR PROTECT WATER QUALITY; HOWEVER, GC MUST NOTIFY THE ENGINEER AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AS TO THEIR ACTIONS TO DISCUSS THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL MEASURES AND TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED APPROVALS. THE CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT AND PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY. AMENDING THE SWPPP DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT HAS TO BE REPRINTED. IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO ADD ADDENDA, SKETCHES, NEW SECTIONS, DETAILS, AND/OR REVISED DRAWINGS THAT HAVE THE ENGINEER NAME IN PRINT, ARE STAMPED, SIGNED, DATED, AND ARE ACCOMPANIED BY WRITTEN COPY OF THE ASSOCIATED RFI AND ITS RESPONSE FROM ENGINEER. ENGINEERED ITEMS MUST BE SIGNED AND STAMPED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE PROJECT. GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 80 I � w Q 0 U) z 0 U) w w 0 z L� z Z O J z a U)F_: Z wz N rn U p w�Z p u O z Q `o w Z of W J O wz S2 O Lu zw Q Y } 0� N ofof w ■ z O N w m o ❑ ❑ J w Q z Q Qz0� w o�� w Z d LL j H aQW�� O O 0 j d O = z Co ~ Co W 2 J Q a U Z J Q U Fawwww U = p H Z rn LL O> Q O w �z �❑ afO�❑z o wFwQ�Q �Uz<w0 o Lu 0-1 z z z =U)2=W2 0 Z U) U) J H oO D Q w o _ LU 0 O Q Q m a C o m w m w Y w z z Y 3 U U) ❑ ❑ U I Z Z �. < azJqr.- zZ Lu a Lu O J U)O� 1--- O Q u (1) �OWa W U) Z z Lu O O V U 0. Z O LL Oz O J Z K w W O �w�oLL Wa V� QAC) � H 0 a p W Z— Lu Q ° W a O J O J W LL U_ Z Lu SHEET NUMBER U) U) C300 C'7 O cy) O N O .Q z J a N r U) ry W U 0 U 27) cn 0 J 0 a) U) z O m U C O a) U 0 U) cn CIO W J UI H Y i / / / / 0 n 927- �/ / 4 7 / / KEYNOTE LEGEND SITE DATA OA CHECK DAM LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (ACRES) ±5.41 LEGEND ROCK ENTRANCE K>00000001 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ® INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE _x X_ SAFETY FEN BIOROLL RIP RAP I EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES 1. ALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 4. WITHIN ONE WEEK (7 DAYS) OF SITE GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MATERIALS. 5. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, STATE, AND WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 7. ANY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8. REMOVAL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO EXISTING STREETS AND PAVED AREAS AND SHALL SWEEP ADJACENT STREETS AS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10. IF BLOWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER FROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION: UPON IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: TRAILER, PARKING, LAYDOWN, PORTA-POTTY, WHEEL WASH, CONCRETE WASHOUT, FUEL AND MATERIAL STORAGE CONTAINERS, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS, ETC., IMMEDIATELY DENOTE THEM ON THE SITE MAPS AND NOTE ANY CHANGES IN LOCATION AS THEY OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. BMP AND EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SEQUENCE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TEMPORARILY SEED, THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, DENUDED AREAS THAT WILL BE INACTIVE FOR 7 DAYS OR MORE. 2. INSTALL UTILITIES, UNDERDRAINS, STORM SEWERS, UNDERGROUND SYSTEM, CURBS AND GUTTERS. 3. INSTALL APPROPRIATE INLET PROTECTION AT ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES AS EACH INLET STRUCTURE IS INSTALLED. 4. PERMANENTLY STABILIZE AREAS TO BE VEGETATED AS THEY ARE BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE. 5. PREPARE SITE FOR PAVING. 6. PAVE SITE AND INSTALL STRIPING. 7. INSTALL APPROPRIATE INLET PROTECTION DEVICES FOR PAVED AREAS AS WORK PROGRESSES. 8. COMPLETE GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION OVER ALL AREAS. 9. OBTAIN CONCURRENCE WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN FULLY STABILIZED THEN: 1. REMOVE ALL REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION ADN SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES 2. STABILIZE ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL OF BMPS. GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET !0 20 40 80 w Q 0 U) z 0 U) w w 0 z z O J z a U) U) Z U w O O N rn U w v z U)o z Q `o w Z W J O w O w — � Q Y } 0 N Of U) w ■ z O N } w 00 O ❑❑Jw TOTAL SITE AREA (ACRES) ±5.02 OB SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN QzO� PRE -DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±5.41 w0U)cl) PRE -DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±0.00 OC INLET PROTECTION DEVICE j LL H aQWow POST DEVELOPMENT PERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±3.06 o POST DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) ±2.35 OD ROCK ENTRANCE 2 J LEGEND ROCK ENTRANCE K>00000001 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ® INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE _x X_ SAFETY FEN BIOROLL RIP RAP I EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES 1. ALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 4. WITHIN ONE WEEK (7 DAYS) OF SITE GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MATERIALS. 5. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, STATE, AND WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 7. ANY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8. REMOVAL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO EXISTING STREETS AND PAVED AREAS AND SHALL SWEEP ADJACENT STREETS AS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10. IF BLOWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER FROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION: UPON IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: TRAILER, PARKING, LAYDOWN, PORTA-POTTY, WHEEL WASH, CONCRETE WASHOUT, FUEL AND MATERIAL STORAGE CONTAINERS, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS, ETC., IMMEDIATELY DENOTE THEM ON THE SITE MAPS AND NOTE ANY CHANGES IN LOCATION AS THEY OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. BMP AND EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SEQUENCE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TEMPORARILY SEED, THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION, DENUDED AREAS THAT WILL BE INACTIVE FOR 7 DAYS OR MORE. 2. INSTALL UTILITIES, UNDERDRAINS, STORM SEWERS, UNDERGROUND SYSTEM, CURBS AND GUTTERS. 3. INSTALL APPROPRIATE INLET PROTECTION AT ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES AS EACH INLET STRUCTURE IS INSTALLED. 4. PERMANENTLY STABILIZE AREAS TO BE VEGETATED AS THEY ARE BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE. 5. PREPARE SITE FOR PAVING. 6. PAVE SITE AND INSTALL STRIPING. 7. INSTALL APPROPRIATE INLET PROTECTION DEVICES FOR PAVED AREAS AS WORK PROGRESSES. 8. COMPLETE GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION OVER ALL AREAS. 9. OBTAIN CONCURRENCE WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN FULLY STABILIZED THEN: 1. REMOVE ALL REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION ADN SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES 2. STABILIZE ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL OF BMPS. GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET !0 20 40 80 w Q 0 U) z 0 U) w w 0 z z O J z a U) U) Z U w O O N rn U w v z U)o z Q `o w Z W J O w O w — � Q Y } 0 N Of U) w ■ z O N } w 00 O ❑❑Jw c0 Q z Q QzO� w0U)cl) "f cw Z d j LL H aQWow O O o o = z ~cQ w Q 2 J a U Z J awwww Q U F O =rn � Z w O -i of Q O w F z D ❑ ofOof❑z p wF W<-< �Uz<w0 o co w cn O -zz =�2=Wz 2 o z U) U J H oO D Q w p _ U) Lu 0 C) Q Q Q o °}° m w 00 w C Y w z z Y U J) ❑ ❑ U I Z Z Q Q Z JN z W a W O ZJ u) I-- �- OQ u (1) W = �OW�a pC U) Z U) W O O V U 0. z O LL O0 z O z J K w W O F_w�oWa V� QAC) Ha Q W z— Lu Q O W a �o J O J W LL U_ Z Lu Z) SHEET NUMBER U) U) C301 m c'7 O o� O N O �L a_ U) A U O W c a U 27)c cn O 0 M c 2: _j J 0 O (n Z O 7 U c O O U O U) U W 0 J UI DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY PROJECT INFORMATION: PROJECT LOCATION: SEC OF HART BLVD AND CR 39 MONTICELLO COUNTY, MN MPCA ADDRESS: MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER PERMIT PROGRAM 520 LAFAYETTE ROAD NORTH ST. PAUL, MN 55155-4194 PHONE: (800) 443-4729 WATER MANAGEMENT: THE CITY OF MONTICELLO 505 WALNUT STREET #1 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 PHONE: (763) 295-2711 GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND ENGINEERING REVIEW WAS DONE BY BRAUN INTERTEC. THE REPORT INDICATE 6 -INCHES TO 3 -FEET OF PREDOMINANTLY CLAYEY SAND OR SANDY LEAN CLAY TOPSOIL OVER VARIABLE DEPTHS OF SAND FILL, EXTENDING FROM 4 TO 12 FEET BELOW GRADE. NATIVE SOILS CONSISTED PRIMARILY OF SAND, AND SILTY SAND DEPOSITS. MEASURABLE AMOUNTS OF GROUNDWATER WERE ENCOUNTERED IN 5 OF THE 12 BORINGS, BETWEEN ELEVATIONS 916.5 AND 918.5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTING AN APPROXIMATELY 32,350 SF BUILDING WITH ACCOMPANYING PAVING, UTILITIES, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS, AND LANDSCAPING. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE C PER FEMA FIRM MAP NUMBER: 270541 0005 B HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOV 1, 1979. THE PROJECT SITE DOES NOT INCLUDE SITES OF HISTORIC OR ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ENDANGERED & THREATENED SPECIES, RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES, COLONIAL WATERBIRD NESTING SITES, MIGRATORY WATERFOWL CONCENTRATION AREAS, DEER WINTERING AREAS OR WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN WILL DEFINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR; INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION; DESCRIBE THE PRACTICES THAT WILL BE USED TO CONTROL EROSION AND THE RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS IN THE STORMWATER, INDICATE A SCHEDULE TO HELP ENSURE THAT THE PRACTICE INDICATED ARE IMPLEMENTED AND TO HELP EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PRACTICES IN REDUCING EROSION AND POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED FROM THE SITE; AND TO DESCRIBE THE FINAL STABILIZATION MEASURES REQUIRED TO HELP MINIMIZE EROSION AND OTHER STORMWATER IMPACTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: PROJECT TYPE: THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SITE APPURTENANCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF A ±32,250 SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, ASSOCIATED GRADING, BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE SURFACES, UTILITY SERVICES AND A STORMWATER SYSTEM TO MANAGE RUNOFF FROM THE SITE. RECEIVING WATERS: THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE GENERALLY DRAINS NORTH AND EAST TO AN EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH IN THE CR -39 RIGHT-OF-WAY BEFORE BEING COLLECTED INTO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND ULTIMATELY DISCHARGING INTO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER APPROXIMATELY 0.1 MILES OF THE SITE. CALCAREOUS FENS: THIS PROJECT DOES NOT DRAIN TO ANY KNOW CALCAREOUS FENS. SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED WATERS: THE SITE DISCHARGES TO, AND IS WITHIN ONE MILE OF, A SEGMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS A SCENIC OR RECREATIONAL RIVER SEGMENT AND RESTRICTED WATER AS DESCRIBED IN THE GENERAL PERMIT. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES: THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 92 -UNIT ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY THAT COMPRISES A 41,000 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT THE PROPOSED WORK WILL ALSO CONSIST OF GRADING, BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE SURFACES, UTILITIES AND LANDSCAPING. THE TOTAL DISTURBED AREA IS 4.80 ACRES. THE PROJECT ADDS 2.35 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO THE EXISTING GREENFIELD SITE. SEQUENCE OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVIES: PHASE 1: 1. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AT EXISTING STORMWATER INLETS. 2. CONSTRUCT STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, CONCRETE WASHOUT PIT AND INSTALL PERIMETER CONTROL (SAFTEY FENCE, SILT SOCK, AND SILT FENCE). 3. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS 4. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING STORAGE AREA. 5. COMPLETE REMOVALS AS INDICATED IN PLANS. 6. PERFORM MASS GRADING. ROUGH GRADE TO ESTABLISH PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS. 7. START CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES. 8. IMMEDIATELY STABILIZE ANY EXPOSED SOIL AREAS AND COMPLETE STABILIZATION WITHIN 7 DAYS OF CEASING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE. PHASE 2: 1. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AT ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTUTES AS EACH INLET STRUCTURE IS INSTALLED. 2. INSTALL APPROPRIATE BMP INLET PROTECTION DEVICES AS WORK PROGRESSES. INSTALL ALL OTHER TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS. 3. COMPLETE GTRADING AND ISTALLATION OF PERMANENT STABILIZATION OVERALL AREAS DISTURBED. 4. STABILIZE AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY BMP'S. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN AND DETAIL SHEETS: SHEET C300 - EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PHASE I PLAN SHEET C301 - EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PHASE II PLAN SHEET C302 - SWPPP SHEET C303 - EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DETAILS ENGINEER KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY: ALAN L. CATCHPOOL 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197 SWPPP DESIGNER KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY: DAIN S. SYNHORST, E.I. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE (651) 643-0439 ARCHITECT AYRES ASSOCIATES 215 NORTH SECOND STREET, SUITE 204 RIVER FALLS, WI 54022 TELEPHONE: (715) 831-7550 CONTACT: DANIEL BURNAM GENERAL CONTRACTOR ENGELSMA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7119 31 ST AVENUE N. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427 TELEPHONE: (763) 536-9200 CONTACT: BRIAN TEETERS ECS: TBD OWNER/DEVELOPER MONTICELLO SENIOR HOUSING OWNER,LLC 17550 HEMLOCK AVENUE LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 TELEPHONE: (952) 378-4386 CONTACT: MICHAEL HOAGBERG TIMING OF CONTOL MEASURES THE FOLLOWING CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE COORDINATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: 1. STORM SEWER INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE THE FIRST ITEM CONSTRUCTED AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS TAKEN PLACE. 2. SILT FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ANY SOIL DISTURBANCE AND SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS TAKEN PLACE. 3. STRUCTURAL BMPS, SUCH AS DIVERSIONS, AND SEDIMENT TRAPS OR BASINS, SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO MAJOR SOIL DISTURBANCE; 4. CLEARING, GRADING AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL WILL NOT OCCUR IN AN AREA UNTIL IT IS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION TO PROCEED; EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION HAS PASSED. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH FECER, STAT AND LOCAL REGULATIONS THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN REFLECTS MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY GUIDELINES FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION RECORDS THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES TO MAINTAIN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS. 1. PERMITTEES MUST IMMEDIATELY INITIATE STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED SOIL AREAS AND COMPLETE STABILIZATION WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASES. 2. ALL CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE EACH WEEK AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A STORM EVENT OF 0.5 INCHES OR GREATER IN 24 HOURS. THE INSPECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR. 3. ALL MEASURES WILL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD WORKING ORDER; IF A REPAIR IS NECESSARY, IT WILL BE INITIATED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF REPORT 4. BIO ROLLS WILL BE INSPECTED FOR DEPTH OF SEDIMENT, TEARS, TO SEE IF THE FABRIC IS SECURELY ATTACHED TO THE CONCRETE BARRIERS. 5. INLET PROTECTION DEVICES WILL BE INSPECTED FOR DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND FREE OF ANY TEARS. DEVICES SHALL BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THEY ARE SECURELY IN PLACE. 6. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR DEPTH OF SEDIMENT, TEARS, FABRIC ATTACHMENT TO POSTS, AND THAT POSTS AND FABRIC BOTTOM ARE FIRMLY IN THE GROUND. 7. BUILT UP SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SILT FENCE WHEN IT HAS REACHED ONE THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. SPILL PREVENTION GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: THE FOLLOWING GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES WILL BE FOLLOWED ONSITE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. 1. DESIGNATE AREAS FOR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, TAKING STEPS TO MINIMIZE SPILLS AND CONTROL THE RUNOFF FROM THESE AREAS; 2. PROVIDE WASTE RECEPTACLES AT CONVENIENT LOCATIONS. THE RECEPTACLES SHOULD BE COVERED AND THE WASTE SHOULD BE REGULARLY COLLECTED; 3. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE CONTROL OF EQUIPMENT WASH WATERS, SUCH AS CONCRETE WASHOUTS, TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED DRY WEATHER DISCHARGES AND AVOID MIXING THE WASH WATER WITH STORM WATER; 4. PROVIDE PROTECTED STORAGE AREAS FOR CHEMICALS, PAINTS, SOLVENTS, FERTILIZERS, GASOLINE, AND OTHER POTENTIALLY TOXIC MATERIALS. THESE AREAS SHOULD PROVIDE CONTAINMENT TO PREVENT STORM WATER FROM ENTERING THE CHEMICAL STORAGE AREA AND PREVENT LEAKS FROM LEAVING THE CHEMICAL STORAGE AREA; AND 5. PROVIDE ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED SANITARY FACILITIES. HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS: THESE PRACTICES ARE USED TO REDUCE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 1. PRODUCTS WILL BE KEPT IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTAINERS UNLESS IT CANNOT BE RESEALED. 2. ORIGINAL LABELS AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS WILL BE RETAINED ON SITE AND ACCESSIBLE AT ALL TIMES; THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT PRODUCT AND SAFETY INFORMATION. 3. IF SURPLUS PRODUCT MUST BE DISPOSED OF, MANUFACTURERS' OR LOCAL AND STATE RECOMMENDED METHODS FOR PROPER DISPOSAL WILL BE FOLLOWED. SPILL CONTROL PRACTICES: IN ADDITION TO THE GOOD HOUSEKEEPING AND MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS SECTIONS OF THIS PLAN, THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES WILL BE FOLLOWED FOR SPILL PREVENTION AND CLEANUP: 1. MANUFACTURERS' RECOMMENDED METHODS FOR SPILL CLEANUP WILL BE CLEARLY POSTED AND SITE PERSONNEL WILL BE MADE AWARE OF THE PROCEDURES AND THE LOCATION OF THE INFORMATION AND CLEANUP SUPPLIES. 2. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR SPILL CLEANUP WILL BE KEPT IN A MATERIAL STORAGE AREA LOCATED ONSITE. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS WILL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO BROOMS, DUST PANS, MOPS, RAGS, GLOVES, GOGGLES, CAT LITTER, SAND, SAWDUST, AND PLASTIC AND METAL TRASH CONTAINERS SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE. 3. ALL SPILLS WILL BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY AFTER DISCOVERY. 4. THE SPILL AREA WILL BE KEPT WELL VENTILATED AND PERSONNEL WILL WEAR APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING TO PREVENT INJURY FROM CONTACT WITH A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE. 5. SPILLS OF TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL WILL BE REPORTED TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY, REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE. IN ADDITION TO REPORTING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES, REPORT SPILLS TO THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (STATE DUTY OFFICER: 800-422-0798 OR 651-297-8610). ANY SPILLS ABOVE THE REPORTABLE QUANTITIES LIMITS IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR), TITLE 40, PART 302 SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE EPA NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER (800-424-8802). THE REPORT WILL INCLUDE MEASURES TO PREVENT SPILLS FROM REOCCURRING AND INFORMATION REGARDING HOW TO REMEDIATE SPILLS IF A SIMILAR OCCURRENCE HAPPENS. A DESCRIPTION OF THE SPILL, WHAT CAUSED IT, AND THE CLEANUP MEASURES WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED. 6. THE CONTRACTOR'S EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR SHALL BE THE SPILL PREVENTION AND CLEANUP COORDINATOR. 7. SPILLS WILL BE STUDIED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY OCCURRED AND PREVENTIVE METHODS WILL BE CREATED TO ENSURE SIMILAR SPILLS DO NOT OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. PRODUCT SPECIFIC PRACTICES PETROLEUM PRODUCTS: ALL ON SITE VEHICLES WILL BE MONITORED FOR LEAKS AND RECEIVE REGULAR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF LEAKAGE. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WILL BE STORED IN TIGHTLY SEALED CONTAINERS WHICH ARE CLEARLY LABELED. ANY ASPHALT BASED MATERIALS USED ON SITE WILL BE APPLIED AND STORED ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY SPILLED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OF 5 GALLONS OR MORE SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AT 651-297-8610. PAINTS AND CLEANING SOLVENTS: ALL CONTAINERS WILL BE TIGHTLY SEALED AND STORED WHEN NOT REQUIRED FOR USE. EXCESS PAINT AND SOLUTIONS WILL NOT BE DISCHARGED TO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM BUT WILL BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURERS' INSTRUCTIONS OR STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. CONCRETE AND CONCRETE TRUCKS: CONCRETE, CONCRETE TOOLS AND TRUCKS ALL MUST WASH OUT IN A DESIGNATED AREA. THE DESIGNATED AREA MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE AND COMMUNICATED TO ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED WITH CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE AS THE WASHOUT AREA. THIS DESIGNATED AREA MUST MEET THE MPCA AND EPA REGULATIONS OF A DEFINED CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA. THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS ARE CONSIDERED AN APPROVED METHOD: 1. KEEPING ALL CONCRETE WASHOUT SELF-CONTAINED AND RETURNED TO AN INDUSTRIAL SITE TO BE DISPOSED OF IN A MPCA APPROVED MANNER. 2. PROVIDING A PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT CONTAINER THAT ALL CONCRETE WASHOUT CAN BE COLLECTED IN. THESE CONTAINERS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR BASIS. 3. CREATING A SELF -INSTALLED WASHOUT FACILITY WITH AN IMPERMEABLE LINER. AN ENGINEERED CLAY LINER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN IMPERMEABLE LINER. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONCRETE WASHOUT REGULATIONS, PLEASE SEE THE MPCA'S MEMORANDUM "CONCRETE WASHOUT GUIDANCE" AND THE EPA "STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CONCRETE WASHOUT". VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT WASHING: IF VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT ARE WASHED ON THE PROJECT SITE IT MUST BE DONE INA DESIGNATED AREA. THE DESIGNATED AREA MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE AND COMMUNICATED TO ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED. RUNOFF FROM THE WASHING AREA MUST BE CONTAINED IN A SEDIMENT BASIN OR OTHER SIMILAR CONTROL METHOD AND MUST BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 5.20 AND 21.2 OF THE GENERAL PERMIT AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE NPDES, THE PREPARER OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS TRAINDER UNDER THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, INSTRUCTOR JOHN CHAPMAN, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. MR. DAIN SYNYHORST'S CERTIFICATION IN DESIGN OF SWPPP IS VALID THROUGH NOVEMBER 27, 2022. NSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE w EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR (MNDOT 2573): Q THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSIGN AN EROSION CONRTOL FOR THE PROJECT WHO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMLIANCE WITH THE PROJECT SWPPP. THE D EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR (ECS) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENT ADDITION OF THE MNDOT STANDRD SPECIFICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL APPLICABLE SECTION. THE ECS SHALL: 1. IMPLEMENT THE SWPPP PLAN. 2. OVERSEE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES IDENTIFIED IN THE SWPPP. 3. CONDUCT OR PROVIDE FOR INSPECTION AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES 4. INSPECT SITE AND BEGIN CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO DEFICIENT BMP'S NO LATER THAN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT. 5. PREPARE WEEKLY SCHEDULE OF EROSION ACTIVITIES (MNDOT 1717.2D) 6. PREPARE AND UPDATE THE CONTRACTORS EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL SITE PLAN AS NECESSARY (MNDOT1717.2E) W 7. IDENTIFY OTHER POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES AND MAKE SURE REMEDIES ARE ADDED TO THE SWPPP z 8. IDENTIFY ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE SWPPP AND IDENTIFY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES AND ASSURE THEY ARE 0 ADDED TO THE SWPPP. U) 9. IF CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE SWPPP, THEN THE ECS SHALL AMEND THE SWPPP TO INCLUDE THE CHANGES. I j w CONTRACTOR'S EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL SITE PLAN: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A CONTRACTOR'S EROSION / SEDIMENT CONTROL SITE PLAN TO THE ENGINEER A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE FIRST PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING. THE CONTRACTOR'S EROSION / SEDIMENT CONTROL SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE: 1. THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR'S DESIGNATED EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR WITH 24-HOUR CONTACT INFORMATION. (I.E. PHONE NUMBER, EMAIL, ETC.) 2. NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING AND MAINTAINING THE SITE INSPECTION LOGS ON A WEEKLY BASIS (OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF 0.5 INCHES OF A RAIN IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD). 3. NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION. 4. NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS. 5. LOCATION WHERE THE SWPPP DOCUMENT AND NPDES PERMIT WILL BE KEPT ON-SITE. THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE AT ALL TIMES AND o AVAILABLE IN THE TIME OF ESSENCE. z 6. WHERE AND HOW CONCRETE WASHOUT WILL OCCUR AND BE IN COMPLIANCE OF THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY'S (MPCA) MEMORANDUM "CONCRETE WASHOUT GUIDANCE". 7. LOCATION OF STOCKPILES OF NATIVE SOILS AND/OR BORROW MATERIALS INDICATE HOW STOCKPILES WILL BE KEPT IN COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES AND MPCA REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO START WORK UNTIL THE ENGINEER HAS REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED THE CONTRACTOR'S EROSION / SEDIMENT um LoLo z CONTROL SITE PLAN. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES O ? a 1. ALL CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE EACH WEEK AND WITHIN 24 HOURS ON THE END OF A STORM EVENT RESULTING IN 0.5U) INCHES OR GREATER WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. THE INSPECTION SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE ECS.mr Q 2. PERMITTEES MUST IMMEDIATELY INITIATE STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED SOIL AREAS AND COMPLETE STABILIZATION WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE z w O CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASES. p N 0 3. ALL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD WORKING ORDER; IF A REPAIR IS NECESSARY, IT SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF REPORT. � U w v Of 4. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR DEPTH OF SEDIMENT, TEARS, FABRIC ATTACHMENT TO POSTS, AND THAT POSTS AND FABRIC BOTTOM ARE FIRMLY ^ - O= U IN THE GROUND. z } 5. BUILT UP SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SILT FENCE WHEN IT HAS REACHED ONE THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE OR SOONER. Z co Lu 6. INLET PROTECTION DEVICES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR DEPTH OF SEDIMENT, ABSENCE OF TEARS AND TO ASSURE THAT THE DEVICES ARE SECURELY IN O Lu Z Y PLACE. 2 w Oz CONSTRUCTION NOTES: -i w 1. PRIOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN ANY AREA OF THE PROJECT, DOWN GRADIENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT 2 Q CONTROL MEASURES AND CONCRETE BARRIERS DELINEATING THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED BY THE 00 } ECS AND THE ENGINEER. o U) 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS REQUIRED BY THE MPCA'S N w NPDES PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS INCLUDES ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS BEYOND THAT SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 3. PHASED CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE USED TO MINIMIZE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT. 4. THE MAXIMUM TIME ANY AREA CAN REMAIN OPEN WHILE NOT BEING WORKED IS 7 DAYS. FERTILIZER SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED AT A RATE N OF 250 LBS/ACRE. 5. IF DOWN GRADIENT BMPS ARE OVERLOADED DURING A STORM EVENT, ADDITIONAL UP GRADIENT BMPS ARE REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE THE OVERLOAD. THE ADDITIONAL BMPS MUST BE RECORDED ON THIS SWPPP IN THE AMENDMENTS TO SWPPP SECTION. 6. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE m w WATERS INCLUDING STORM WATER CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, OR CONDUITS AND DITCHES. ALL STOCKPILESui 0 z a SHALL BE COVERED OR STABILIZED TO LIMIT WIND EROSION. a z a IL 7. A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE PROJECT. A VEHICLE TRACKING PAD SHALL BE INSTALLED IN o o � ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN AT EVERY PROJECT ENTRANCE. ENTRANCES MUST BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED TO z � `� w = ENSURE PROPER FUNCTION. U) w o 00 0 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN ALL TRACKED MATERIALS USING A STREET SWEEPER WITH A PICK UP BROOM ON ADJACENT ROADWAYS can °� cQ = z ON A DAILY BASIS AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. F 0 F w a Q 2 9. CONCRETE WASHOUT SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MNPCA AND THE EPA CONCRETE WASHOUT GUIDANCE. a ° w w w 0 2 O = J Lu Q CONTROLS LL O W - Q N F_z D0 of oz 0 PERIMETER/SEDIMENT CONTROLS: U Q ow a 0 z ff a w o o ONE CONSTRUCTION EXIT/ENTRANCE SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY. ALL CONSTRUCTION 00 � w-0-zw TRAFFIC SHALL UTILIZE THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT(S) SUCH THAT TRACK OUT OF SEDIMENT IS MINIMIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PERMIT. SILT w w 0 Q z z F FENCING, BIOROLL AND SILT DIKES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PERIMETER AND/OR DOWNSTREAM GRADIENT OF THE AREA TO BE DISTURBED. INLET = U) 2 w g o PROTECTION WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED ON ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED STORM SEWER CATCH BASINS AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. THE PERMIT REQUIRES THAT TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT THEY BE Z cn U) U) J � a INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. EFFECTIVE BMP'S MUST BE IN PLACE ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WHERE NO U O= CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR FOR A PERIOD OF 7 DAYS. w o STABILIZATION PRACTICES: w o o Q N Q m m TEMPORARY STABILIZATION INCLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF SILT FENCING ON THE DOWNSTREAM GRADIENT OF THE AREA TO BE DISTURBED. Q C) o m w INLET PROTECTION WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED ON ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED STORM SEWER CATCH BASINS AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT = w z z v CONSTRUCTION. EFFECTIVE BMP'S MUST BE IN PLACE ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WHERE NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR FOR Y < w < z A PERIOD OF 7 DAYS OR MORE. STABILIZING MUST OCCUR WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THE LAST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. cn 0 0 0 STOCKPILES WILL BE KEPT IN AN ORDERLY FASHION IN AN AREA DESIGNATED BY THE EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR ON THE CONTRACTOR'S EROSION / SEDIMENT CONTROL SITE PLAN. THE STOCKPILES MUST HAVE PERIMETER CONTROL AND STABILIZATION IF SOIL STOCK PILES REMAIN FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS. STABILIZATION OR COVERING THE PILE WITH PLASTIC OR GEO-TEXTILE MAY ALSO BE NECESSARY FOR CONTROLLING DUST. PERMANENT STABILIZATION INCLUDES BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, PLACEMENT OF CURB AND GUTTER, PAVEMENT, AND FINAL LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDCOVER ACCORDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. ANY REMOVALS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THAT WHICH IS REQUIRED AND IN AN ORDER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REMOVAL AND z a CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. O OTHER CONTROLS U Cn WASTE MATERIALS: ALL WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE PROPERLY HANDLED, STORED, AND DISPOSED OF. CONSTRUCTION CHEMICALS AND CONCRETE WASHOUT LL WILL BE PROPERLY CONTROLLED TO PREVENT POLLUTANTS FROM ENTERING STORM WATER DISCHARGES. U) SANITARY WASTE: z ALL SANITARY WASTE SHALL BE COLLECTED FROM THE PROTABLE UNITS AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL REGULATION. O HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS: U ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED AND DISPOSED OF IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED BY LOCAL OR STATE REGULATION. n/ Z MATERIALS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO LEACH SHALL BE STORED UNDER COVER (E.G. PLASTIC SHEETING OR TEMPORARY ROOFS.) MATERIALS O z SHALL BE STORED IN A RESTRICTED ACCESS STORAGE AREA TO PREVENT VANDALISM. THE CONTRACTOR'S PERSONNEL SHALL BE INSTRUCTED IN THESE PRACTICES AND THE CONTRACTOR'S EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEING THAT LL THESE PRACTICES ARE FOLLOWED. I- OFF-SITE VEHICLE TRACKING: O U) PAVED STREETS ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN OF DEBRIS. STREETS SHALL BE SWEPT WITH A PICK-UP BROOM AS NECESSARY OR AS z Z DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. DUMP TRUCKS HAULING MATERIAL TO AND FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH A TARPAULIN. ALL J W VEHICLES EXITING THE SITE SHALL BE GUIDED AND REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT. j ' O ♦ ) LL ~ W J W DEWATERING AND BASIN DRAINING: C C w ♦� IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL SHOULD BE v FOLLOWED. DISCHARGE OF STORM WATER AND GROUND WATER FROM CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING ACTIVITIES IS COVERED UNDER THE GENERAL PERMIT. O - d ♦O^ (n VEHICLE VEHICLE FUELING & MAINTENANCE: 01 O d WHENEVER POSSIBLE, VEHICLE REFUELING AND MAINTENANCE SHOULD NOT BE PERFORMED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. HOWEVER, ANY VEHICLE REFUELING OR MAINTENANCE THAT MUST TAKE PLACE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MUST HAVE PROPER SPILL PREVENTION CONTROLS IN PLACE PRIOR TO W v♦ Q O �/ J COMMENCING WORK. V/ O J Lu EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES MUST BE CLEANED REGULARLY TO PREVENT A BUILDUP OF OIL AND GREASE. BERMS, SANDBAGS, OR OTHER BARRIERS SHOULD BE V USED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE MAINTENANCE AREA TO PREVENT STORM WATER CONTAMINATION. MAINTENANCE AREAS SHOULD BE CLEARLY F- DESIGNATED. SECONDARY CONTAINMENT (CAPABLE OF HANDLING 110% OF MATERIAL) MUST BE PROVIDED FOR ALL FLUIDS GREATER THAN 55 GALLONS. ALL Q O WASTE FLUIDS MUST BE IN LEAK -PROOF CONTAINERS. w 0 Z) DUST CONTROL: SHEET NUMBER DUST RESULTING FROM THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK EITHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY, SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY THE U) C302 CONTRACTOR BY APPLYING EITHER WATER OR DUST PALLIATIVE, OR BOTH. m L0 M 0 rn 0 N 17O .Q O) Z Q a - Lu H W 4 a) W c _m U C (n a) 0 co 0) C J O a) U) Z O U C O a) U O w U (n a) W J UI I I EXISTING BUILDING IN1\ I W I I - ------ �b\ - S00.44'47"N 1 68.87'- - - - - -� - - --- I�- ------ - - - - -� - -Fl-%J`` T r r --+-r r' iw I Izw j W III I I I I I , � I I I •d' ° Qv - 40 FT BUILDING SETBACK r 3 FT. UTILITY EASEMENT a� I ; III III I I I I Qw i ER DOC. N0. 379143 Law I Il l III III -- I I I ------- ~------------------ _----------°°-- --- I ---------- III III 144, ' \ Z .\� Q I I�----------- s I o I- --� VARRIOABLc-,-,:It- --��' \ 14 \P' rrrrr r r � III -- -------�-- --- rrrrr rr 1/l '-- '�' --------- - - \ rrrrrrrr llI ROW- � I �- - rrrrrrrr I / I R �\ / I \ rrrrrr �•o' 11 111 / - - - - - - J I `� / 5'�� FUTURE ADDITION ±8,700 SF Q I O S / 33 UNITS Q \ rrrrr rr , r r P-0 P-0 o' �� l 1 i 1 J \rrr� rrrMISSISSIPPI 1 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK � , .�� DRIVE rrr� (BITUMINOUS PUBLIC ROAD \ I O O r rrr� 1 60 FT CLEAR SPACE A X % \ � r r .--r, err:/ M .01s / . r-" i --f i --f / P �\ I ■ 12'DRAINAGE AND �� ' \ r r ,� lO i \\ i I�UTILITY EASEMENT 4/ I �O \ / i--# r 10/ A 1 1z I\I I I \ Q r / ��/ I I\� I I 6o D / \�o �� Wim/ 1 I I I I \I I \\ °6 M E O `) �� . �� I 1 \ \., I SENIOR LIVING FACILITY °a K ° \� ° O C ±32,237 SF \ B co E L v 92 UNITS 1 GUEST UNIT ,�� / 57 O H T \) I I I \ I Q G THREE STORY WITH IN �\ ° o 'o p ° Q UNDERGROUND PARKINGlO, /R1 0� 1 V ��° O \ 5 T J, B CID F E � 0 w L 5.01I10.0' I --�\� L D \ \ o. -�• u� 24.0' . Q9 J L 6 o, ro0 R30 ,a '✓`�° H \ \ iii C CONTRACTOR SHALL \ \ I I I I I\ I I \ N <3� Z O /, �� MATCH EXISTING CURB I II �� I I \ I I. \ \ �� p AND PAVEMENT FOR I mI I I \ \ \ P PATCH WITHIN HART N �p \\\ 40 FT BUILDING SETBACK AND CLEAR SPACE BOULEVARD PER CITY I I II I\ I \\ p M mss'/ \ i / SPECIFICATIONS. II i II W 111 \III I°O o\\ L lit HA ��j� I I 11 I I\ 11 H \ \ R1 L 11 11 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ L X Q \\ CONTRACTOR SHALL MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT FOR PATCH U 2�� o� 1/0 WITHIN HART BOULEVARD PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS ��n • // �O _ U \ \ P C / \ SITE PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 3. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3 FT AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10 FT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5 FT. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 7. SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY CONERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC, DATED 09/07/2018. KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 8. TOTAL LAND AREA IS 5.02 ACRES. 9. PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 11. NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE. 12. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS. 13. REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS. 14. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 15. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 16. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9 FT IN WIDTH AND 20 FT IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. KEYNOTE LEGEND AO CONCRETE SIDEWALK BO PIPE BOLLARD OC MATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTER DO ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP OE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN O ACCESSIBLE PARKING, REFERENCE DETAIL FOR LAYOUT AND R-4 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY DIMENSIONS OAREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2'0.C. HO STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT O PROPOSED BACKUP GENERATOR ENCLOSURE, REFERENCE FRONT = 100 FT ARCH./MEP PLANS FOR DETAIL JO PROPOSED TRANSFORMER, REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR DETAIL OK HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT OL B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) OM TRANSITION CURB NO FLAT CURB OO MODIFIED DESIGN "D" CURB & GUTTER OP 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK, 1' OFF PROPERTY LINE OQ HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT OR 10' ASPHALT PAVEMENT O 4' BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE, REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS vJ��^ FOR DETAIL OT MUTCD R1-1 STOP SIGN UO MUTCD R5-1 DO NOT ENTER SIGN VO COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE O EXISTING CITY LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT ❑ ❑ Q IN PLACE O SITE MONUMENT SIGN, REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR wU) c\I jr0 o Q DETIAL LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PARKING SETBACK LINE PARKING SETBACK LINE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED 10 FT ASPHALT PATHWAY PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPERTY SUMMARY MONTICELLO SENIOR LIVING TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 218,666 SF (5.02 AC) EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA 218,666 SF (5.02 AC) EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 0 SF (0.00 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 90,305 SF (2.07 AC) 42% PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 128,361 SF (2.94 AC) 58% ZONING SUMMARY tY (� W W zLLjLLr R-4 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY EXISTING ZONING RESIDENCE PROPOSED ZONING R-4 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY d 0 RESIDENCE = z FRONT = 100 FT BUILDING SETBACKS SIDE = 40 FT Q H a U Z J REAR = 40 FT CLEAR/OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS HART BLVD = 40 FT (HART BLVD - 50% IMPERVIOUS) CO. RD. 39 = 60 FT HART BLVD 40 FT CLEAR/SPACE 11,592 SF (0.35 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 35.24% OF CLEAR SPACE BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS I PROPOSED PROPERTY IIII BUILDING AREA PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PROPOSED PARKING PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING ADA STALLS ABOVE GROUND REQ'D / PROVIDED ADA STALLS UNDER GROUND REQ'D / PROVIDED TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 218,666 SF (5.02 AC) 31,749 SF (14.5% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) 46 STALLS 58 STALLS 48 STALLS w Q D co z O U) w w 0 Z v Ln Ln z O J za ZW co co O o N rn U wco z z QH `o w Z2 co J wO W - � Q Y} N co @ w ■ z O u')u')N } LL m O ❑ ❑ J W z WQzQ J QzOP O woUnC/) tY (� W W zLLjLLr 111 STALLS a Q W LL 0 O O d 0 = z CY ~~ F W J Q H a U Z J uj Q U Fawwww IrU=rn per- z LL O J Q O W F z ❑ of ❑Z p wFwQ�Q }0z2WO o w'� --zw vJ��^ =U)2=Wz 2 o Z U) U J H oO ❑ ❑ Q w p _ wU) c\I jr0 o Q Q Q C o °}° m wY 00 w W z z Y U U) ❑ ❑ U 3 STALLS / 3 STALLS Z 2 STALLS / 2 STALLS z J O 111 STALLS uj F_ L.L vJ��^ z O U ry Z O LL F_ Oz O c� J Z - Im W 1 F -w D a Lu G = W Q v o' H0 a�Q W z 2 W Q _ 0 Z a O W � Q O Z O J W LL U_ H Z GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET w 0 0 20 40 80 � U)SHEET NUMBER W C400 m I0 M O O 0 N O .Q Z Q n Z r) LC') 0 a� W C m U 27)C U O D M C J O O U) Z O 7 U C O U O M U O W cn cn w 0 J I H Y I II �J I I / 00 6) -- ON co rn -' RIO 9 �I � M 1 I I 42.66M 942.50 I ✓ � � � I� M °' o l � I I'rnn M 0 942.08 MIS P� i \ I 941.93 RIVE \ I i G:943.44 I 944.0 (BITUM NOUS PUBLIC ROADI� \ I � G:942.99 \ yI I I I 944.65 G:942.73 G:942.39 � cl)r r G:943, ® \Z>RC\ 0' `\� I'1 d \ 1 I I I I GlZ%69 \ co I I \ I IC 1 6) co _ o I MI I I I\ L1J\ 1 I a, N \ I i�I y r l I 0) \ I I (G:944.45)- I I II \ I I G:944.96 _ I� - I I 1 I I G:9 5.06 I- I I I G:9 III 1\ 11 N 1 I I do y I \ v \ y \/ 951 \ '� oc 927 STORM MI -F - \�9 RIM=928.1 ' 929 \ INV -915.5( -929 Q z I z 1 a D037Ni0 BIlLDNKiU O rn co o ,� ao � ri 2 M N Q 0) � � 01 p�IJ � 01 01 II II I I II _ Un�?v? Ldi nom? O ' ---- po 34 935 111�� Q U) � I 93C I 1 36" RCP I 011 I = '00, I 935 936 I j II �� I 934 0 ir 932III I I rt 931 I - 70' /1 r r r r r ,93y�OW rrrrr � � III l rrrrr � �rrrrrrn"� rrrrr rn / -936, rrrrr M 111 l rrrr °' / 937 Y� / r r p7 r� ("A 938---, L0 X 2.93% 3:944.86 ��' �\ P:944.54 i 9A� -�/ ___944� 945' d \ M / \ 946� V:946.11 T/G:946.43 G:945.94 8\1op. 9� co T/G:976.66) Q \ \ 947 ME:947.20 O T/G:948.01 �' ` `/ Ppb / / , \ T/G:948.14 9 ME:949.37) 49 0 9 � \ -939. / '// / 941.35 940. 7'* Q / T)G:641.29) ,l . =( UE:9403 ), r, \ \ LEGEND 49 950 - - PROPERTY LINE 0 EXISTING CONTOUR 923 PROPOSED CONTOUR -939. / '// / 941.35 940. 7'* Q / T)G:641.29) ,l . =( UE:9403 ), r, \ \ LEGEND w Q - - PROPERTY LINE 0 EXISTING CONTOUR 923 PROPOSED CONTOUR Q PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) 0 PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) W 0 PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT Z O PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER 100.00 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION LP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION G:0.00 PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION \ PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION T:0.00 z T/G:0.0 PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION v MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION ME:0.0 EOF:0.0 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW -939. / '// / 941.35 940. 7'* Q / T)G:641.29) ,l . =( UE:9403 ), r, \ \ LEGEND w Q - - PROPERTY LINE 0 EXISTING CONTOUR 923 PROPOSED CONTOUR Q PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) 0 PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) W 0 PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT Z O PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER 100.00 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION LP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION G:0.00 PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION o PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION T:0.00 z T/G:0.0 PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION v MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION ME:0.0 EOF:0.0 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW Z 0.0% PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION O J Z a 0_00% PROPOSED ADA SLOPE w v~i Z U O w N O rn U GRADING PLAN NOTES ^ U, w - Z z U) U I 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, Z Q I- � w SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. f w bi g 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO O 3: Z Y WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. w w 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: Y Q RCP PER ASTM C-76 Co } H HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252 HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 N @ � LLQ PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034 > STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: ■ Z RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443 0 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 N 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY r DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. p o O �QZ QzoIL 0� 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO Lu w HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. z CL > u- Of WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE a Q w W D OO a O = z EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING cn 0 PAVEMENT. F F Q Q 2 I- a U z � U 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. F = iY v = _ rn �0:3~ z o `�' 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM F 2 _j o ¢ SEWER ALIGNMENTS. ofOOfOzwF W Q- Q o 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TOm U<z2(If � 0 � Q w 00 SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. wU 0-1z z O ui 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED Z_ U) 2 ~ W UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. U) U) Q H O 0 0 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE w o_ LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. Lu o 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND o Q Q � 0 0 Q °}° oW m m w GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 2 W z z � 12. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND Y U) o o v CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE -VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OF TOPSOIL. 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. J 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO 7 z CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2%. IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR 0 0 AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. Q 16. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF ��I-)^ LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER IN V z LANDSCAPE AREAS. 0 18. ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN U CONNECTION. ryN Z 19. ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 0 20. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. c' 21. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN 0 O CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. L JW -\ 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" j / 0 u) LL WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT W J v� W DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. - W - V ♦�♦ 0 LU z Lu Q V) 0- Q W a QO NORTH (n J 0 w � U H 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET W 20 40 80 2 !0 I I Z) SHEET NUMBER W C500 z a z _ a �i 927 STORM MH - D037N10 BIlLDNO = CO o OR r RIM=928.1 X928 \ �� / = 4(,6 00 zz a oM I L / \ \ °� °I r ° Ia II rn rn q INV=915.5E wVI) fif -929 �01 fnw? n?I cnF? / /8_4 '/I �- 9"10 / � 930_- � _ ( _ - \ \ - - - , i 0�� - �_ TR -25 48- - - 93 X931 , I ,RE:934.05 gg I x -� N 6, `� 9 / I l \ _ 9 rj �_ / X931_ ' �~ IE:923.00 S- 934 I I \ I 94�M-947 _ \ \ \ = NT -932_ ��2 ' zw - O (n re I 946 ¢w 9Q6 i / \ 31 934 3 J ~� �� 333 930 < I 36" RCP \ I rn 94 v OIN --- - . _ w m \--�- \ o _ _ 936 oCS-1 / °I I °' o� / - - - - P 4 \ \ � \� \\-- 152 LF 12" RCP 34 \ (0 I _ I - 111 LF - 15" R % @ 0.15 /0 935 E 923 23 N I yI�I STR-9 @0.60% i i L' I i z� _-- a 933 \ \ o�0 932 I ' - - - - - - _ I rn RE:940.94 \ r �~ �� . . '931. I f ---I VROBLE----I- I co IE:934.26W ------ --- �� o' �'II \ M rn rn IE:935.26 SW - - - RE 942.03 \\ 296 LF - 24 CP 1 ,gg6 IoW _ ��'' -►I I I M IE:934.16 S IE:933.50 N -940• @ 0.30% _ _ _ STR -16 - STR -11 + �� / 6$6°I° �� IE:933.40 S �i ANBRIC - RE:941.56 I 72 LF - 24" RCP \ 0-0 FES 24" - - J ) 32 LF - 10" PVC fS \Opel SUMP:929.42 0 � RE:934.53 + - - - - � I • r> � °> \� "�° ° ! I E:932.52 N @ 0.30% crn M \ rni M o @ 2.50% ! M rn� IE:932.20 N+ I IE:932.42 S( 06 a r r r r g36' I\ o I / " tib N rrrr l \ tf) FA rn M \ Q J TH Di 0, rrrr m MIS P�f\ I \ I 0) -22 I 'V=93 (PL r r r r \ I ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION` 0' STR -21 RIVE I \� IE:936.05 NE r STR -14 FES 24" \ I r 940- - RE:939.18 M (BITUM NOUS PUBLIC ROAD \ p� RE:934.53 1 - p �fl SUMP:929.44 \� a6i 41E:932.20 NW c�I / \ I x I E:933.98 W rn' �--► (b "a `I c� IE:932.44 N c�/ 938 M '? \\\ \I I / g� gtk� gbp I E:932.54 N STR -23 100Vgp2 IE:932.40 SE r ��✓ // / \ \ 13 LF - 18" RCP t ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION \ ` X939 / X \ \ @ 0.50% IE:935.93 S _ _ °'-��' • \ rnj� � //� \ III \ I 1 I \, I } M \ 1 \ 136 L 10" P 27 LF - 24" RCP / 1 RE:942.16 0 \ '/ 1RC\ I I \ STR -8 4.48 /o ° • @ 7�/ @ 0.30% ��°�� / 'k k/ /IE: E \ \ 940, / 93 � 151 LF - 15" RCP / �1\ IA I rn I ` N \ @ 0.60 /o \ \ �/ / I STR -29• STR -30 I I \ o ' 0.98% CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM I I � FES 18" r' ° STR -13 Q' CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SLOPE I� k so • \ - - RE:941.06 AND INVERTS. �RE:92.14 STR -15 \`��- 4%7 `SIF 834.16 NW \ �\o� ' / IE:932.14 N / I IE:932.20 S , \ e CONNECT TO TRENCH DRAIN. 63 LF - 24" RCP / I of \ �. \ \ 334.06E e / 1 IE:933.35 S \ @ 0.30%co •`' / CY) olo a'l/ 't ?6, STR -12 / RE 15 •� \ E 934.135 NW I I I I..1J\ . \ - �� \ " /, IE:934.35 SE / ' 0 20 \ / 942 I/ / ;>• ' i i 2 �• I 0 I `y I \ \2 69%Ll i M / \ 2.93% I II Z I I �°' I I I I �3`L ♦ 944- ♦ \ �� ,/ //;;�: \ STR -5 \ \ \ \ i i g RE:944.00 ♦ \ \\ / ; i A� / / / \ I I ^ I \ 'IE:935.48 S 60 2 0 0 1 I I\ 1 0 ^ \\ 121 LF -'4" RCP �\ ° \ ___944 1 I 1 >\ 1 \ e @ 0.30% 945 RE:944.04 //f IE:935.12N /IE:935.12SE ___945 IV \ \ \ 1 \\ \ o \ 945 `. V ,- \\oma° \STR -28 FES 18" \ \ RE:946.42 v 34 LF - 18" RCP g49 IE:944.63 W \ \ @ 0.50% 11 ,/ STR -27 � / i �� 949 \ CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM. \ CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SLOPES AND INVERTS. I E:944.80 E 950 t 'C _ \ Rate Attenuation Summary- North 2 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year Pre -Development Rate (CFS) 0.69 2.75 6.10 Rate Atten uation Summa ry - South Pre -Development Rate (CFS) I 0.60 I 2.39 I 5.32 Rate Attenuation Summary - Combined Pre -Development Rate (CFS) I 1.29 I 5.14 I 11.42 Rate Attenuation Summary - South 2 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year Post -Development Rate (CFS) 1.07 4.17 8.46 Rate Attenuation Summary - Offsite South 0.10 I 0.51 I 1.25 Rate Attenuation Summary - Offsite North Post -Development Rate (CFS) I 0.08 I 0.45 I 1.08 Rate Attenuation Summary - Combined Post -Development Rate (CFS) I 1.25 I 5.13 I 10.79 LEGEND w Q - - PROPERTY LINE 0 EXISTING CONTOUR 925 PROPOSED CONTOUR Q PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) W ® PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT Z p PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION PROPOSED RIPRAP of PROPOSED STORM SEWER GRADING PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. o Z 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76 HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252 z HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034 STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: z a RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 w U F -:PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 � 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING U O 00 N rn U UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE ^ cU) H L6 Of CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY ^ U O= DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. z � w Q Z � U 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO IY O W LLI 2 Y ZLU HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE Lu z EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING g Q PAVEMENT. Y } 00 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. N U 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM @ Lu z SEWER ALIGNMENTS. U 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO 0 N SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. m o 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE w a z a rn LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. < zz O P 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND a w > LL o GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. a- a d p a zz 12. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER ANDr = F U)❑ o F w Q U Q z U 2 :3 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. a 0-W w w 0 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL F U= LL O - > rn STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE r Z _j o � Q 0 RE -VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>. �O❑zw F w Q� Q o 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE U Q Z H m E:Q w O) NOTED. w - Of - ZW OE5 Z w 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING z_ U) 2 ~ w 2 ❑ DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO Z cn U) J CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO O C)0 Q CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2%. IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL U SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR wU) AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL O N CD c\IU) } BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY 0 o Q Q m m ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO Q � o ow fn w PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE _ w Y v ISSUES. v w < z cn ❑ ❑ U 16. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN SOF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. 18. ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> W OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19. ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 7 20. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT 0 PLUMBING CODE. 21. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. U a Jam/ 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. O F_ U) Z cn 0 U clL Z 0 LL F___ 00 0 c� J - w W o w.3 � aLU C G V W V Q H a Q LU Z LU 0 a (n `Z LU o Q NORTH J 0 w LL U F - p GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET W 20 40 80 !0 I Z) SHEET NUMBER W C501 m CO O _rn O N 1-O .Q O1 z J J U O a� W c _m 0 U 27)c U a) D M J O a) 67 z 0 7 U C O a) M U 0 W cn O w 0 J U� H Y \1 1� 0—ELC 0—ELC 0—ELC F 7 % STR -7 48" SSWR MH CONNECT TO EXISTING i SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. INV SW: 934.52 PER AS-BUILTS DATED 5/25/99. i I E:934.62 E i D G RELOCATED HYDRANT AND VALVE \ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET !0 20 40 80 I LEGEND Q PROPOSED REDUCER 14 PROPOSED TEE ►/ PROPOSED GATE VALVE Q Z O F PROPOSED HYDRANT O PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE co PROPOSED SANITARY CLEANOUT 'fu�ww Z d PROPOSED WATERMAIN / PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER j d O PROPOSED STORM SEWER ELC PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC COM PROPOSED TELEPHONE GAS PROPOSED GAS MAIN UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1. ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP 6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-3034 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3. WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8" DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 4. MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5. ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6. ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. 8. IN THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10. TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13. REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19. BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20. ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21. ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. KEYNOTE LEGEND AO CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN WITH 12" X 8" TEE AND GATE VALVE OB 8"X6"TEE CO 8" DUCTILE IRON WATERLINE OD 8" GATE VALVE OE 8" 45° BEND OF 8" 22.5° BEND GO 8" 11.25° BEND HO PROPOSED HYDRANT NATURAL GAS SERVICE 5 FT FROM BUILDING FACE, REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR OI CONTINUATION. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANY AT PROPERTY LINE. JO 6" GATE VALVE OK 6" DUCTILE IRON WATERLINE OL 6" 90° BEND w Q D W z O U) w w 0 z z O J z a U) U) Z U w O 0N rn U U) Lu Z Q C O z U) Q Co w Z W J O 3: 0- w — > Y } c N � w > ■ z C) u')Lr)N LL m O ❑❑Jw rn c0 �Qz< Q Z O F w0�� 'fu�ww Z d j LL H i Q W LL O O 0 j d O = z LQ ~W 2 J Q H a U Z J awwww Q U m= of U = ❑ ::iH z LL O - of Q O w F -z _j❑ of oz o wFwQ�Q }Uz2WO o w f z z F3 Li =U)i2=wz 2 o z w w J H o O D Q w p _ U) Lu 0 o Q Q Q o ww m w � Y w z z Y 3 U z U) ❑ ❑ U Z J z a O >_ F_ U J F ��^ vJ z O U 0. z O LL F_ Oz O J Z - w W 1 � w j 0 a Lu C Uul ♦� L H z— a w Q Q 0- Q a U) `Z o O J J W LL U_ z L U) SHEET NUMBER U) C600 C S L CO CO O � s ( 00 7- C:) C: CV s C:) L 4 Q i z 7 S ( U J ( ( Q I w ` ( Q V J c s ( U ` I U (n CD C: (6 s i 0 Q s U ( ( c ; U i CD ` 0 £ ( i s z� .f C ( > J ' L f O ! ( VJ i CZ L G ` ( O ( A♦ S U .t ( c ; 0 z 75; s f (n a i 0 ` ( rn (n y ( i w I ! ( ( z s Gravel pads) MnDOT Class CA --15 or CA -25 Riprap Bedding Geotextile fabric Original grade 55ECTION R—R (not to scale) Ribbed or Corrugated steel plates r x - Original Geotextile fabric SECTION A—A grade (not t0 SCOIe) NOTES: Channelize runoff to sedimentSediment Trapping Device trapping device J r r4Q � i o Ribbed -or Corrugated steel plates r ' / A A r A �\ A —tee o 0 pE � / u Q � 6 D � r}� w al �2 � f d / mc B a ~ �24' min. C-0 / SOpe away from LLJ f highway 50' min- Matchor Right of Way Existing Grade PLAN RADE LOW * AGGREGATE SHALL BE 3/4"-2" ANGULAR CLEAN STONE Title: Commercial Gravel Standard Plate Library Construction Entrance City of Monticello Dote:06_ 4 Plate No. Revised. 03-1 5 00 MIN. STORAGE VOLUME 3600 C.F./AC OF DRAINAGE AREA W o W SECTION A -A Av �J fJ TED OUTLET ISOMETRIC VIEW 2 H ORIGINAL GROUND ELEVATION OR i.ej BERM -RIP-RAP ofQzQ GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (SEE MNDOT SPEC. 3733) L (SEE PHASE I SITE MAP) / /-BERM TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP SCALE: N.T.S MAX DRAINAGE AREA: 5 ACRES L (IN FEET) = 6' OR 1 x DRAINAGE AREA (AC) WHICHEVER IS LARGER r� 12" MIN. FREEBOARD DESIGN FLOW DEPTH — — - DISTURBED AREA, CONSTRUCTION SITE, STABILIZED STORAGE AREA OR STAGING AREA l2f MAY rX� v/r7�ikr—� EXISTING PAVED 12' MIN CONSTRUCTION MATS, WOVEN OR TRM ROADWAY 30' MIN END OVERLAP 18' MIN 'TDF nVFRI AP TRM END OVERLAP WITH SPIKES OR STAKES. 1 1 STRAP ....................... CONNECTORS CONSTRUCTION MAT END OVERLAP INTERLOCK WITH STRAP CONNECTORS END OVERLAP� I Q CID PAD AREA (ANY SIZE) Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Q<" �o Qom' �J o� W oma' SIDE 0 0 /OVERLAP Title: Mud Mat Entrance Date:06— 4 Plate No. Revised. 4 6003 06-1 'NOTE 1 CHANNEL LINED TO PREVENT EROSION (SEE TABLE IN THIS DETAIL) TYPICAL TRAPEZOIDAL DIVERSION 12" MIN. FREEBOARD- \ �W� NOTE 2 3 DESIGN FLOW DEPTH---,, 1 \—N OTE 1 CHANNEL LINED TO PREVENT EROSION (SEE TABLE IN THIS DETAIL) TYPICAL PARABOLIC DIVERSION 12" MIN. FREEBOARD DESIGN FLOW DEPTH NOTE 2 � 1 `NOTE 1 CHANNEL LINED TO PREVENT EROSION (SEE TABLE IN THIS DETAIL) TYPICAL VEE -SHAPED DIVERSION DIVERSION DITCH SCALE: N.T.S 7l EXISTING CURB OVERFLOW IS .3i OF THE CURB BOX HEIGHT AN WIMCO ROAD DRAIN CG -23• HIGH FLOW INLET PROTECTION CURB AND GUTTER MODEL OR CITY APPROVED EQUAL. • FOR THE NEW R -3290 -VB STANDARD CASTING, INSTALL WIMCO ROAD DRAIN CO -3290 OR CITY APPROVED EQUAL. Standard Plate Library City of Monticello DEFLECTOR PLATE — OVERFLOW IS ] OF THE CURB BOX HEIGHT - OVERFLOW AT TOP OF / FILTER ASSEMBLY FILTER ASSEMBLY DIAMETER, 6" ON -GRADE 10" AT LOW POINT HIGH-FLOW FABRIC Title: Inlet Protection Catch Basin Insert Date: 03-07 Plate No. Revised: 5004 03-15 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE SWPPP DOCUMENTATION (BINDER AND SITE MAPS) ON THE SITE. z �i \4' Z1U W \JJ �Yr�U .J Z Pr) SWPPP SIGN DETAILS SCALE: N.T.S 11 WING NUT OVERFLOW SLOT IN SHROUD ATTACHMENTIA00K SILT FABRIC SLEEVE PER MnOOT SPECIAL PROVISION 38M II I 11 a A a A 9 a ' A a V 6 Q a a OVERFLOW SLOT IN SHROUD f' • 0.i STARES PER S(L YD. L•1 SLOPES Standard Plate Library City of Monticello 4' (MINIMUM) i.ej I "SWPPP INFORMATION" MUST BE �'--"-SWPPP M ofQzQ DISPLAYED PROMINENTLY ACROSS INFORMATION THE TOP OF THE SIGN, AS SHOWN IN ins STAPLE5PER50,71), V SLOPES THE DETAIL. woU)fn COPY OF z COPY OF STATE COPY OF OfCn W z CL GENERAL SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION O CONTRACTOR (TCEO) SITE NOTICE SIGN TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF A RIGID NOI CONSTRUCTION o MATERIAL, SUCH AS PLYWOOD OR� OUTDOOR SIGN BOARD. SIGN MUST BE z Ln ~W CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER TO 2 J Q H a U z J awWww PROTECT DOCUMENTS FROM DAMAGE COPY OF Z DUE TO WEATHER (WIND, SUN, COPY OF GENERAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S MOISTURE, ETC.). GONTRACTORSTATE v PERMIT SUPPLIED AUTHORIZATION CONSTRUCTION Q O SITE NOTICE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE SWPPP DOCUMENTATION (BINDER AND SITE MAPS) ON THE SITE. z �i \4' Z1U W \JJ �Yr�U .J Z Pr) SWPPP SIGN DETAILS SCALE: N.T.S 11 WING NUT OVERFLOW SLOT IN SHROUD ATTACHMENTIA00K SILT FABRIC SLEEVE PER MnOOT SPECIAL PROVISION 38M II I 11 a A a A 9 a ' A a V 6 Q a a OVERFLOW SLOT IN SHROUD f' • 0.i STARES PER S(L YD. L•1 SLOPES Standard Plate Library City of Monticello SILT FABRIC SLEEVE PER MnOOT SPECIAL PROVISION 38% Title: Inlet Protection Grate Inlet Corer Date: Plate No. 03-07 Revised:6005 03— 5 3.75 STAPLES PER 50.)0. HIGH FLOW CHA MELS SHORELNE i. PREPnAE SOIL BEPORE WSIAWNG BLAmETB. INCLUDING PLAY NECESSAW API+LICATION OF LIME, reimum. AND SEED. P. BEGIN AT YHE tCP OFTHE SLOPE BYANCHOMNO THE BLANKETIN A 61(IS—jW0- x B' p&.1 wdelft! H WITh APPROXINIA= 17 (9 ) OF BLANKET E TENDMBEYOND THE JT UOPE PORTION OF THE TREHCM ANCHOR TTE BLANKET VJTH A ROW CFSTAPLE&STARES APPROXIMATELY 1S IN=) APART LATHE 8OTT1]MOF THE TRENCH. HACCN AND CCOAPACT THE TPFKCH AFTER STAPUNG- APPLY SEED TO GO ACTED SOIL AND FOLD RE]lAHD1G it (3D.M POWnOKOFIILANKETTRACKGVERSEEDANOCOIePACTPB,901L. RECIIRE BLANKET OVER COMPACTED WIL WITH A PDW OF 9TAPLE7W5TAKES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 1711 -)APA TACRO THE WIDTH OF THE RAMET. 3. ROLL THE DukWE TS iA.f DOOM CA tty HORIZONTALLY AQROSS THE SLOPE. BLANKETS WILL UNROLL WITH APPROPTRATE SIDE AGAINST THE SOIL SURFACE. ALL BLANKETS MUSTSE SECURELY FASTENED TO SOIL SURFACE BY PLACING STAPCESGTACES IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONSA9 SHOWN IN YHE STAPLe PATTERN GLIDE. WHEN USINW)PE'I"L DDT SYSTEM. STAFLE&STP!(ES 5 ULO BE VVtD THROUGH EACH OF THE COLORED DOTS COiREBPONDING fp THE APPROPRIATE STAPLE PATTERN. q, THE EDGES OF PAA.SLLELBLANKETS MUST BESTAP ED VdfH APPRO%R4ATELY TS' IS A*+2.6anj WERLAP DEPENOM ON BLAtF.ET TYPE. TTS ENSURE PROPER REARM ALIGNMERT, PLACE THE EDGE OF THE OVERLAPPING KANKET (BLMMET BEING INSTALLS ON TOPI EVEN W" THE IDU I] BEAU STITCH oN THE PREVIOUSLY!? S ALLEII BLANKET_ 6. CONSEWTVE BLANKETS SPLICED D LATHE.!' CPE MUST BE PLACED ENDOVER END PINGLE STYLE) WRFI AN APPROXIMATE 3' R.TYVP) GVERLAP, STAKE THROUGH OVERLAPPED AREA, APPRWIMATELY 1j'f3atni APART ACROSS ENTIRE BLANKET WIDTH. NOTE; IN LOOSE 90IL CONDITIDNB, THE USE OP,3TAPLE Ori STAKE LEWTHB GREATER THAN B' (16-1 MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROPERLY SECURE THE BLANKETS. Title: Erosion Control Blanket. A.,Standard Plate Library Stapling Patterns & Installation City of Monticello Date: 03_08 Plate No. Revised: 0,3 — 15 6011 m w Q 0 W Z O In > w 0 z L0 Z O J z a LU U) Z UCoO O N rn U W L6 Z Q Of C O (n Z Q H (D W W Z Lij J O Luz S2 O w — Q Y } ao � CD 00 N LU U C:) Ln N } w m o ❑❑ J w i.ej 3.3' M ofQzQ 3.3' J ins STAPLE5PER50,71), V SLOPES SILT FABRIC SLEEVE PER MnOOT SPECIAL PROVISION 38% Title: Inlet Protection Grate Inlet Corer Date: Plate No. 03-07 Revised:6005 03— 5 3.75 STAPLES PER 50.)0. HIGH FLOW CHA MELS SHORELNE i. PREPnAE SOIL BEPORE WSIAWNG BLAmETB. INCLUDING PLAY NECESSAW API+LICATION OF LIME, reimum. AND SEED. P. BEGIN AT YHE tCP OFTHE SLOPE BYANCHOMNO THE BLANKETIN A 61(IS—jW0- x B' p&.1 wdelft! H WITh APPROXINIA= 17 (9 ) OF BLANKET E TENDMBEYOND THE JT UOPE PORTION OF THE TREHCM ANCHOR TTE BLANKET VJTH A ROW CFSTAPLE&STARES APPROXIMATELY 1S IN=) APART LATHE 8OTT1]MOF THE TRENCH. HACCN AND CCOAPACT THE TPFKCH AFTER STAPUNG- APPLY SEED TO GO ACTED SOIL AND FOLD RE]lAHD1G it (3D.M POWnOKOFIILANKETTRACKGVERSEEDANOCOIePACTPB,901L. RECIIRE BLANKET OVER COMPACTED WIL WITH A PDW OF 9TAPLE7W5TAKES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 1711 -)APA TACRO THE WIDTH OF THE RAMET. 3. ROLL THE DukWE TS iA.f DOOM CA tty HORIZONTALLY AQROSS THE SLOPE. BLANKETS WILL UNROLL WITH APPROPTRATE SIDE AGAINST THE SOIL SURFACE. ALL BLANKETS MUSTSE SECURELY FASTENED TO SOIL SURFACE BY PLACING STAPCESGTACES IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONSA9 SHOWN IN YHE STAPLe PATTERN GLIDE. WHEN USINW)PE'I"L DDT SYSTEM. STAFLE&STP!(ES 5 ULO BE VVtD THROUGH EACH OF THE COLORED DOTS COiREBPONDING fp THE APPROPRIATE STAPLE PATTERN. q, THE EDGES OF PAA.SLLELBLANKETS MUST BESTAP ED VdfH APPRO%R4ATELY TS' IS A*+2.6anj WERLAP DEPENOM ON BLAtF.ET TYPE. TTS ENSURE PROPER REARM ALIGNMERT, PLACE THE EDGE OF THE OVERLAPPING KANKET (BLMMET BEING INSTALLS ON TOPI EVEN W" THE IDU I] BEAU STITCH oN THE PREVIOUSLY!? S ALLEII BLANKET_ 6. CONSEWTVE BLANKETS SPLICED D LATHE.!' CPE MUST BE PLACED ENDOVER END PINGLE STYLE) WRFI AN APPROXIMATE 3' R.TYVP) GVERLAP, STAKE THROUGH OVERLAPPED AREA, APPRWIMATELY 1j'f3atni APART ACROSS ENTIRE BLANKET WIDTH. NOTE; IN LOOSE 90IL CONDITIDNB, THE USE OP,3TAPLE Ori STAKE LEWTHB GREATER THAN B' (16-1 MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROPERLY SECURE THE BLANKETS. Title: Erosion Control Blanket. A.,Standard Plate Library Stapling Patterns & Installation City of Monticello Date: 03_08 Plate No. Revised: 0,3 — 15 6011 m w Q 0 W Z O In > w 0 z L0 Z O J z a LU U) Z UCoO O N rn U W L6 Z Q Of C O (n Z Q H (D W W Z Lij J O Luz S2 O w — Q Y } ao � CD 00 N LU U C:) Ln N } w m o ❑❑ J w M ofQzQ J QzoF- woU)fn z OfCn W z CL O j/ > U- �f Lu a W O o Q IILL.O 3:D m z Ln ~W U 2 J Q H a U z J awWww I..L Q U FU= p -,l- z M W 0, J of Q O w I—z =)❑ of0a'-❑z p W F w Q Q }Uz2WO O co w U) O 0-1 —zW of Q O z U z =U)i2=w2 o Z cn rn U OU) ❑ U) ❑ J Q w p O = (n LU O CD Q Q m O It Q ww m m O Y Lu z z 3 W Y U Z — sY W � LU U) ❑ ❑ U J z O W U j I..L z O U Z O � Oz O Cl) J Z — sY W � LU :i O C G V � Q � V W Ha Z . >. w Q Q 0— Q z a (n2 LU o O Cn J J W LL U_ Z U-1 Z) U) SHEET NUMBER W 0700 ca CO M O O 0 CV 0 L Q O U) J Q H W J_ U r` U C W U 27)C (n a) M c J 0 U) Z O a) U C 0 a) U 0 U) W J U� H Y 'S I 1 +. Je CONCRETE CURB -I AND GUTTER a , I+ EXPANSION JOINTS EXPANSION JnINTs A �E3y a • ,+ ., � �� '. . 4 + 4 X18" �` � d.. .. _ CONCRETE TO BE POURED INTEGRALLY EXPANSION EXPANSION WITH CURB JOINTS A JOINTS 8618 CONCRETE CURB AND CUTTER 17- MIN - WIDTH VARIES_ I= - SECTION B -B P LAN VAR+AgLE 7 1/4 "ER�V/MIIV �'4 „' T„ S' MIN, 18 SECTION A -A Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Tit! e. Commercial Driveway Entrance Date: 03-05 Plate No. RevLsBd:03-15 5008 IV A �r NOTES: - PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF FENCE INTO 6" (153 mm) DEEP TRENCH AND BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY. - POSTS SHALL BE: - 4' (1.22 m) ON CENTER - 2" (50.8 mm) X 2" (50.8 mm) HARDWOOD, PINE OR STEEL FENCE POSTS. MINIMUM LENGTH 4.5' 71171\/rAI n /n CA, --\ II,IT/1 TI Ir- /1 In/111A I r-\ EROSION CONTROL FENCE SCALE: N.T.S B C A R1-1 G H J K STOP 30 6,5 4D 2 5 01A 14.5 12.5 9.75 "Reduce spacing 40% j R B C ❑ E F 18 .375 6 6 C 3 7.75 RCP AT OUTLETS .625 8 8 C 4 110 01 30 .75 10 10 C 5 125 TABLE OF QUANTIES 6 15 48 1.25 16 16 C 8 20 MUTCD R1-1 STOP SIGN SCALE: N.T.S - REQ (RETROREFLECTIVE) COLORS: LEGEND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE) RIPRAP BACKGROUND - RED (RETROREFLECTIVE) O 1-73 RIPRAP AT RCP OUTLETS 1-1 1-G'(D Lu U -IO =U)i�=wz � o CLASS Ili CLASS IV CLASS V ❑ ❑ Q w o _ U) LU 0 °oQ�Qm D 50 - 9" D 50 12" D 50 - 15" _ O Y W W z z Y 3 U DIA 115- 7.5" 118" 9" 24' 112" • •.. ROUND DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH Z O PIPE RIPRAP GRANULAR RIPRAP GRANULAR RIPRAP GRANULAR GEOTEXTILE FABRICQ i� [IN] (CUYD) FILTER (CU YD) FILTER (CLI YW {CU YD) NU YD) 91 -TER (CU YO) SECTEON B -B 0 2 2.1 1.1 2.5 1.3 3.4 1.7 Z -�, 15 2.9 1.4 3-5 1,7 4.6 2,3 H � 118 3-6 1.8 4-4 2.2 5.8 2.9 H z- 8 a LU Q Q 1 21 4-6 2-3 5-6 2.8 7.4 3.7 HUTS AND DOLTS pN Q 24 5-S 2-9 b-9 3-5 9-2 4-6 TRASH GUARD MUST q J J W SIS C. 27 6.9 3.d $.3 4.F 11.0 5.5 REMAIN EHPOSEO. T ��..I 1 30 8.3 4-1 9-9 5-0 13.2 6.6 D U) SHEET NUMBER 36 1t.4 5.5 13.2 6.6 17.6 8.8 2' - 0 a] 42 13.6 6.8 16.4 8.2 21.8 10.9 W OR SPAN T•P� 4S is , a 8.4 20.9 10.1 26.8 13.4 �e - f� 54 1 60 19-8 23-0 9:9 11 23-7 t1-9 27-6 i3-8 31-6 3E-8 15.8 18.4 A }- A J C 2• �i 1 fib 72 27.4 34.1 13-5 15.6 32.4 16-2 37-4 18.7 43-2 49-8 21 6 24-9 F: 1 84 49.0 20.D 48.0 24.0 6.4.0 32.0 1 96 45.5 22.8 54.6 27.3 72.8 36.4 - RIPRAP AT RCP -A OR BOXES OF EQUIVALENT SPAN WIDTH 1 CLASS Ili CIAssIV CLASS V 4 ➢ 50 = R" D 50 = 12" D 50 = 15'6 A SPAN 15" 7.5" 18" 9" 24" 12" 5D ROUND DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEM N m PIPE RIPRAP GRa IJLAR RIPRAP GRANULAR RIPRAP GRANULAR PLAN a• FILTER FILTER FILTER (IN} (CU YD) (Cli YD) (CL1 YD) (CU YD) LCU YD} (CU YD) SEE SECTION 02511- SPECIFICATIONS � 2 3.6 1-8 4-4 2.2 5-8 2-9 O>F RIP RAP PLACEMENT 28 5.8 2.9 6-9 3.5 9.2 4.6 GROLITFD RIPRAP 36 8-1 4A 9.8 4.9 13.0 6.5 2' !ti CD 43 11.0 5.5 13.2 5.6 17.6 8.8 0 (Yi 1 51 I 58 13.5 18.5 6.8 8-3 16.4 8.2 19.8 9.9 21.8 26.4 10.9 13.2 ^fi 6519.8 9-9 23.7 11.9 31-6 15.8 73 23.3 11.8 27.9 14.0 31.2 18.6 88 32.4 16.2 38.9 19.4 51-8 25.9 " - -� 102 315 43.5 44.6 21.8 22.0 52.2 26.1 52.8 26.4 60.6 70.4 34.8 35.2 GL=OTEHTILE FABRIC Q2 fl 122 49.3 24.5 59.1 29.6 78.8 39.4 r•r 1138 51.3 34.6 73.5 36.8 98.0 49,4 SECTION A -A p 1 154 74-4 37.2 89.3 44.6 t 19.0 59.5 O (1) FOR PIPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 48'. USE 24 Or� NOTE: REOIREMENTS FOR RIPRAP SIZE. THICKNESS. THE FADRIC SHOULD COYER THE AREA, GF THE WILL BE DESIGNAT£D IN PLANS. RIPRAP AND EXTEND UNDER THE CULVERT APRON 3 FEET - 'S I 1 +. Je CONCRETE CURB -I AND GUTTER a , I+ EXPANSION JOINTS EXPANSION JnINTs A �E3y a • ,+ ., � �� '. . 4 + 4 X18" �` � d.. .. _ CONCRETE TO BE POURED INTEGRALLY EXPANSION EXPANSION WITH CURB JOINTS A JOINTS 8618 CONCRETE CURB AND CUTTER 17- MIN - WIDTH VARIES_ I= - SECTION B -B P LAN VAR+AgLE 7 1/4 "ER�V/MIIV �'4 „' T„ S' MIN, 18 SECTION A -A Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Tit! e. Commercial Driveway Entrance Date: 03-05 Plate No. RevLsBd:03-15 5008 IV A �r NOTES: - PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF FENCE INTO 6" (153 mm) DEEP TRENCH AND BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY. - POSTS SHALL BE: - 4' (1.22 m) ON CENTER - 2" (50.8 mm) X 2" (50.8 mm) HARDWOOD, PINE OR STEEL FENCE POSTS. MINIMUM LENGTH 4.5' 71171\/rAI n /n CA, --\ II,IT/1 TI Ir- /1 In/111A I r-\ EROSION CONTROL FENCE SCALE: N.T.S B C A C X A A 3 mm) A R5-1 DO NOT ENTER BLOWN/PLACED FILTER MEDIA TM WOR K A B 'F D E 1� .D C t, W B B C D E R1-1 G H J K STOP 30 6,5 4D 2 5 01A 14.5 12.5 9.75 "Reduce spacing 40% j R B C ❑ E F 18 .375 6 6 C 3 7.75 24 .625 8 8 C 4 110 01 30 .75 10 10 C 5 125 38 .875 12 12 C 6 15 48 1.25 16 16 C 8 20 MUTCD R1-1 STOP SIGN SCALE: N.T.S - REQ (RETROREFLECTIVE) COLORS: LEGEND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE) LEGEND&BACKGROUND-WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE) BACKGROUND - RED (RETROREFLECTIVE) O 1-73 1-1 C X A A 3 mm) A R5-1 DO NOT ENTER BLOWN/PLACED FILTER MEDIA TM WOR K A B 'F D E 1� .D C t, W B B C D E F G H J K L 30 6,5 4D 2 5 01A 14.5 12.5 9.75 10 1.875 7.875 36 7.5 5 D 2.5 6 17.5 15 12 12.375 2.25 9.813 48 11 6D 3 8 23.5 20 14.5 15 3 11.75 MUTCD R5-1 DO NOT ENTER SIGN SCALE: N.TLRS: Q U W F= Of U = ❑ ::iH of J Z SYMBOL - REQ (RETROREFLECTIVE) W F Z =) ❑ ofOOf❑z LEGEND&BACKGROUND-WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE) W F LU F0 Q �Uz2w0 O 1-73 LLI Of-zw af z 2" X 2" X 36" WOODEN STAKES PLACED 5' O.C. FILTREXX® SOXXT. (12" TYPICAL) SECTION 2" X 2" X 36" WOODEN STAKES PLACED 5' O.C. WORK AREA PLAN ROTECTED AREA TO BE PROTECTED FILTREXX® SOXXTM (5" OR 8" TYPICAL) NOTES: 1. ALL MATERIAL TO MEET FILTREXX® SPECIFICATIONS. 2. FILTER MEDIATM FILL TO MEET APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. 3. COMPOST MATERIAL TO BE DISPERSED ON SITE, AS DETERMINED BY ENGINEER. FILTREX BIO -ROLL SCALE: N.T.S CONTRACTION JOINTS �1 L12" GRANULAR BORROW OR 6" GLASS 5 -4" OR 6" CONCRETE WALK BOULEVARD WIDTH VARIES(AVERAGE 8') SIDEWALK DIMENSIONS WIDTH - 6' DEPTH - 6" FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS - *4" MINIMUM FOR EXISTING AREAS, 6" AT DRIVEWAYS AND CROSSWALKS GRANULAR BORROW DEPTH - 12" GRANULAR BORROW OR 6" CLASS 5 CONTRACTION JOINTS - 6' INTLRVALS EXPANSION JOINTS - 60' INTERVALS (APPROX.) *MATCH EXISTING DEPTH, 4" MINIMUM INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS AT ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS Title: Standard Plate Library Typical Sidewalk City of Monticello Date: Plate No. 03-•05 Revised: 03-17 5012 W Q 0 co z O U) W W O z L0 Z O J z a W U) Z U 00 O O N rn U LL1 V Z Q U O Z Q1=Low Z W J O wz S2 O Lu w�� - Q Y } 00 o cn N ry W U z LL7 N LL m O ❑❑J W rn c0 Of < QzOP w0U)� Of -ww z LL j 1�- sWF SLOPE AS ROADWAY r; IHDaIZDNTAL�•�.�: (FORMS MAY BE TILTED) REVERSE SLOPE GUTTER SECTION DIVIDER PLATE 3"R—\ (D SLOPE 0.06 FT FT NORMAL, 11NLE55 f / STANDARD PLATE ND- 7100 H OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. IF A DIFFERENT I` SPECIFICATION REFERENCE 2531 GLHTER SLOPE IS PERMITTED, THE FORM CONCRETE - 0-0474 CU YDS ./ LIN FT (13512) MAY BE TILTED 8612 CONCRETE CURB & OUTrER CONCRETE - 21.1 FT / CU- YDS. (B612) DIVIDER PLATE 3"R- 1 3R .3 SLOP1/2 E 0-06 FT/FT . OR �.:. SLOPE 3/4"/FT0 2" MIH 7^ HORIZONTAL. UNE �8 MNDOT ®SLOPE 0.05 FT/FT NORMAL. UNLESS / STAhDARO PLATE NO. 7103 H OTHERWISE SPECIFIRD. IF A OIFFRRFNT SPECIFICATQH REFERENCE 2,531 MAYBE TILTED 8618 THE FORM CONCRETE - 8618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER CONCRETE- 17.28 FT / C .1 2 CU YDSS- (B6,UN g)�e618] 12" 3/4 ' PER FT 1/2 " R 1/2 R 7'� 110. HDR120NTAL� LIRE 2'- D" I MODIFIED DESIGN "D" CURB & GUTTER Title: Standard Concrete Curb &Gutter rd Plate Library for Streets City of Monticello Date: 03_05 PIote No. Revised: ❑3-15 5005 � DIMENSION 4 TYPE Pavinq Area A B C Light Duty 1.5' 2" 6' Heavy Duty 2' 2 8' D Concrete Section see note Light Duty see note Heavy Duty DIMENSION d TYPE A B C 6' 6' see note l' 6' see note NOTE: Compacted subgrade should be as specified in NOTE: Compacted subgrade should be as specified in soils report. soils report. HMAC (surface) 4000 PSI cont. HMAC (binder) = m paving (min.) w/ wire mesh ° Aggregate bass0 G n: '' PAI,, '11 �r=n=Tr tAtP—!' rJ11 � ��H�� per sotechnical Report Subgrade 48" 3 (2) - R -4976-4A 1� CASTINGS OVERFLOW ELEVATION / PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURE RE: 932.23 8" X 8" SKIMMER BOTTOM OF DRY INFILTRATION BASIN ELEV: 930.20 �6" DIA. ORIFICE IE: 931.20 'E SOILS (SCARIFY TOP 18") 1v1EDIA.IE:939.20 MNDOT SPEC. 3877 FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW, MODIFIED TO HAVE A MIXTURE BY VOLUME OF 80% SAND COVER MEETING GRADATION REQUIREMENTS OF SPEC. 3128 "FINE AGGREGATE FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE" AND 20% MNDOT GRADE 2 COMPOST. CONTRACTOR IS TO NOT COMPACT INFILTRATION BASINS. OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE OCS-1 NO SCALE 12" OUTLET PIPE f Fl-� IE: 923.23 CO z O U) w w 0 z V L,) z O J z a W U) Z U w O O N rn U w v Z Q ❑ t: O CD Z U Q (.0 w Z W J O w O LLJ w — Q Y } 00 o cn N � w Ln N } w ❑ ❑ O W X �QzQ x X QZOF IL� � Of LTLL � J� WALL H O LQ CQ Q z F~ F W Q � 2 J H 0- U Z < LU w Lu F- U) w 2 IYU=X F ❑ J Of LL X X LLO�Jw F- z =) ❑ OfOOf❑z X W FLU<-< U Z W ~O X X 2 w LL Q W (n Z W Of Q z WILLO Z_ _ u> 2 w 2 0 z x x x 0O X X X H w p _ U) LU 0 o Q Q m Q m ww m C O Y W W z z Y U O 0 w � ILL 2 O7 ❑ ❑ U J z O W U j z O U L.L z O LL F— Oz O Cl) J Z — w LU F- w.j o aLU C G U = U, ♦� v LU H z a LU Q Q Z a (n ` o O J J W LL U_ Z W Z) U) SHEET NUMBER C/) C702 CO 00 O r 00 r O N O .Q O U) J W J U I ti U CIOL C U C 0 M C J O z O 7 U O O U O Ln W J U� H Y USE NEENAH R -1642-A FOR LOW PROFILE APPLICATIONS USE NEENAH R1755 -G FOR WATERTIGHT APPLICATIONS LETTERING TO READ: SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER OR WATER MAIN WHICH EVER 15 APPLICABLE, R-1642 WITH 3 SOLID LID JE BEARING OR CONCEALED PICKHOLES (2) EAT OPPOSITE SIDE EXCEPT FOR LETTERING 25 3/4 1 1/2 " 'ET - BEARING SURFACE TO BE MACHINED f 24" yl l 1" 28 1/2 " � 36" COVER FRAME Standard Plate Library City of Monticello 1 USE 4" OR 6" CISP PLUG AND CAP, TOP TO BE 1/2 " BELOW FINISHED GRADE VARIES 10' TO 20' Title: Standard Frame and Cover Date: 03-05 Plate No. 1002 Revised., 03-15 TIES REOUIREO TD CLEAN OUTS r FINISHED GRADE 1 �] r B` PVC RISER FOR NDN --RESIDENTIAL ( 4" PVC RISER FOR RESIDENTIAL 4" OR fi" VERTICAL WYE (PVC) 1/a BEND _ \l CONCRETE ENCASEMENT 12" ALL AROUND (INCIDENTAL) WATER TIGHT GASKET OR CEMENTED PLUG PVC _ HORIZONTAL WYE (PVC) THRUST BLOCKING FOR CLEANING EQUIPMENT 1- PAYMENT FOR 6" RISER PIPE, 6' VERTICAL AWE 45' KENO AND PLUG WILL BE PAID FOR AT UNIT PRICE BID PER EACH_ 2- CLEAN -OUTS REQUIRED AT 70' INTERVALS FROM MAIN SEWER LINE - Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Title: Sanitary Clean -Out Date: 03-05 Plate No. Revised.3 0 0 6 03-15 JI T'- d" .I DR 5' IN BACK OF CURB IF CONCRETE WALK OR BITUMINOUS PATH ARE HYDRAFINDER PRESENT FLAG WATERDUS MCIDEL 67 HYDRANT YELLOW OUT OF ORDER TAG wI TO BE INSTALLED ON PUMPER CONN. AFTER BACK -FILL g BREAKOFF FLANGE CCJUfI B DR GUTTER LINE STREET 1' TO 2" MAXIMUM ABOVE BURY LINE (FINISHED GRADE) FINISHED GRACIE 4- �I VALVE BOX AS WATERM N SPECIFIER rl " TO 2" i� i x �fA 2 LAYERS OF z 2'-- S" AS REQUIRED 10' POLY (4 mil) o - - - - TYPICAL - s 3' DIAMETER BY 3' DEEP PITS ONDER RYDRANT FILLED WITH ..c 0 S 1/4 STEEL VALVE BOX ADAPTOR A MINIMUM Of 1 C -Y, OF 1 1-1/2' CLEAR STONE �t WITH PROTECTNE COATING AS t +` O f MANUFACTURED BY ADAPTOR INC. OI OR APPROVE) EQUAL MEGALUG MECRLUG L �L .. j GATE VALVE TEE _ ` THRUST MEGALUGy1 BLOCKING BLOCKING BEHIND BELOW GATE THRUST HYDRANT\\ -PRECAST CONCRETE BASE VALVE BLOCKING AS SPECIFIED (15"x 15"x 4") BEHIND TEE Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Title: Typical Hydrant Installation Date: 03-05 Plate No. 2001 Revised:03— 1 STANDARD MANHOLE FOR SANITARY SEWER NO SCALE NOTES- �1 MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE CAST IRON OR MA MODEL PS -I --PF (BY MA INDUSTRIAL INC-) CONFORMING TO ALL OSHA REGULATIONS AND SPACED 16" OC - IF PROP M GREATER THAN 24" INCHES, USE OUTSIDE DROP, Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Title: Standard Sanitary Manhole Date: 03-05 Plate No. n Revised. 3001 3001 1 r\i l MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE CAST IRON OR 44 MODEL PS -I -PF (BY MA INDUSTRIAL 1NC-) CONFORMING TO ALL OSHA REGULATIONS AND SPACED 16' GC, CHIMNEY SEALS (INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL) STANDARD MANHOLE °CRETE% OR APPROVED EQUAL" FRAME AND COVER AND OVER. STANDARD MANHOLE BEARING AREA GROUTING BETWEEN PIPE AND FRAME AND COVER GROUTING BETWEEN PIPE AND MANHOLE BARREL SHALL BE 1 10" - 12" I MANHOLE BARREL SHALL BE WITH NDN -SHRINKING CEMENT I 27• DIA WITH NDN -SHRINKING CEMENT AGAINST UNDISTURBED SOIL_ ALL MANHOLES WITH • — �ADJusnwc RINGS INSIDE DROP SECTION ALL MANHOLE JOINTS MIN 4" - MAX 12" SHALL BE W DLA (I.D.)-: 27" DIADIA o SHALL BE RESTAINED USING TIE RODS TO ASTM C-478 '• MANHOLE SECTION TO BE j' 1 ASTM C-476 CLASS II w F w Q- Q }Uz2WO CIRCULAR R£INIF CO LLQUU 1n 48" DIA LATEST REVISION UU �—zw O z t Z _ 45" DSA Z USE R-2 JOINT FOR -' I OU) ALL MANHOLE JOINTS I m q STEPS AT 7 a m 16" DC m Ow m W 8., W z z Y C 3 U O U "CRE-SEAL","RESEAL", DR APPROVED EQUAL U PRECAST GASKET CONNECTION SHALL BE USED U FOR CONNECTION AIDE TO MANHOLE VVARIABLE MAX, 24- O L PRECAST BOTTOM SECTION >:^. ;.::. -;:: • `6" MIN WITH INVERT #5 AT 12" OC EACH WAY STANDARD MANHOLE FOR SANITARY SEWER NO SCALE NOTES- �1 MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE CAST IRON OR MA MODEL PS -I --PF (BY MA INDUSTRIAL INC-) CONFORMING TO ALL OSHA REGULATIONS AND SPACED 16" OC - IF PROP M GREATER THAN 24" INCHES, USE OUTSIDE DROP, Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Title: Standard Sanitary Manhole Date: 03-05 Plate No. n Revised. 3001 3001 1 r\i l MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE CAST IRON OR 44 MODEL PS -I -PF (BY MA INDUSTRIAL 1NC-) CONFORMING TO ALL OSHA REGULATIONS AND SPACED 16' GC, Standard Plate Library City of Monticello MEGALUG MECA.UG rtr•• r. TEE AND BEND BEND Title: Cone Section, Casting Steps, and Adjusting Rings Date: 03-05 Plate No. 1001 Revised., 03-15 J WRAP PLUG WITH 4 MIL. POLY PLUG PLUG NOTES: STRIET STANDARD MANHOLE 1, THRUST BLOCKING TO BE USED FOR BEND 22 1/7 INSTALLED BY PRIVATE CONRZACT FRAME AND COVER AND OVER. I PIPE 512E I BEARING AREA GROUTING BETWEEN PIPE AND L 6" I E" ADJUSTING RINGS MANHOLE BARREL SHALL BE 1 10" - 12" I MIN 4" - MAX 12" WITH NDN -SHRINKING CEMENT I 27• DIA WITH EXTERNAL OR AGAINST UNDISTURBED SOIL_ INTERNAL CHIMNEY SEAL I USE R-2 JOINT FOR :_ 2 J ALL MANHOLE JOINTS t 4, ALL PIPE JOINTS WITHIN TO FT, OF A BEND BARREL TO CONFORM 8"! 'k SHALL BE RESTAINED USING TIE RODS TO ASTM C-478 '• Q O LATEST REVISION+.; I w F w Q- Q }Uz2WO O CO LLQUU 1n 48" DIA UU �—zw O z t Standard Plate Library City of Monticello MEGALUG MECA.UG rtr•• r. TEE AND BEND BEND Title: Cone Section, Casting Steps, and Adjusting Rings Date: 03-05 Plate No. 1001 Revised., 03-15 J WRAP PLUG WITH 4 MIL. POLY PLUG PLUG NOTES: STRIET BUILDING 1, THRUST BLOCKING TO BE USED FOR BEND 22 1/7 INSTALLED BY PRIVATE CONRZACT INSTALLED AS PER CITY CONTRACT AND OVER. I PIPE 512E I BEARING AREA 2, THRUST $LOCKING SHALL ONLY BE USER WHERE L 6" I E" 4,0 59 PT 6A 50 FT WORKING PRESSURES ARE LESS THAN 154 PSi. 1 10" - 12" I 12,0 SQ FT 3, THRUST BLOCKS BEARING AREA TO BE POURED I tfi" 24.4 SD FT AGAINST UNDISTURBED SOIL_ POLYETHLNE GREEN COLORED JACKET 4, POURED CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING TO BE PROVIDED UNDER CIN CONTRACT 2 J SHALL BE USED FOR 12" OR LARGER DIAMETER WATERkM N 4, ALL PIPE JOINTS WITHIN TO FT, OF A BEND FU =M ❑ -, I- SHALL BE RESTAINED USING TIE RODS LL O J Of :Standard Plate Library ity of Monticello Title: Blocking for Watermain Date: 03-05 Plate No. Revised:2002 03-1 TOP Of PROPOSED SUBGRADE THE TOP 3' SHALL BE COMPACTED AT A MIN OF 100% OF STANDAR) PROCTOR DENSITY (MN /)OT 2105} A MAX OF 2' LIFTS TO BE WETTED AND CONSOLIDATED BY VIBRATORY MEANS AND COMPACTED TO A MIN OF 85% OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY (MN/DOT 2105) 4' COVER COMPACTED TO 957 OF STANDARD PROCTOR UENSTTY WITHOUT THE USE OF HEAVY ROLLER EQUIPMENT GRANULAR BEDDING AS PER MN/DOT 3149.2F GRANULAR FOUNDATION WHERE ORDERED BY THE ENGINEER SHOVEL, PLACE, AND HAND COMPACT AROUND PIPE TO 12" ABOVE PIPE. VIBRATORY COMPACTION REQUIRED EACH SIDE OF PIPE, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. k -Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Title: Typical Trench Compaction and Class B Bedding Date: 03-05 Plate No. Revised. 03-15 007 Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Title: Tracer Wire (New Developments) Date: 03-0$ Plate No. Revised:3005 03-15 w Q 0 Z O 0 > w O Z LO LO Z O J z a W � Z U 00 O O N rn U W v Z P L6 Of QC O Z) Z Q H � W Z af U) J O LLu O Lu w Q Y } 00 O (n N � W U O CD N } w m O ❑ ❑J W STRIET BUILDING afQ z Q INSTALLED BY PRIVATE CONRZACT INSTALLED AS PER CITY CONTRACT rTRACER WIRE LOCATE BOX GROUND LINE I TRACER WIRE SPLICE i CURB BOH STANDPIPE 1 I ICOPPETO BE FRONDED UNDER PRIVATE R -CLAD STEEL Arita 12 GAUGE TRACER WIRE 3D MIL HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE GREET) COLORED JAclta=T I 1 1 2' SPOOL COPPER -CLAD STEEL AWG 12 PGAUgUYETHYLENE G ER IREN:50 M1 EO H D N ITM TO BE PROVIDE UNDER CITY CONTRACT CONTRACT --- -� - - r 1" COPPER WATERMAIN O O O COPPER -CLAD STEEL AWG 12 GAUGE TRACER HIRE 30 MIL HIGH DENSITY POLYETHLNE GREEN COLORED JACKET U< ~ F TO BE PROVIDED UNDER CIN CONTRACT 2 J SANITARY SERVICE MAINLINE SANITARY SEWER Standard Plate Library City of Monticello Title: Tracer Wire (New Developments) Date: 03-0$ Plate No. Revised:3005 03-15 w Q 0 Z O 0 > w O Z LO LO Z O J z a W � Z U 00 O O N rn U W v Z P L6 Of QC O Z) Z Q H � W Z af U) J O LLu O Lu w Q Y } 00 O (n N � W U O CD N } w m O ❑ ❑J W rn O afQ z Q Qz0P CL LI O v1 cl1 Of W zD_>LL aQ01- LLU of LL O O O CL 0- 0 = z U< ~ F 2 J A Q H a U Z J <w LULU Q U FU =M ❑ -, I- J z LL O J Of Q O w F z ❑ ❑ afOof❑z p w F w Q- Q }Uz2WO O CO LLQUU 1n UU �—zw O z Z Z Tn U) U OU) (n J ❑ ❑ Q w p _ U) W 0 o Q Q m O m Ow m W C Y W z z Y C 3 U O U W � LU 2 U ❑ ❑ U J z O LV 1 U J 'Z) I.`L - U) z O U Z O 2 1 Q U) zz J Z — W � w � O a LU Q�C� LU H z Q — a w Q 0 V) O J J W Z W � SHEET NUMBER � C703 I - ti N N rn O N 0 .Q z J 0- W a- 0 U) z J J W C cv U 27)c O D 0) J 0 O U) z 0 7 U C O O C U O U) U W J UI H Y GLORIUS CHRUCH 1 ZONED: R -A I I \ I I x il.. ........... — � - P -WS ++ ++ I I I ►I I I I � +++ -- + I I I II I I 1-NWM R G 1-SWO 8- " I 11 - NH � �.� + 1 �I I 0' 1 I II of IRW / ---J I I 11 I I+ B • 1 -S J 1 11 I I A D 111 11 B + i�Y1 �I I 1 I3- ALS 1- OR \ III O 11 I I 13 -AN + l + ' \ \ 11 1 I ' I + I� z I I I � � O , .I• + I � I D �� I I • I � + —6-IR 00L/ ` I I I O II I I A (f I U 11 I ,I NOR I e/ I I I `� III I 3 -ALS _ I I I L IJ 11 I 10 - SGJ � I II 1 I II �J W I B B / LU I I I III I I II III I _ 4 -'SBH — B LU rr o I I III I I • -SSC — �" I I 1 I I I \ I II III I I I B 1 -ALS II j II �11 I\ III 11 ,+' -- I I I X11 1 1 _ + • ++ A 1 , 1 I I 1 B • (T 6 -RW 1 -GSL 1 -SS( 13 - ANH B 2 -NOR \ \ \ \ \ 3 -ALS \ ♦ \ \ ++. \\ \ \ \ \ \ 10 - SGJn C i GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET !0 20 40 80 � O / / ♦' /// / / \ ` ♦ PLANT KEY v> \ CONIFEROUS TREES \ BHS ® %/ / \ i \\ O'RYAN'S MARATHON ZONED: B-4 BOTANICAL NAME Picea glauca 'Densata' Picea meyeri Thuja occidentalis White Cedar' BOTANICAL NAME Amelanchier x grandiflora Autumn Brillance' Betula nigra Betula populifolia 'Whitespire' Crataegus crus-galli inermis TM Malus x Spring Snow' Ostrya virginiana Populus tremuloides Syringa reticulata BOTANICAL NAME Acer platanoides 'Pond' Acer rubrum 'Northwood' Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Suncole' Quercus bicolor Quercus macrocarpa Tilia americana 'Boulevard' Tilia cordata 'Greenspire` COMMON NAME Black Hills Spruce Meyer Spruce White Cedar COMMON NAME Autumn Brillance Serviceberry Clump River Birch Multi -Trunk Whitespire Birch Clump Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Spring Snow Crab Apple Multi -Trunk Ironwood Quaking Aspen Clump Japanese Tree Lilac Clump COMMON NAME Emerald Lustre Maple Northwood Maple Sunburst Honeylocust Swamp White Oak Bur Oak Boulevard Linden Greenspire Littleleaf Linden A B HS 7 PLANT KEY CONIFEROUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED: R-2 E===W IIml W.M ■ SGJ Juniperus chinensis 'Sea Green' \ MYS \ WHC \ ORNAMENTALTREES TAU ALS HMA Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' DECIDUOUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME CHB RVB RTD WSB DBH TCH ANH SSC AJN IRW PJM QUC GLS JTL SUM OVERSTORY TREES JWS NOR PERENNIALS NWM ALM SBH MAG SWO DELI BRO OSF BOL GROUND COVERS GSL ® %/ / \ i \\ O'RYAN'S MARATHON ZONED: B-4 BOTANICAL NAME Picea glauca 'Densata' Picea meyeri Thuja occidentalis White Cedar' BOTANICAL NAME Amelanchier x grandiflora Autumn Brillance' Betula nigra Betula populifolia 'Whitespire' Crataegus crus-galli inermis TM Malus x Spring Snow' Ostrya virginiana Populus tremuloides Syringa reticulata BOTANICAL NAME Acer platanoides 'Pond' Acer rubrum 'Northwood' Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Suncole' Quercus bicolor Quercus macrocarpa Tilia americana 'Boulevard' Tilia cordata 'Greenspire` COMMON NAME Black Hills Spruce Meyer Spruce White Cedar COMMON NAME Autumn Brillance Serviceberry Clump River Birch Multi -Trunk Whitespire Birch Clump Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn Spring Snow Crab Apple Multi -Trunk Ironwood Quaking Aspen Clump Japanese Tree Lilac Clump COMMON NAME Emerald Lustre Maple Northwood Maple Sunburst Honeylocust Swamp White Oak Bur Oak Boulevard Linden Greenspire Littleleaf Linden A B HS 7 PLANT KEY CONIFEROUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED: R-2 E===W IIml W.M ■ SGJ Juniperus chinensis 'Sea Green' JB Juniperus horizontalis Blue Prince' GOJ Juniperus virginiana Grey Owl' WBM Pinus mugo'White Bud' TAU Taxus x media 'Tauntonii' HMA Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' DECIDUOUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME CHB Aronia melanocarpa elata RTD Cornus sericea 'Baileyi' DBH Diervilla lonicera ANH Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' AJN Physocarpus opulifolius 'Jefam' PJM Rhododendron x'P.J.M.' GLS Rhus aromatica Gro -Low SUM Rhus typhina Tiger Eyes' JWS Spiraea albiflora PERENNIALS BOTANICAL NAME ALM Allium x 'Millenium' MAG Astilbe chinensis Maggie Daley DELI Astilbe japonica 'Deutchland' OSF Matteuccia pennsylvanica GROUND COVERS BOTANICAL NAME KFG Calamagrostis x acutiflora Karl Foerster KKC Nepeta x faassenii Kit Kat WLC Nepeta x faassenii 'Walkers Low AJS Sedum x 'Autumn Joy NOTE: SEE SHEET L102 FOR PLANT SCHEDULE. COMMON NAME Sea Green Juniper Blue Prince Juniper Grey Owl Juniper Mugo White Bud Pine Tauton Yew Holmstrup Arborvitae COMMONNAME Black Chokeberry Red Twig Dogwood Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle Annabelle Hydrangea Amber Jubilee Ninebark PJM Rhododendron Gro -Low Fragrant Sumac Tiger Eyes Sumac Japanese White Spirea COMMON NAME Millenium Ornamental Chive Maggie Daley Astilbe False Spiraea Ostrich Fern COMMON NAME Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Kit Kat Catmint Walkers Low Catmint Autumn Joy Sedum LANDSCAPE LEGEND EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING SHRUB (TYP.) EDGER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SOD / IRRIGATION, SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS (TYP.) EXISTING VEGETATION EDGE (TO REMAIN) (TYP.) SEED LIMIT LINE (TYP.) LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES O OA EDGER (TYP.) ODOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) OMAINTENANCE STRIP (TYP.) OD SOD (TYP.) OANNUALS BY OWNER (TYP.) OF SAVANNA GRASS SEED MIX, AVAILABLE FORM PRAIRIE RESTORATION, INC. OEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP.) OROCK MULCH (TYP.) LANDSCAPE SUMMARY TREE PRESERVATION INCENTIVES TREE PRESERVATION CREDIT: 47.5 CAL. IN. = (38 CAL. IN. X1.25) SEE C200 - TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN FOR FURTHER DETAIL. VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING INTERIOR PLANTING ISLAND- TREE REQUIREMENTS: ONE CANOPY OR UNDERSTORY TREE PER 180 S.F. INTERIOR PLANTING ISLAND- TREES PROVIDED: ONE CANOPY OR UNDERSTORY TREE PER 180 S.F., ❑ EXCEPT WHERE UTILITIES CONFLICT INTERIOR PLANTING ISLAND- SHRUB REQUIREMENTS: MINIMUM 25% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA OCCUPIED BY LANDSCAPING ISLANDS IS PLANTED WITH SHRUBS INTERIOR PLANTING ISLAND- SHRUB PROVIDED: MINIMUM 25% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA OCCUPIED BY o O N LANDSCAPING ISLANDS IS PLANTED WITH SHRUBS VEHICULAR USE AREA PERIMETER REQUIREMENTS: 3' WIDTH MINIMUM EXCEPT ALONG STREET R.O.W., 6' m WIDTH MINIMUM VEHICULAR USE AREA PERIMETER TREE REQUIREMENTS: 8 AGGREGATE CAL. IN.(ACI) OF CANOPY TREES PER W z � 100 LINEAR FEET w Y U 28 ACI TREES= 8*(339 L.F./100) VEHICULAR USE AREA PERIMETER TREES PROVIDED: 28 ACI TREES*= 10 CAL. IN. EXISTING + J) ❑ 18 CAL. IN. PROPOSED *MAY BE CREDITED TOWARDS PERIMETER BUFFER STANDARDS PERIMETER BUFFERS BUFFER TYPE REQUIRED- NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES: TYPE A - BASIC BUFFER TYPE A REQUIREMENTS- EAST PROPERTY LINE: 2 ACI OF CANOPY TREES + 10 ACI OF UNDERSTORY TREES + 15 SMALL SHRUBS PER 100 LINEAR FEET 14 ACI CANOPY TREES= 2 (669 L.F./100) 67 ACI UNDERSTORY TREES= 10 (669 L.F./100) 101 SMALL SHRUBS=15 (669 L.F./100) TYPE A PROVIDED- EAST PROPERTY LINE: 14 CANOPY TREES= 6 CAL. IN. OVERSTORY + 8 CAL. IN. CONIFEROUS 67.5 UNDERSTORY TREES= 67.5 CAL. IN. PROPOSED M 101 SHRUBS TYPE A REQUIREMENTS- NORTH PROPERTY LINE: 11 ACI CANOPY TREES= 2 (512 L.F./100) 52 ACI UNDERSTORY TREES= 10 (512 L.F./100) LU 77 SMALL SHRUBS=15 (512 L.F./100) TYPE A PROVIDED- NORTH PROPERTY LINE: 18 ACI CANOPY TREES= 18 CAL. IN. OVERSTORY 53 ACI UNDERSTORY TREES= 53 CAL. IN. PROPOSED a 77 SHRUBS BUFFER TYPE REQUIRED- WEST PROPERTY LINES: TYPE B REQUIREMENTS (20' WIDTH): TYPE B (20' WIDTH) PROVIDED: SITE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS CANOPY TREES REQUIRED: CANOPY TREES PROVIDED: *INCLUDIGN AT LEAST 3 ACI EVERGREEN TREES TYPE B - AESTHETIC BUFFER 8 ACI OF CANOPY TREES + 10 ACI OF UNDERSTORY TREES + 15 SMALL SHRUBS PER 100 LINEAR FEET 68 ACI CANOPY TREES= 8 (846 L.F./100) 85 ACI UNDERSTORY TREES= 10 (846 L.F./100) 127 SMALL SHRUBS= 15 (846 L.F./100) 68 ACI CANOPY TREES= 32 CAL. IN. OVERSTORY + 36 CAL. IN. CONIFEROUS 19.5 ACI UNDERSTORY TREES 127 SHRUBS 16 ACI PER ACRE* 81 ACI CANOPY TREES= 16 * 5.02 ACRES 134.5 ACI CANOPY TREES= 58 CAL. IN.OVERSTORY + 29 CAL. IN.EVERGREEN + 47.5 EXISTING TREES SHRUBS REQUIRED: 2 SHRUBS PER 10' OF BUILDING PERIMETER* 231 SHRUBS= (1,152 L.F./10)*2 SHRUBS PROVIDED: 232 SHRUBS= 119 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS + 113 CONIFEROUS SHRUBS' *1/2 OF THE REQUIRED SHRUBS SHALL BE OF AN EVERGREEN VARIETY. z Z W00 Q z U °D O N V w a H U U) Q Z U) W O 3: W _j LLJQ Y } 0 N CO Of W > ■ z C) Ln N r m Q ❑ J Q azo` w9CU'� Of Cf) Z d > - , J0-_ IS F Lou Of I 2H(nLou ` ~oF- u QwLOuwC F- �_ U L F-� ❑ J F LL 0 of 0 )UZ2 CIO LU C W Q D W z O U) W W O z 2 O v O 2 L } (.0 W J W 2 z Y O W N 00 a J d ❑ 0 W z F U Z U WJ J 2 i z o a N r o rY � 0 LLUUaW=zW (n�GHJH ❑ o O N H " Q = U) U) Q m m O Q � Y o W z � 00 z � w Y U J) ❑ ❑ U Z J M LU Z a 0 a U U CIO") L.L Q U) z Z O U J 0. Z O LL F_ Oz O Cl) J Z — w W 1 � w.j aLU C0 G LU Q V W H Z . la LU Q Q Q a (n `Z o O J LU W LL U_ 0 Z z w 0 U) SHEET NUMBER W L100 0- r1 - CN tiN N r _rn N 0 �L Q Q z Q J 0- W W U U) z Q J J a� a� W c U O D co 0) J 0 m U) Z 0 U C O a) .CUU O W J UI H Y llllllllllllW III LANDSCAPE LEGEND W Q 0 I EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE + + 3 -JWS \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ / 6 - DB + // (TYP. ) 1000* 5 - GOJ 3 - JWS I IIIIIIIIIIIIII""+"" 5 - DBH //////////j \\\\\\\ �111T1 3 -AN ` �+`^^� .\ /llllll11111 � � \\\\\\\\\\\\ '/// + + ////�� z \\\\\\\\\ 5 -RTD O 3 - TA ++ llllllllllllll 1l��llllllll , //j/ + EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE 0 4 -AN ^ + + 13 - GOJ 5 - AN 11 - I R 3 - GOJ //��/i/////(TYP.) > AN H 5 DBH 6 - WGc \; - DB + + / /////i/////F3: - WLC + �'' //////// EXISTING SHRUB (TYP.) LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT 1 SCALE: 1" = 20' WS / VBM 3 - DBH r3-GOJ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 10 20 40 illlllllllll///l/I EDGER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SOD / IRRIGATION, SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS (TYP.) EXISTING VEGETATION EDGE (TO REMAIN) (TYP.) SEED LIMIT LINE (TYP.) PLANT KEY CONIFEROUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES 0 OEDGER (TYP.) ODOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) OMAINTENANCE STRIP (TYP.) OD SOD (TYP.) OANNUALS BY OWNER (TYP.) 0 F SAVANNA GRASS SEED MIX, AVAILABLE FORM PRAIRIE RESTORATION, INC. OEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP.) OROCK MULCH (TYP.) SGJ Juniperus chinensis 'Sea Green' JB Juniperus horizontalis Blue Prince` GOJ Juniperus virginiana Grey Owl' WBM Pinus mugo White Bud' TAU Taxus x media 'Tauntonii' HMA Thuja occidentalis ' Holmstrup' DECIDUOUS SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME CHB Aronia melanocarpa elata RTD Cornus sericea 'Baileyi' DBH Diervilla lonicera ANH Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' AJN Physocarpus opulifolius 'Jefam' PJM Rhododendron x P.J.M.' GLS Rhus aromatica 'Gro -Low' SUM Rhus typhina Tiger Eyes JWS Spiraea albiflora PERENNIALS BOTANICAL NAME ALM Allium x'Millenium' MAG Astilbe chinensis Maggie Daley DEU Astilbe japonica 'Deutchland' OSF Matteuccia pennsylvanica GROUND COVERS BOTANICAL NAME KFG Calamagrostis x acutiflora Karl Foerster' KKC Nepeta x faassenii 'Kit Kat' WLC Nepeta x faassenii Walkers Low AJS Sedum x 'Autumn Joy NOTE: SEE SHEET L102 FOR PLANT SCHEDULE. COMMON NAME Sea Green Juniper Blue Prince Juniper Grey Owl Juniper Mugo White Bud Pine Tauton Yew Holmstrup Arborvitae COMMON NAME Black Chokeberry Red Twig Dogwood Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle Annabelle Hydrangea Amber Jubilee Ninebark PJM Rhododendron Gro -Low Fragrant Sumac Tiger Eyes Sumac Japanese White Spirea COMMON NAME Millenium Ornamental Chive Maggie Daley Astilbe False Spiraea Ostrich Fern COMMON NAME Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Kit Kat Catmint Walkers Low Catmint Autumn Joy Sedum L101 z Z w� Q z U °D O N U w Q H U W Q F-: Z U) W O 3: Lu >- Z) Lu Z J W - Q Y } 0 O (n N ry U z O L(j Ln N } m L Q ❑ J LLIQz� Q w Z O U) d - 10, LLL L: Z % LL 7 J U 0 F SQ 3: 0- ~ O ~ � - QLLULOL�WC 2 Of () L F- ❑ J F L}L 0, > �0 LUL W Q L �UZ2 co LL1 C 0 z 2 O v O Ln w J w 2 z Y O N V 00 J d ❑ 0 LU z F- W Z U J 2 J J } = x Q x z x } x of x x rr W O Q Z U W W W 0_ LU O H J H 0 ❑ U z = cn = 0O Z Q w U) Q J W U) � CD Q r Q m m Q C)o WW m w YLLQ z z Y � U U W 2 U) ❑ ❑ U F- LU W Z (L W Q 2 z U W O t) 0 U Z Q Q J U) J Z z LV O U 0. Z O LL F— Oz O Cl) J Z - W W F- w.j o aLU C G V U, U LU H Z 0 a LU Q p Q Z a (n ` o O J LU W LL U_ Z LI J Z) U) SHEET NUMBER W L101 m PLANT SCHEDULE W CONIFEROUS TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SPACING CONIFEROUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING o GOJ 121 Juniperus virginiana Grey Owl Grey Owl Juniper #5 CONT. 4' O.C. + BHS 13 Picea glauca 'Densata' Black Hills Spruce B & B 6' HT. HMA 17 Thuja occidentalis 'Holmstrup' Holmstrup Arborvitae #5 CONT. 3' O.C. � MYS 6 Picea meyeri Meyer Spruce B & B 6' HT. 011„C/)+= JB 8 Juniperus horizontalis Blue Prince' Blue Prince Juniper #5 CONT. 5' O.C. z + WHC 5 Thuja occidentalis White Cedar White Cedar B & B 6' HT. U) SGJ 114 Juniperus chinensis Sea Green' Sea Green Juniper #5 CONT. 5' O.C. W ORNAMENTAL TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SPACING + TAU 36 Taxus x media 'Tauntonii' Tauton Yew #5 CONT. 5' O.C. :. ALS 12 Amelanchier x grandiflora Autumn Brillance' Autumn Brillance Serviceberry Clump B & B 6' HT. �+ WBM 12 Pinus mugo White Bud Mugo White Bud Pine #5 CONT. 3' O.C. • IRW 18 Ostrya virginiana Ironwood B & B 1.5" CAL. 0 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING z :. JTL 13 Syringa reticulata Japanese Tree Lilac Clump B & B 6' HT. AJN 58 Physocarpus opulifolius 'Jefam' Amber Jubilee Ninebark #5 CONT. v .: QUC 10 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Clump B & B 6' HT. Ln ANH 81 Hydrangea arborescens Annabelle' Annabelle Hydrangea #5 CONT. 4' O.C. z :. RVB 12 Betula nigra River Birch Multi -Trunk B & B 6` HT. O a z Q CHB 19 Aronia melanocarpa elata Black Chokeberry #5 CONT. 5' O.C. Z w~ U) 00 SSC 3 Malus x Spring Snow' Spring Snow Crab Apple Multi -Trunk B & B 6 HT. Q c o O DBH 44 Diervilla lonicera Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle #5 CONT. 3' O.C. o N °' Wz • TCH 11 Crataegus crus-galli inermis TM Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn B & B 1.5" CAL. o Z) C GLS 15 Rhus aromatica 'Gro -Low' Gro -Low Fragrant Sumac #5 CONT. 4` O.C. Q CO w Z W J :. WSB 11 Betula populifolia 'Whitespire' Whitespire Birch Clump B & B 6' HT. 0 3: z Y =W z JWS 25 Spiraea albiflora Japanese White Spirea #2 CONT. 3 O.C. w z OVERSTORY TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SPACING Y Q PJM 17 Rhododendron x `P.J.M.' PJM Rhododendron #5 CONT. 4` O.C. 00 o cn N ry •BOL 16 Tilia americana Boulevard' Boulevard Linden B & B 2" CAL. O CornusO RTD 30 sericea 'Baileyi' Red Twig Dogwood #5 CONT. 5' O.C. ■ z BRO 1 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak B & B 2.5" CAL. N SUM 18 Rhus typhina Tiger Eyes' Tiger Eyes Sumac #5 CONT. • GSL 4 Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' Greenspire Littleleaf Linden B & B 2" CAL. PERENNIALS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING m 00—JO co W z<oNo • NOR 6 Acer platanoides 'Pond' Emerald Lustre Maple B & B 2" CAL. ALM 37 Allium x 'Millenium' Millenium Ornamental Chive #1 Cont. 1, OC Q z g LO w0U) Q W'(nw W J Z d5; W S 0- 0,_ • NWM 2 Acer rubrum 'Northwood' Northwood Maple B & B 2" CAL. DEU 7 Astilbe japonica 'Deutchland' False Spiraea #5 CONT. 3' OC � a CL W w o =~�W < W 2� ~ O F -U) _ J H RZ H0 } QWWWU(n = • SBH 4 Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis 'Suncole' Sunburst Honeylocust B & B 2.5" CAL. MAG 10 Astilbe chinensis Maggie Daley Maggie Daley Astilbe #1 Cont. 2' OC o 0 W z Q x g �Of 0}}=z z x J U Q n0f F- 0 p Q W X • SWO 1 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak B & B 2" CAL. �OSF 8 Matteuccia pennsylvanica Ostrich Fern #5 CONT. 3' OC 5 Q 0 Q a o X '�nnb mUjQ V Q W U 0 F 0 U ui WW W= Z W GROUND COVERS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING SPACING = U) 2 z> = U) S on- oao0 o AJS 70 Sedum x 'Autumn Joy Autumn Joy Sedum #1 CONT 18" o.c. W0 Doo, rn z 0 0 0�0 0�0` 0 o Q LU o Q >_ m 0 p ❑ } Q o C:) W W KFG 49 Calamagrostis x acutiflora Karl Foerster' Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass #1 CONT 30" o.c. Y _j 2 � 0 0 W � i '7 U) ❑ ❑ 0 KKC 158 Nepeta x faassenii 'Kit Kat' Kit Kat Catmint #1 CONT 18" o.c. \ WLC 60 Nepeta x faassenii 'Walkers Low' Walkers Low Catmint #1 CONT 30" o.c. Uj W J z V 0 O � ow � z= � v cn J z O U L.L z O LL Oz O J Z — W W 10 � w.j aLU V U, H a Q W ZLU Q E a (n LU o J O J W LL U_ Z w 0 SHEET NUMBER U) C/) L102 r� Q N N rn 0 N C) .Q U) J F_ W 0 W d Q U U) Z J J a� U) c n U U) a) 0 co c J 0 0 U) Z 75O U C 0 a� U 0 U) U) Q W 0 J I 0H SOD 2X ROOT BALL WIDTH NOTES: 1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING. 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL. INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. 4. SLIT REMAINING TREATED BURLAP AT 6" INTERVALS. 5. BACKFILL TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL, THEN WATER PLANT. REMOVE THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 6. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 7. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 8. BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 9. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 10. FINAL LOCATION OF TREE TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER. '`T"•"��9:1:7��7�7��7:Ie\:7��11�L�Z�7�711�1[�7CI TREE PLANTING DETAIL 1 SCALE: N.T.S. LAWN SIDE N_ r FINISHED GRADE AT LAWN, 1/2" BELOW TOP OF DIVIDER PLANTING BED POLY EDGER DETAIL 3 SCALE: N.T.S. rii coricu GRADE AT SHRUBS/ PERENNIALS, 1" BELOW TOP OF DIVIDER. 4" TOPSOIL PLASTIC DIVIDER: "BLACK DIAMOND" EDGING BY VALEEY VIEW SPECIALTIES CO. USE 20 FT. LENGTHS. USE KNURLED CONNECTOR AT SPLICES, USE CORNER, TEE, VEE, OR WIDE ANBLE CONNECTORS AT ANGLE CHANGES. 10" X 7/8" METAL ANCHOR STAKES AT 48" O.C., AND AT EACH END. MULCH AT PLANTING AREA SPADED EDGE "V" SHAPED, 4" WIDTH, 4" DEPTH, MORE VERTICAL ON LAWN SIDE LAWN GRASS FINISHED GRADE III III \\\\\ III III III 1 SPADED EDGE DETAIL 5 SCALE: 1-1/2"=l' L103 NOTES: ON CENTER SPACING AS STATED ON PLAN. EXTEND HOLE EXCAVATION WIDTH A MINIMUM OF 6" BEYOND THE PLANTS ROOT SYSTEM. FINISHED GRADE EDGER, AS SPECIFIED I PLANTING BED AND tAurxrILL SOIL (THOROUGHLY LOOSENED) 1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING OF TOP AND ROOT. 3. REMOVE CONTAINER AND SCORE OUTSIDE OF SOIL MASS TO REDIRECT AND PREVENT CIRCLING FIBROUS ROOTS. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 4. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 5. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 6. BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 7. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 8. MIX IN 34" OF ORGANIC COMPOST. SHRUB / PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL L103 SCALE: N.T.S. F FINISH GRADE FOR LAWN " MAINTENANCE STRIP RETAINING WALL / EDGER, AS SPECIFIED f BUILDING, EXTERIOR WALL SOIL MIX TO BE MINIMUM PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF 4" BELOW EDGING TOP AWAY FROM RETAINING WALL / TO ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE BUILDING LIP FOR MULCH. SPECIFIED ROCK MULCH III III�f1� 11I III I(I III SPECIFIED SOIL MIX MAINTENANCE STRIP DETAIL 4 SCALE: 1-1/2"=l' E:"'cT'NG GRADE REA ACCORDING TO 'ING DETAILS ABLE AS SHOWN L103 ILL AREA 1. EXTENDED EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL SOIL TO A POINT DOWNSLOPE EQUAL TO OR LOWER IN ELEVATION THAN THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE DIRECTLY BENEATH THE PLANT TO INSURE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY SOILS. GRANULAR SOIL MUST BE ADDED AS BACKFILL IN AREAS OF POOR DRAINAGE. STEEP SLOPE PLANTING L103 SCALE: N.T.S. L103 L103 LANDSCAPE NOTES 1 . UUN I KAU I UK SHALL UUN I AU I UUMMUN CiKUUND ALLIANCE A 1 1311 UK UALL611 .UUM I U VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2. ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 3. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 4. ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND/OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6. ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA -GROWN AND/OR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. 7. PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. 8. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES. 9. PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL -IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 10. PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11. OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 12. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 13. WRAP ALL SMOOTH -BARKED TREES -FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14. STAKING OF TREES AS REQUIRED; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15. THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16. BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN/DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. MINIMUM 4" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 12" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR TREE, SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS. 17. MULCH TO BE AT ALL TREE, SHRUB, PERENNIAL, AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WITHIN TURF AREAS. PERENNIAL AND ORNAMENTAL GRASS BEDS SHALL HAVE 2" DEPTH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH TO BE FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL AND COLORED DARK BROWN, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE BUFF LIMESTONE, 1 1/2" TO 3" DIAMETER, AT MINIMUM 3" DEPTH, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE ON COMMERCIAL GRADE FILTER FABRIC, BY TYPAR, OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH NO EXPOSURE. MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. MULCH TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 18. EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE VALLEY -VIEW BLACK DIAMOND (OR EQUAL) POLY EDGING OR SPADED EDGE, AS INDICATED. POLY EDGING SHALL BE PLACED WITH SMOOTH CURVES AND STAKED WITH METAL SPIKES NO GREATER THAN 4 FOOT ON CENTER WITH BASE OF TOP BEAD AT GRADE, FOR MOWERS TO CUT ABOVE WITHOUT DAMAGE. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V -SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. INDIVIDUAL TREE, SHRUB, OR RAIN -GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. EDGING TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 19. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX, FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. SEED AS SPECIFIED/ PER MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS/ PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. IF NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 20. PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTED AREAS ON SITE. PROVIDE QUICK COUPLERS TO NATIVE SEED AREAS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, PERMANENT IRRIGATION IN THIS AREA NOT REQUIRED. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OPERATION MANUALS, AS -BUILT PLANS, AND NORMAL PROGRAMMING. SYSTEM SHALL BE WINTERIZED AND HAVE SPRING STARTUP DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. SYSTEM SHALL HAVE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PARTS AND LABOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. PERENNIALS AND SHRUBS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22. REPAIR, REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD/SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 23. REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO OWNER. r m L C)0ac W,az� azo` w O c � � W � z a 5 w _ -icnQ�0F L �a =Fcn�W� _ ¢awwU� = w d L O >2 ->, c of UF: LU Q L > U Z < m-Dac w -0--c )< O 1 w z =z :w ;0 W iQ } 00 W Q D W z O U) W 0 z v z J z Q U) CO g z � U O N U cn w z U) � o z Q w Z (n J W O w 00 Y } =, = § w z a 3: Q Y co } o c/5 w z D 0 LO N 00 00 LO J 0-- 0 O Lu z F z U 11' J J Q � zo >_N 0 v 0 wui Lou wOQZzw w (n�HJH 0 Q FL 3 � < V O o U) Q Q O N C C) Q a m m U m a o W o Yw Q z z Y U) J 0 z Lou Q J z V - O Q Q U W Z Q U) J z O U O Z LL I - Oz 0 z U) J - O W W J o W Q �VOCa�V Lu H z- a Waco 0 0 a (n `Z JI O O J W LL U_ 0 ~ Z W 2 SHEET NUMBER � L103 3 A203 7. n r` 0 N N co 105'-0" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 A201 3'-0" 21'-2" 17'-4" 15'-8" 26'-2" 3'-8" 18'-0" 27'4" 24'-0" 32'-0" 21'-8" / 10, I I I �- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - - — - — - — - — - — -- b a a u, J, \J, � 'J'J' 1'J'�'J'J�'J' TE ANL a ' STORAGE a ' co 16 15 � 17 a 14 I BLG. MAINT.1 "• �j/ / 18 STOR. • 01 / GARAGE " , 13 a —� — — —9— — -— • HALL CV V/x MECH. 00 0 a SERVICE %� --- 1-- 00 00 TRASH/ E EV. LOBBY 00 A,• RECYCLING � � 00 I &D ELE.V. B — — K _ 00 1 [ice\/' �-- -- -------- ---- —� �------ --- M – -- —7, I --- --12— _ — j 11 = 20 j 4 1 - 1 A202 I — GARAGE 5 1 O = B001 21 A202 1 = 1 1 A 005 5 ®_ 1, i 8 23 i 6 A202 I l 2 J A202 --.—.—.—. 12'-8" 9,-011---- 13'--2 —" 18'-1011 / 24-- ----•—•—•—•---•—•—•—•—• ---- � 1 12'-8" 16'-8" 24'-8" 6 25 4 1 77 I iiii ti 4� = Ex MECH. 1 2 3 4 5 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 M o _ GARAGE B00 ' I o - o I - a o O 0 G X G X ' 48 47 46 4- 45 44 43 T 42 41 40 5'-8" 39 38 37 , 36 35 34 ; 33 �� bo - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -�• .5 1 A202 1 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A100 SCALE: N.T.S. 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O t► w U) z Q W U) 0 U 0 0 U) z 0 U of0 U- I - 0 z MARK DATE DESCRIPTION LU z 0 3;:W LU APRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A1 00 > c CU c:) zQ N N �o \z cnLn J 0 �_ _ d y+ 0 m 0 0 o Z � N � Wcn N 3M M 0 =� Q' N ti J LL 0 O W W V Z LULU o Z J Z � � 00 _�¢ U 0 APRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A1 00 > c CU c:) N N �o cuLn cnLn �� _ _ d y+ 0 o N 0 0 o O Y N � Uc0�0Uo0 LL 3M _� W M w~ Q' N ti X<0 O w J 0 �o �� _�¢ Lu LU www N Qoz< 0 Q W Q- U Z U z m O —o3: LLJ U) 0� U) O a a<< > aU2 Lu L w O 0QQo V 0 N z z0 Q=ou) �� oof0� N Z J 0 J w Q CL d J Lu ,)f � Q Q 0 � U O cn w Z Q � U) O m LLJQLLQ �ocf) APRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A1 00 4 A203 U X o' U c 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0) C 0 2 `0 a� W 0 m U 0 CD0 M 2 co 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- �,� - I -I 1 I ON I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I� I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ' 3 II I I I A203 I I 13'-4" 2' 8" 8'-8" 3'-0" � 22'-8° 20'-8" 22'-8" � 2114" , 34-4 27'-4" I / 24'-0" II I I 32' 0" 19-4�� r I / I� I 7 I A202 DIRECTORS MARKETING VEST I LI RES S VCS OFFICE OFFICE 1 % ' I OFFICE 14 I I CONF. RM. I �I 141 I 1 HALL I I 14 I I ®° I � � 1 I ❑ — k — � �,�- - —' � _ - — — - _— � __-��--- — T��-� — — = — �;—� � STAIR B STOP- -�, 0 13 WO KR COMMONS U - I M ® HALL OFFICE � 13 I LOBBY CO I I UNIT'B' STAFF RM. 101 10 UNIT'B' UNIT'B' � 13 13 13 CA., E1-1 I-�--I �+ -, � o � UNIT'A' UNIT'B' 10 10 10 10 �__ UNIT'C' "3 — — — 10 " ' --7VEFI o � � 607 SF 607 SF 607 SF � _ - � 111 806 SF 607 SF - - -',77__ 889 SF I HALL �-__�LN Ll ' o� � L�JMECH. RM. 13 00 00 00 W. �o �__ 13 0 1 �� 100 oL3 > I I MEICH. I C - - - - IT HALL HALL f=ry U DINING I I I I 11 ACTIVITY 10 I II I _ — — — — 131 ��- 1 I I C LEI LIM C) C� UNIT D I =� M I TRASH o °' 100f o o - I I ' ILI11 I y x l l] 1,026 SF I CONF.1 x JA xY UNIT'E'PRIVATE �� l l 1 �SUNIT'G' UNIT B1 UNIT'B1' UNIT'F' 11 DINING ER_EAKFAST HALL 11 11 11 11 - - 921 SF 13 COUNTER LL 12 . �M`El 39� 585 SF 585 SF 718 SF HALL - I � 1 12 I . � ME F �C (GUESS SUITE) ® ® - 0 0 ------ rill ' . HALL a ° _ J o---------------- `----I-I-----------I--• ---------------®—•-----------------------------fi----------------------- - - — - - _ - ® 34'-4" 27'-8" • -----85-0 ,� � r — - � - 38,-0„ DISHWASH MAIL - - - - - I - I 2 14 HALL B10 = I MARKET ' cn I A201 10 101 ' 4 ® � ' 3 A202 I A201 C9 I , -CTIVITIES N I 5 OFF. QUIET RM. ®° ' A202 PREP B10 10 KITCHENI B13 C. B13 o 5 , OFFICE ' I I B 1 3 I 6 HEARTH RM. ®° 2 I A202 I B10 � A202 C 24 8 i 45'4' ' J 13'-1 112"N 16' 8 314" 13'-2" 8'-10" . �I ' , ?_o, 23'-4" ,- y •] I SERVING I � I � � Q I I r ( I STOR. 10 0 - B13 ] — = N — STOR. NURS 13 bCP � 10 UNIT'H' UNIT'I' UNIT'M' STAIR C UNIT H5 - - TR s 111 13117 I _ B12_= B12 612 -_ ACTIVITY - A108 - - � s 494 SF 603 SF N 642 SF _ = 443 SF o HALL B10 _" I � cl "13 i RY SPA _ MECH. RIIIIII , B11 B 1 - - -- M-71 _ B11 q �UNIT 'L' �- HALL HALL 588 SF i ' M 612 12 613 SF - i ACTIVITY � — _ _ — — PD , 12 ILI I L ==7 T LO N � UNIT'H2' UNIT'H3' ADA � UNIT'H1' UNIT'K' , UNIT'H4' UNIT UNIT'H3' ADA UNIT'H4' STOR ` B11 B11 B11 B11 12 B12 B12 B121 B11 443 SF 445 SF 453 SF 452 SF 441 SF 441 SF 702 SF I 444 SF _ I -- r-- — IL 1664" .� 1 •_•_--._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._-_._._._-_._._._-_._._..._. -......... .5 1 A202 01 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A101 SCALE: 3132" = 1'-0" bo � � B C9 ti r 1 ` c A107 N cp M N 00 - � C 0 0 °° D 0 09 V N N -" '� 1 ► 1 MARK 1 LLI Cn Z U m 0 U m W 0 0 c _ 0 0 z DATE DESCRIPTION Date 1 Revision 1 Lu Z Of 0 3: I". i LL_ 00W CD 0 Z z 'CD L5 czLn � � a J 0 V = U w N O M � J O m U O U Z M L m M :3> � w �_ > W N N M O LO J LL 0 0 W W z z W o F— Z Z � w U O 0 Ora O W u 0 Q tea= who a 0o� UN =�a �LLJ �w� Q�z~ Z U z m0 �LU) > O oLLI U)0w N 0 LL owao a z ouzo Lu =Lain Q�w� ? JW J ,aww u Z�ww aLuww� oaa� U f oo zap cn w Lu Wca LuaQ � ocf) APRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A1 01 0 N N cz ig:� 'CD L5 czLn � � a U Y 0 V = U w N O M o 3 Co t Co ,c" M Co cj U O U LL Lt V i z M L m M :3> � w �_ > co W m w N W u 0 Q tea= who a 0o� UN =�a �LLJ �w� Q�z~ Z U z m0 �LU) > O oLLI U)0w N 0 LL owao a z ouzo Lu =Lain Q�w� ? JW J ,aww u Z�ww aLuww� oaa� U f oo zap cn w Lu Wca LuaQ � ocf) APRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A1 01 EO 0 N 0 N 0 a N V ti N A �- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — ---------------- 4 �4 5 6 7 8 I I I I I I I I I I 3 A203 I I I I 6" 27'-4" 23'-0' 32'-0" 20'4" 21'-8" 21'-8" 21'-8" 22'-4" 33'-4" 134" 1 /1llflTIFFF 17117111flMl M j I A202 UNIT'B4' 7 , I_ _ � 0101 L - 608 SIF LI 0 PUB/ CLUB L"20 2' 8° 1 Liu P 20 co co o STAIR B UNIT'W' - - - - A20 "�UR� 879SFUNIA' UNIT'B' UNIT'B' UNIT'B' UNIT'B' --- UNIT'C' '20 20 0 20 20 771 20 LavAl o 794 SF 607 SF 607 SF 607 SF 607 SIF 888 SF HOUSEKEEPING J % �� j N �-- A23]l TW OO °o� O O OC Oo a_� oOC OOOC 00 �pp 7- C) 0O � I HALL I FITNESSMECRM F 23 — - — — 01 —ct AEll I o HALL I UNIT'B' I I I _ , 22 I ° - — O°586 SF. °° _— EL �� HRk_ 0 0101° M I I I I � C) I UNIT'B5' �' HALL JAN. 00 00l Io°0 ccl 0101) UNIT'D' I 22 I-iEE WO - 221 - - - - - - - 21 J w 20 582 SF 2 2 L� �. - --� I - 1,026 SF I co I — QT 22 _- UNIT'N' UNIT'B1' - UNIT'B1' UNIT'F' UNITE' � N STAIR A CO IT ELEV. 13, 440 SF 583 SF 583 SF 784 SF 921 SF IAL TRASH .I 13 13 R I Y l 1 +11 1 " " , 11 I I , 11 II 1 11 I I " 2 - q 9 13' 0" 9' 6 12 0 9' 0" T 0 3/32" 9' 11 29/32" 2' 6" 12 -0 b 012 -0 6'-10 6 6 15 1 29/32" 6 0 3/32 ( f --.—.�..�.—•-------. �.—.—� �J g UI` - •—•—•--------86'-0 •—•—•—•--� 33'-4" 27'-8" ,�--•—•—•—•-----------•—•��' 00000H00000HII—•—•—•—•—•-----------•—•—•—•--- --------- ------ ------ ---------- 1--- �� UNIT'132' =� B20 O° ' N 597 SF co I 2 O rJ A201 I 4 o UNIT 'V' o°o --�� 3 I 864 SFy A201 5 A202 f 01000 °00 L! ly C? o ° o o UNIT'134' ' UNIT 'B1' B201 I B22 I 586 SF 609 SIF _ 5 ° ° J A201 HALL 0101° J ,y 0101 UNIT'134' 6 B20 2 A202 ®I 609 SF = A202 -c6T _ „ 23'-4" 12'-2" 9'-10" UNIT T2 13'-71/4' 15'-83/4" 24'-8" 6" 0 0 I —• 0 447 SF � _ ,--• STAIR C uI , - - - B221 I --- ` MECH. UNIT'P' ADA UNIT' ' UNF2_ I 1 UNIT'B3' UNIT'T1' SALON B2o B207 B20 Q B2o I A 110 B2 B2 B 2222 710 SF 463 SF 677 SIF 680 SF 460 SF -- — — - 1°O 00 I N j --- o° I OFFICE 0J 7 0 °O°0°o 220 o e1 001°0 — � T — ' � I � SINK � � �i� � � � I � _ � — , B22 — — — I - 0101° yl o a _ �-- 0101° 0 0 o I HALL HALL EF UNIT'R' o I UNIT'R1' B21 B21 B210 B21 I 623 SF 591 S F �b` (D c — , O o� o° O 0000 Oo � Oo 00 Oo O D I® Ll 2'-0" UNIT'U' UNIT'U1' UNIT'B' UNIT'T' UNIT'S' ' IB21 B21 B21 B21 B211 F 856 SF 892 SF 583 SF 476 SF 797 SF ® ® ® ® 2'-6" 11'-10" 33'-5" 33'-5" 21'-8" 17'-8" 31'-4" 13'-0" 6" 165'-4"/ — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - ............................................... - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — . — -.... . — . .5 9 1 A202 1 SECOND A102 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN — OVERALL �O O O \ O W fco V Z U a_ Z 0 U co Z 0 U 0 I- 0 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION L Z L L >. � 3 N C'4 a) o Z z CO N U)43) N J 0 t) rn O •� 'N co O m O a rn Z to — CO W N co w V, M ul) O = : N LL 0 O w W V z L o J Z Lu L) O 00 z Few M U m >. � 3 N C'4 a) o Co CO N U)43) N V Z V t) rn O •� 'N co O o O a rn M Y m to — CO V0 cu 00 LLcc U�iv M L.2 W M W : N 0 0-0-= �o� �c z Few W W cl)W Q Z H W Z � � U z mW �>Oa �LufC qc) Q o now O W } 0QQo O=0z 0 Z _jC) W J 'QCLM N z az g�� Q Q 0 z U0 LLI zU) Q� Lu Of m 0QQ �LL oC/) APRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 SECOND FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A1 02 bo 0 co N 0 N 0 co (p 3O 4 5 6 7 83 A203 �• — - — „ — - — - —m — m------- - — - - — - — - — • — •�- — - - - — - — - — - — -�- — - - — - — -�m--_------------„ ----------- „- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — „- — - — - — - — - — --34• — . — - — •� 6 27-4 23' 0" 32' 0" 20'-4" 21' " 21-8 1 8 22 4 33 4 I I A202 — ,—L=l.�--� 21'-11 1/4" ' I .I 20'-91/2" 21'-111/4" I 20'-91/2" 8'-91/2" 8'-91/2" 1 ACTIVITY/ MPR M M M M n 30 6'-0" 6'-0" cD 19 co cfl ' Qd X STAIR B � � ' M STOR. I UNIT'X' 33 UNIT'A' UNIT'B' UNIT'B' UNIT'B' UNIT'B' --- UNIT'C' bo ��— I 1 32 r 30 30 30 30 30 30 1,161 SIF I� a 864 SF 607 SF 607 SF 607 SF 607 SF 888 SFtcq ' 1 5' 6 3/4" 7-7 w � ----7 v I 1 — 1 EF. o°o [] HALL , o ° IL:lI oo o 711po O ° - �� 33 �� Uo �5 °O � I --- 8,8„ — MECO. RM. � i CHAPEL ;01IL77LC , �I — r— �,— — — — — I, — — — — — — 3'-0" �� 331 .I �� I 1 I ' HALL UNIT'B' 31 E 32 HALL _ 0 1 580 SF _ I �" D. � � � �II P. � - °°° HALL JC — — N M o , to°o ooh 321 �� _ 311 ' N JAN. O o o (�'x o o O o ' UNIT'B5' _ 1 32 31 UNIT D � 1 E WOM L Vi i 1 w C� 30 585 SF E III fl _ 32 32 T� 1,027 SF c , 32 32 M 1 „� ' I v Li I � rRASH�C& UNIT'N' UNIT'B1' UNIT'B1' UNIT'F' UNITE' N 5 -6 314 D 31 Q{ < 31 31 31 31 31 77 I LAUNDR ELEV. 440 SF 585 SF 585 SF 718 SF 921 SF , 32.L�.� 32 fl I _•_•_•_•_•_• HAL _ - - - �� 1 M M M 38'-0" _ cfl cfl v cfl J`� 8'-61 /4" 20'-101 /4" o � 8'-61 /4" _________ — ___._.�' - __ ._. -- ______-___ "_.___22'0"____ _�__________-___. _. _______ —•— -- 86-0 � — -33 --- 8- -- -- EFI. N ®! UNIT'B2A' B30 O° (V 2 - 604 SF co 4 o °° A201 I A202 N UNIT'V' o� O°O B32 O L. 3 I �I A201 I 790 SF 5 = OO o°off CU N UNIT'B1' UNIT'B6' I B301 ' I B32 I 586 SF 609 SF 5 ' LT — HALL Q °° _ A201 5'-6 3/4" B30 °°° N 6 — UNII o'B6' I 2 ' A202 I 609 SF A202 I I � LI UNIT T3' s-61/4, I 23,-4 8' 6 1/4" 12'-2" 9' 10" B32 13'-7114" O° 15'-8 3/4" 24'-8" 6" I 0 455 SF C) M C? co CV STAIR C - I - B32 1 9 -14P_ UNIT'Q' UNIT'133' I \A112 . UNIT'B3' I UNIT'T1' p MECH. RM. UNIT'P' ADA Bao 1330 -B30 630 464 SF 675 SF B32 B32 I _ ] 680 SF 468 SF 710 SIF �� ® I _ LIBRARY > ° o I IN IOO , L B32FT �, — STOR. � J I OO 00 77 Go 4=IY �I 5'-6 3/4" _cd - . HALL HALL UNIT' R' UNIT'R1' � r I M B31 B31 B31 B31 1.9, — 591 SF- — — — — — — — 627 SF , — 5o I A u - � I �I -00 00 00 o 100 001 � oo 100 � Oo I ' 2'-0" UNIT 'U' - UNIT'U1' UNIT'B' UNIT'T' UNIT'S' ' B31 B31 B31 B31 B311;zr I F FF__ 856 SF 892 SF 584 SF 475 SF 793 SF _cD CD M M M Lr) 10 -0 al FOL--- rc 11 8'-61/4" 8'-61/4" I J / 2'-6" 11'-10" 33'-5" 33'-5" 21'-8" 17'-8" 31'-84" 13'-0" 6" `-i�=----------------------=-----------------— - — - — - — - — - ------------------------------- ----�. 165'-4" .5 9 1 A202 1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN — OVERALL Al 03 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" C9 bo 0 ZD N 0 N �o �o LJ fC) V Z U 0� a_ 0 U U) Z 0 U 0 LL I- 0 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION Lu z Of 0 R�: Lu N> L.L Lu Nom_ L.L V Z z U) Lc) J 0 N V Z Vt1 O m Z LLI 0O O M V♦ 0 O p O y N� LL J 0 W Of V W N Z O 0 M U N co M LC) O U) Lu z z_ O J J W U H M O m T� Cc C::, N N Cc U) Lc) N U) N V Z Vt1 Cn Op U) N OO 0O O M 0 O p Y v4 y N� • f6-@ C0,01 VOV R Cn c6 N _ MLOcc -ZLL Ln W M W N 0 0 F_ 0 O � z �Cw LLlw2w Q Z H W cl)Z } U Z m� g>Oa W WLU 0 of Lu w O Q>f }LL O Q M O ZO O = Q L ! Z J C) L1J Q Ix d Z Lou- g�F_Z Q 0 Z U O LLI zU) Q � Lu Of m 0QQ �o� APRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 THIRD FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A1 03 7. n 00 N CD CA N N co i U +5.25" c \ +7.75" /. +4.75" SLOPE INSUL. 1/8": FT. +7.75 J F--: =) LL N Z W LL O J Cn OVERFLOW DRAIN +2" ROOF \ DRAIN +0" J U) Z � W L_ 0- 0 U +7.25 - - +7.75" SLOPE INSUL. 1/8": FT. +7.75 +4.75" A SLOPE INSUL. 1/8": FT. +7.75 J Cn z �_: W LL LL 0;;t J � OVERFLOW \N +2.. ROOF DRAIN +0" - n J � Ll Z W IL O cn +7.75 SLOPE INSUL. 1/8": FT. �I i / +5.75" D ROOF PLAN ®® SCALE: N.T.S. MARK DATE DESCRIPTION v > N N ti O c6 Cn CC) LL C C U U U = C N C V 2V C/)O 0 CO O 0 O� 0 _ C 3: OC3) y c 'T le U0C50c) LL.U) 3 C'M') _� j L2 W M W C Q' CV ~ LY Q 0 O O Lu cn =CD Q H - W L LULU Q z < O OZ > U cwn W z <>O< fn > v =�� Z W w�ft! O � Lul LL O QQ O o � z Q z O 0 Q=LU� c� N o LU ZJ 0 W J U) Q IL z W Q J LU LU LU Q 0 U O ) U �/U) W 0 zQ� Cn W UU) LU � � J Q W Q Q LL O U Z 0 UAPRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 rill U) ROOF PLAN Z 0 U OfO LL 0 Al 04 Z L Z ry LU ry L ry Z_ Z J � 0 m Z � W N c M 0 F- J L.L 0 O W LU V Z LLUo Z J Z � � 0 00 m U m v > N N ti O c6 Cn CC) LL C C U U U = C N C V 2V C/)O 0 CO O 0 O� 0 _ C 3: OC3) y c 'T le U0C50c) LL.U) 3 C'M') _� j L2 W M W C Q' CV ~ LY Q 0 O O Lu cn =CD Q H - W L LULU Q z < O OZ > U cwn W z <>O< fn > v =�� Z W w�ft! O � Lul LL O QQ O o � z Q z O 0 Q=LU� c� N o LU ZJ 0 W J U) Q IL z W Q J LU LU LU Q 0 U O ) U �/U) W 0 zQ� Cn W UU) LU � � J Q W Q Q LL O U Z 0 UAPRIL 1, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 rill U) ROOF PLAN Z 0 U OfO LL 0 Al 04 Z PREFINISHED METAL CAP FLASHING TOP OF PARAPET �J 135-0" II T.O. ROOF TRUSS lq_�/ 133'-2 1/1)" 1 1 1 1 1 a THIRD FLOOR, 122'-8" =1 1 =1 1= HARDI LAP SIDING = l I SECOND FLOOR I 111'-8" I - I GENERAL NOTE: 1. COORDINATE WITH THE DESIGN/BUILD MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS ALL REQUIRED OPENINGS NOT INDICATED HEREIN. 8 7 6 5 4 3 NICHIHA WOOD 2 1 HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING j PANEL TYPE 1 SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK j HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING HARDI LAP SIDING PREFINISHED METAL PREFINISHED 5"X5" 1X6 HARDI TRIM PREFINISHED 5"X5" 42" HIGH ALUMINUM 1X4 HARDI TRIM FASTENERS,TYP. 24" HIGH ALUMINUM HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK CAP FLASHING GUTTER, TYP. GUTTER, TYP. RAILING, TYP. LETTERS SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS,TYP. j FASTENERS,TYP. F � I I I � I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I i I I V I I I � i ., I•, I I -, - #�Tll�llll IIII IF _11 � - _ - i F - II11In] rl [p] F 1 1 �� 9 1111 ILJIJI � f � I - I��HHH��I I I I — I I ® I I� I I I — _ _ -J� — ' _ �I �,_r il-', I I I I I I �i 1� fE6 it- ' r'' - r FIRST FLOOR / T T� T� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - v 100'-0" I � HARDI TRIM FASCIA ASPHALT SHINGLES HARDI SOFFIT AND FASCIA PREFINISHED 5"X5" j GUTTER, TYP. PREFINISHED 5"X4" // DOWNSPOUT, TYP. HARDI COLUMN 00� BUILDOUT —,�ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP 01 NORTH ELEVATION A201 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" J H G F 1X4 HARDI TRIM PRE -FINISHED MTL. CAP FLASHING, TYP. TOP OF PARAPET 135-0" - i T.O. ROOF TRUSS; / 133'-2 1/2" 42" HIGH ALUM. RAILING, TYP. q q - -- i Eml THIRD FLOOR I HARDI LAP SIDING I I I I SECOND FLOOR _ I 101F V-811 ►. I I _ I I I I I I r - Jim- 000 _ FIRST FLOOR - L_�, FIRST FLOOR P-TAC GRILL, TYP. 2 EAST ELEVATION A201 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING 1X6 HARDI TRIM SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS,TYP. / 1X4 HARDI TRIM I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I q I I q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I it li it I I I I I - I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ Q I I I I I I I I I q I I I IlI IJJ ■ I I I I I ' I I I I a I I I i MAGIC PAK LOUVERS 6" ARCH. PRECAST CONC. MANUFACTURED PRE -FINISHED MTL. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. JAMB AND HEAD TRIM STONE VENEER, TYP. WHERE SHOWN (TIE DOWNSPOUTS TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER CIVIL) * PROVIDE HEAT TAPE IN ALL GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS D ANDERSON 100 ~ SERIES WINDOWS PREFINISHED 5"X4" ELEVATOR ROOF BEYOND 1X6 HARDI TRIM HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING DOWNSPOUT, TYP. PREFINISHED METAL 1X4 HARDI TRIM SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK PREFINISHED 5"X5" CAP FLASHING FASTENERS,TYP. GUTTER, TYP. I r® �� NI HIHA WOOD D PANEL -- ri— C i . l TYPE 1 I - I I I I I a q P I I I 1 I INC- ' I I I C 7 - I I I - I I I I ~ I I I I I a I I I I I � I P1 PRE -FINISHED MTL. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. HARDI SOFFIT AND WHERE SHOWN (TIE DOWNSPOUTS TO THE STORM FASCIA DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER CIVIL) * PROVIDE HEAT TAPE IN ALL GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ASPHALT SHINGLES PREFINISHED 5"X5" GUTTER, TYP. HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING PRE -FINISHED MTL. PREFINISHED 5"X4" SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK CAP FLASHING, TYP. DOWNSPOUT, TYP. ANDERSON 100 1X6 HARDI TRIM PREFINISHED METAL 1X4 HARDI TRIM FASTENERS,TYP. HARDI LAP SIDING TOP OF PARAPET SERIES WINDOWS CAP FLASHING 135-0"I I i 'TI T.O. ROOF TRUSS ' 133'-2 1/2" 1 , I I ,• Ljlk JLILllIJLU___ _ WLJL.JIII II II I II I JLILllIJLU THIRD FLOOR I 122'-811 ■ l I I SCO 00 I, mil 111 E ND FL R �I ++= I I I I I I I I I I I 1 - 11 1 8" o 7 - I -- ��LJI�n1II ®FIRST FLOOR - - 100'-0" I -I(lV VI\ILL, I I I . D(PARTIAL SE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP lv I( IV I /l wvV LI IVI—vi — I ul— STONE VENEER UTILITY BRICK ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP 1X4 HARDI TRIM I I I a a F7 I II I I' MAGIC PAK LOUVERS UTILITY BRICK HARDI LAP SIDING PRE -FINISHED MTL. GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUTS VENEER, TYP. (PROVIDE SPLASH BLOCK AT GRADE) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF 6IN STA. mw NUM ER. 22976 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION HARDI "REVEAL" COUNTERSUNKSYSTEM W/ HARDIFASTENERSHARDI TRIM ` • 11 A- FLASHING .-DA. SIDING 42" HIGH ALUMINUM • OF PARAPET RAILING, TYP. 1 � T.O. ROOF TRUSS/ THIRD • •' Fli Fdi i ■---- - SEC .J • , FLOOR ...?.-....._...___..F�=u..�._-�� 11 __. _.�€�:....t-.___..�..fx"-.$_.-.____..� �t...__�.__�.-.�€P..��-.___..�:.f..�F$_..tF.:l=ifv.-....�i±•�.�#'.__�:A�tti'.___.-.__i-.'.;.-�.�::F :-:�.v.-.tel?=..k_ _=- _.-N • ■ FIRST FLOOR 1001-01, 04 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION A201 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP Ivi—lVI —I ul— STONE VENEER UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. ,'I- C:) > N N cu O c6 Ln U) 127 U) N C _ 0o �� o -a 00 0 0�`� 0 0 i Y M Nu m cu"� co U) N N C�oUO° -Z1Lt 3 cc"):3_- W M W co C Q' N E ti �<0 0 � 0— � O LLJ N =CLQW H — 1uLU)2w Qoz< Lq C�O�U W Z oo 0 U) <>O< a>oa a owow ww0p-, ��11a V } oQa� ouzo w - O Q=�U) C7 —c — G Z J W — J of a- W�' Lou- L2u� Q J C �E)0 W Of VJ U o Q o (n Lu Z W Lu Lu W O m L.L LLJ < Lu o U) 0 UMAY 23, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 rill U) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Z 0 U 0 LL A2010 Z Z HARDI TRIM FASCIA BALLASTED EPDM ROOF J 0 — O Z W HARDICOLUMN W J N BUILDOUT M PRECAST CONCRETEO 0 � CAP MANUFACTURED J N — STONE VENEER - _ J W H WZ Z V Q 0 o � = Z CV L) O � Z G 00 m m HARDI "REVEAL" COUNTERSUNKSYSTEM W/ HARDIFASTENERSHARDI TRIM ` • 11 A- FLASHING .-DA. SIDING 42" HIGH ALUMINUM • OF PARAPET RAILING, TYP. 1 � T.O. ROOF TRUSS/ THIRD • •' Fli Fdi i ■---- - SEC .J • , FLOOR ...?.-....._...___..F�=u..�._-�� 11 __. _.�€�:....t-.___..�..fx"-.$_.-.____..� �t...__�.__�.-.�€P..��-.___..�:.f..�F$_..tF.:l=ifv.-....�i±•�.�#'.__�:A�tti'.___.-.__i-.'.;.-�.�::F :-:�.v.-.tel?=..k_ _=- _.-N • ■ FIRST FLOOR 1001-01, 04 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION A201 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP Ivi—lVI —I ul— STONE VENEER UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. ,'I- C:) > N N cu O c6 Ln U) 127 U) N C _ 0o �� o -a 00 0 0�`� 0 0 i Y M Nu m cu"� co U) N N C�oUO° -Z1Lt 3 cc"):3_- W M W co C Q' N E ti �<0 0 � 0— � O LLJ N =CLQW H — 1uLU)2w Qoz< Lq C�O�U W Z oo 0 U) <>O< a>oa a owow ww0p-, ��11a V } oQa� ouzo w - O Q=�U) C7 —c — G Z J W — J of a- W�' Lou- L2u� Q J C �E)0 W Of VJ U o Q o (n Lu Z W Lu Lu W O m L.L LLJ < Lu o U) 0 UMAY 23, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 rill U) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Z 0 U 0 LL A2010 Z 0 1x4 HARDI TRIM TOP OF PARAPET 135-0" ' I' T.O. ROOF TRUSS/ 133'-2 1/2" I I HARDI LAP SIDING � I I THIRD FLOOR I 122'-8" I I • II I I I I SECOND FLOOR 11 1'-8" I I I I I I I i I \, FIRST FL00 J 100'-0" 4 5 7 HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS, TYP. PRE -FINISHED METAL 1X6 HARDI TRIM 1X4 HARDI TRIM42" HIGH ALUMINUM CAP FLASHING, TYP. /_ RAILING, TYP. I Ilm I I� � II I ► la �I �/ I I I I I � DI: Awl C I I I I I I - I I I 8 -- HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS, TYP. MAGIC �- I I I � I a l r I a I / I I 1 I I I I I I I I li I I I I I a I I I I i o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I 1= PREFINISHED 5"X5" GUTTER, TYP. PREFINISHED 5"X4" DOWNSPOUT, TYP. ANDERSON 100 SERIES WINDOWS a I I I I I I I I �IIII IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" TOP OF PARAPET k� 135-0" T.O. ROOF TRUSS 133'-2 1/2" THIRD FLOOR 122'-8" SECOND FLOOR 111'-8" G� FIRST FLOOR 100'-0" GARAGE FLOOR 88'-8" HARDI TRIM FASCIA BALLASTED EPDM ROOF I i I I � I — 0 3 WEST ELEVATION A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" TOP OF PARAPET 135-0" I T.O. ROOF TRUSS — 133'-2 1/2" 42" HIGH ALUMINUM RAILING, TYP. � I THIRD FLOOR 122'-8" 1x4 HARDI TRIM HARDI COLUMN BUILDOUT SECOND FLOOR��Iluuuul I I 111'-8" I'. ARCH. PRECP CONCRETE C FIRST FLOOR 100'-0" ARCH. PRECP CONCRETE H ARCH. PRECP CONCRETE SILL 4 PARTIAL SW ELEVATION A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" I I I I I � I I I I i I I I I Ivl/llvurnli I Ur\LL/ mrml 1 I. r r\L lno I u I ILI I I Dr\Ilifl rI Ml STONE VENEER CONCRETE CAP VENEER, TYP. GRILLS, TYP. TOP OF PARAPET 135-0" T.O. ROOF TRUSS 133'-2 1/2" \� THIRD FLOOR 122'-8" SECOND FLOOR 111,811 FIRST FLOOR `J 100'-0" 9 42" HIGH ALUMINUM PREFINISHED 5"X5" PREFINISHED 5"X4" RAILINGM, TYP. GUTTER, TYP. DOWNSPOUT, TYP. I I LWL 1 1= I I I J J= Q I I I I - I I 0_0 PREFINISHED METAL I I MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER UTILITY BRICK a /1 --� VENEER, TYP. CAP FLASHING, TYP. HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING SYSTEM W/ COUNTE 2 MEMORY CARE NE ELEVATION A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP P -TAC GRILLS A B C D E F G H J PREFINISHED 5"X5" HARDI TRIM FASCIA 24" HIGH ALUMINUM HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING GUTTER, TYP. ELEVATOR ROOF BEYOND HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING ANDERSON 100 HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING 1X6 HARDI TRIM 1X4 HARDI TRIM PREFINISHED METAL LETTERS SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK PREFINISHED 5"X4" SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK SERIES WINDOWS SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK CAP FLASHING FASTENERS, TYP. DOWNSPOUT, TYP. FASTENERS, TYP. FASTENERS, TYP. \ L If I — 1 — )i • . — �— I. II = �II — - — a NICHIHA WOOD PANEL _ TYPE 1 — -= �60N=MF=LLO — l _ IIS ��[ll �� — �f"IELE-1 — E IIII ■ ASPHALT SHINGLES — —_J_ _ HARDI LAP SIDING HARDI SOFFIT AND FASCIA \ \ a pmr` I WWII" •-- _-- ■i L �� 0 _ c - �I■I■■I■I■■II I■11 Ilildl■I■■I■11 I■I■■I■I■I■ I ■I■■ low 1-1-1-1-1. I -I -I -I- �■I■■I■p II■■I■I■Ili :_®�� e�� B ®� a-=. ®=—� _ � • iii fi- L If-- 1-- 1__ MANUFACTURED ALUMINUM DOOR 6" ARCH. PRECAST CONC. STONE VENEER AND FRAME HEADER AND JAMB 4 E F HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING 42" HIGH ALUMINUM SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK RAILING, TYP. PREFINISHED METAL FASTENERS, TYP. 1X6 HARDI TRIM PREFINISHED METAL MAGIC PAK LOUVERS ANDERSON 100 CAP FLASHING HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING /Ilk TOP OF PARAPET CAP FLASHING SERIES WINDOWS SYSTEM W/ 135'-0" COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS, TYP. T.O. ROOF TRUSS ' ANDERSON 100 133'-2 1/2" r SERIES WINDOWS 1X4 HARDI TRIM 1X4 HARDI TRIM --- --- lam. THIRD FLOOR 1X6 HARDI TRIM ME 122'-8"- - HARDI LAP SIDING I I 7J HARDI LAP SIDING = 11 p = — I I I I - - - 0 I MANUFACTURED — STONE VENEER SECOND FLOOR - 111'-8" I / I \ FIRST FLOOR 100'-0" UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. MANUFACTURED ARCH. PRECAST STONE VENEER CONCRETE CAP DPARTIAL WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" HARDI LAP SIDING ARCH. PRECAST UTILITY BRICK CONCRETE CAP VENEER, TYP. MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL 4 .5 HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING ANDERSON 100 SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK PREFINISHED METAL 42" HIGH ALUMINUM SERIES WINDOWS — FASTENERS, TYP. CAP FLASHING RAILING, TYP. 1 TOP OF PARAPET k� 135'-0" 1 1 T.O. ROOF TRUSS k� 133'-2 1/2" 1X4 HARDI TRIM _ THIRD FLOOR 122'-8" � I I I I I I I I I I I a l t o I o HARDI LAP SIDING __-1 SECOND FLOOR ��GRAF I 111'-8" I I 1X6 HARDI TRIM _ I I I I I - I – I I I \ I - / FIRST FLOOR _T� - 1001-01, P -TAC GRILLS, TYP. UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER 6 MEMORY CARE NW ELEVATION A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" �I I I � I I I I I I I a a I I I I I I I I I I I I I PRECAST CONCRETE CAP PREFINISHED PIPE BOLLARD L MODULAR BLOCK OVERHEAD DOOR RETAINING WALL PREFINISHED METAL B A CAP FLASHING HARDI SOFFIT AND FASCIA \1 TOP OF PARAPET \ 135'-0" ( 11 \� T.O. ROOF TRUSS J 133'-2 1/2" — - I NICHIHA WOOD PANEL TYPE 1 ; THIRD FLOOR _. 122'-8" -• - ANDERSON 100 SERIES WINDOWS ASPHALT SHINGLES HARDI SOFFIT AND �_ FASCIA \ - ' - SECOND FLOOR 11 j-- 111'-8" (� i ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. \� FIRST FLOOR J 100'-0" 7 EAST ENTRY A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IN S TA. NUM R. 22976 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION I RSUNK O FASTENERS, TYP. I I ANDERSON 100 ' SERIES WINDOWS Z 1X4 HARDI TRIM I I" HARDI LAP SIDING 1X6 HARDI TRIM 2 MEMORY CARE NE ELEVATION A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP P -TAC GRILLS A B C D E F G H J PREFINISHED 5"X5" HARDI TRIM FASCIA 24" HIGH ALUMINUM HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING GUTTER, TYP. ELEVATOR ROOF BEYOND HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING ANDERSON 100 HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING 1X6 HARDI TRIM 1X4 HARDI TRIM PREFINISHED METAL LETTERS SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK PREFINISHED 5"X4" SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK SERIES WINDOWS SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK CAP FLASHING FASTENERS, TYP. DOWNSPOUT, TYP. FASTENERS, TYP. FASTENERS, TYP. \ L If I — 1 — )i • . — �— I. II = �II — - — a NICHIHA WOOD PANEL _ TYPE 1 — -= �60N=MF=LLO — l _ IIS ��[ll �� — �f"IELE-1 — E IIII ■ ASPHALT SHINGLES — —_J_ _ HARDI LAP SIDING HARDI SOFFIT AND FASCIA \ \ a pmr` I WWII" •-- _-- ■i L �� 0 _ c - �I■I■■I■I■■II I■11 Ilildl■I■■I■11 I■I■■I■I■I■ I ■I■■ low 1-1-1-1-1. I -I -I -I- �■I■■I■p II■■I■I■Ili :_®�� e�� B ®� a-=. ®=—� _ � • iii fi- L If-- 1-- 1__ MANUFACTURED ALUMINUM DOOR 6" ARCH. PRECAST CONC. STONE VENEER AND FRAME HEADER AND JAMB 4 E F HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING 42" HIGH ALUMINUM SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK RAILING, TYP. PREFINISHED METAL FASTENERS, TYP. 1X6 HARDI TRIM PREFINISHED METAL MAGIC PAK LOUVERS ANDERSON 100 CAP FLASHING HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING /Ilk TOP OF PARAPET CAP FLASHING SERIES WINDOWS SYSTEM W/ 135'-0" COUNTERSUNK FASTENERS, TYP. T.O. ROOF TRUSS ' ANDERSON 100 133'-2 1/2" r SERIES WINDOWS 1X4 HARDI TRIM 1X4 HARDI TRIM --- --- lam. THIRD FLOOR 1X6 HARDI TRIM ME 122'-8"- - HARDI LAP SIDING I I 7J HARDI LAP SIDING = 11 p = — I I I I - - - 0 I MANUFACTURED — STONE VENEER SECOND FLOOR - 111'-8" I / I \ FIRST FLOOR 100'-0" UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. MANUFACTURED ARCH. PRECAST STONE VENEER CONCRETE CAP DPARTIAL WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" HARDI LAP SIDING ARCH. PRECAST UTILITY BRICK CONCRETE CAP VENEER, TYP. MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL 4 .5 HARDI "REVEAL" SIDING ANDERSON 100 SYSTEM W/ COUNTERSUNK PREFINISHED METAL 42" HIGH ALUMINUM SERIES WINDOWS — FASTENERS, TYP. CAP FLASHING RAILING, TYP. 1 TOP OF PARAPET k� 135'-0" 1 1 T.O. ROOF TRUSS k� 133'-2 1/2" 1X4 HARDI TRIM _ THIRD FLOOR 122'-8" � I I I I I I I I I I I a l t o I o HARDI LAP SIDING __-1 SECOND FLOOR ��GRAF I 111'-8" I I 1X6 HARDI TRIM _ I I I I I - I – I I I \ I - / FIRST FLOOR _T� - 1001-01, P -TAC GRILLS, TYP. UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER 6 MEMORY CARE NW ELEVATION A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" �I I I � I I I I I I I a a I I I I I I I I I I I I I PRECAST CONCRETE CAP PREFINISHED PIPE BOLLARD L MODULAR BLOCK OVERHEAD DOOR RETAINING WALL PREFINISHED METAL B A CAP FLASHING HARDI SOFFIT AND FASCIA \1 TOP OF PARAPET \ 135'-0" ( 11 \� T.O. ROOF TRUSS J 133'-2 1/2" — - I NICHIHA WOOD PANEL TYPE 1 ; THIRD FLOOR _. 122'-8" -• - ANDERSON 100 SERIES WINDOWS ASPHALT SHINGLES HARDI SOFFIT AND �_ FASCIA \ - ' - SECOND FLOOR 11 j-- 111'-8" (� i ARCH.PRECAST CONCRETE CAP UTILITY BRICK VENEER, TYP. \� FIRST FLOOR J 100'-0" 7 EAST ENTRY A202 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IN S TA. NUM R. 22976 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION I v 0 >N N O c6 Ln U) Ll) U ('13) N C _ O -�0 cow '2 oo�� wa cu"� M m In N co V 0Ci 00 L. LLQ 3CO Co W co W �a 0 w00- R0� 0o �N _�¢ �—w Lu w w ♦/� Q < V♦ CSO> -U W UJOfco a>oa oww Lu U) ee_ �Lu '}Q z0 0 Q O Q z ouzo 0 Q=CD ujU) o C Lu Z J � W L JCL 1 Q Q a W Ji J�� U) oa�� Uo Q o u co w 2f c/) C/)) LD w m N w O LL UwQ¢ w wo U) Z 0 UMAY 23, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 c/) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Z 0 U 0 LL A202 0 Z O Q Z W W J CN M O O m H J cn J H W Z W Z V Q � O Z CV LU O � 00 Z G � 0 v 0 >N N O c6 Ln U) Ll) U ('13) N C _ O -�0 cow '2 oo�� wa cu"� M m In N co V 0Ci 00 L. LLQ 3CO Co W co W �a 0 w00- R0� 0o �N _�¢ �—w Lu w w ♦/� Q < V♦ CSO> -U W UJOfco a>oa oww Lu U) ee_ �Lu '}Q z0 0 Q O Q z ouzo 0 Q=CD ujU) o C Lu Z J � W L JCL 1 Q Q a W Ji J�� U) oa�� Uo Q o u co w 2f c/) C/)) LD w m N w O LL UwQ¢ w wo U) Z 0 UMAY 23, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 c/) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Z 0 U 0 LL A202 0 Z TOP OF PARAPET 135-0" T.O. ROOF TRUSS 133'-2 1/2" THIRD FLOOR 122'-8" ECOND FLOOR 111'-8" FIRST FLOOR 100'-0" 3 NORTH A203 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" 01 ENTRY PERSPECTIVE A203 SCALE: N.T.S. ELEVATION 04 WEST ELEVATION A203 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 135'-0" T.O. ROOF TRUSS 133'-2 1/2" THIRD FLOOR 122'-8" SECOND FLOOR 111'-8" FIRST FLOOR 100'-0" GARAGE FLOOR 88'-8" Lli 07 N� I..L L^1J I..L Z 0 U ry Z 0 U 0 LL 0 Z I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF 6I N S TA. NUIM R. 22976 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION J � 0 N N o COLO O Q c U N C V Z V N V fn O Z W - 'N 00 W J N co w � M O 0 m R Cn (B N LLLL R* J U) J H w Z W z V Q O � = o Z cN LU Oz 00 rn m > 3 r 0 N N o COLO d c N U __ C c U N C V Z V N V fn O •� - 'N 00 0 0 M 0 a� Q Y v � M U --Ott, N = CO Vf6 •@ M pU00 R Cn (B N LLLL R* 3 Lf) M Z ; > Lf) cc W M W N �Q0 O Lu J d d H 0 �o �� Lu Z �LDw Luw�w Q 0 z LLJw Z Z}U � m wcH) >oa c/) Q LLILwu 0 } o�ao Q ZO C') O=0 LL' 0 Fn Z J 0 L1J U) Q CL d cl)ZaZ g �Lwu Wu Q 0 Z U O O 0 z Q U) LD w U) m W J Q Q LLL O U) MAY 23, 2019 PROJECT No: 08-1866.00 COLORED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A203 0 U 0. z W m U) z U) J 0 CL Q W z z 73 0 0 CO 7) U) U) W Z) z W a a z W X 0 wsb May 30, 2019 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Monticello Senior Living Site Plan Review City Project No. 2019-100 WSB Project No. R-012792-000 Dear Mr. Leonard: We have reviewed the civil plans and stormwater management plan dated April 1, 2019 as prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and offer the following comments: Site Plan Wright County plans to re -stripe CSAH 39 in 2020 to include a center left turn lane from Hart Blvd to the east in 2020. This will remove through left turning vehicles from the current though lane to improve traffic flow, roadway efficiency and reduce rear -end collisions. The center turn lane will also address the merging traffic issue on eastbound CSAH 39 east of Hart Boulevard by reducing the thru lane traffic from two lanes to one lane to accommodate a center left turn lane. Wright County's project also includes pavement rehabilitation and it is not planned or warranted to include any intersection improvements at Hart Blvd. The crash history at the intersection of County 39 and Hart Boulevard does not pose a concern at this time. City staff will discuss with the County, installation of dynamic speed signs or other devices to control speed if it is deemed necessary. 2. Removal of the trees along CSAH 39 within the site, will likely improve sight lines at the intersection of Hart Blvd. It is not anticipated that there will be a need for turn lanes or other operational improvements on Hart Boulevard based on the traffic generated from the site. The proposed accessing spacing aligns with existing access points on the west side of Hart Boulevard to aid in eliminating turning conflicts. 4. Include typical sections for the trail and parking areas including heavy duty concrete and bituminous pavements. The access drive along the site is to be used for fire truck access, staff will confirm if the 16 -foot width is acceptable. The pavement design shall be provided and confirm that it is adequate for fire truck loading. Detail should be provided as any impacts to the proposed adjacent retaining wall. KA012792-000\Admin\Docs\040819 Submittal\Ltr-m-leonard Senior Living Review-053018.docx Monticello Senior Living May 30, 2019 Page 2 6. ADA compliant pedestrian ramps shall be constructed at the corner of Hart Blvd and CSAH 39 where the proposed trail/sidewalk connects. 7. Show the existing utilities. 8. Label the boulevard widths between Hart Blvd and the proposed sidewalk. The maximum boulevard grade is 4%. Grading Plan 9. The existing home located on Hart Blvd immediately east of the site shows a ground surface elevation of 931.3 according to the ALTA survey. The City design guidelines require at least 2 feet of freeboard between the pond's HWL and the low opening of adjacent homes. This requirement is currently not met and the applicant shall provide solutions to meeting this requirement. 10. Label the HWL for the infiltration pond on the grading plan. 11. Label the EOF for the infiltration basin and the entrance to the underground parking area on the plan sheet. 12. Provide the building basement elevation, the plan shows 953.03, which is incorrect and higher than the FIFE elevation. 13. Underground parking is proposed for the site and does not appear to have a positive overland EOF route. Consideration shall be given in the design such that the garage area will not be at risk of frequent flooding. It's recommended that trench drains, a sump pump system and secondary containment of the 100 year runoff volume be considered in the design. 14. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height require a railing at the top of the wall and shall be designed and certified by a licensed professional engineer. The material type and color should be identified. 15. Identify the slope grades in the green areas. City requires a maximum 4:1 slope. 16. A profile of the trail slope shall be provided and designed to meet comply with ADA requirements. 17. ADA complaint sidewalk and pedestrian ramp grade details shall be shown to include providing a 2% maximum cross slope for the pedestrian route across the proposed driveways. Storm Sewer Plan 18. Provide details on how existing storm sewer manhole (STR-25) will be modified given grade changes and existing pipes to be removed/added. 19. All flared -end sections shall include grouted riprap per City specifications. 20. Sheet piling, per City detail 4008, shall be provided at the FES's entering the pond. Monticello Senior Living May 30, 2019 Page 3 Stormwater Manaqement Plan 21. Verify that the stormwater calculations include the future addition and any future parking areas. 22. The regional stormwater pond that this site drains to was designed to provide an infiltration volume for 2.2 acres of impervious from this site. This site proposes to add 2.073 acres of impervious, therefore the water quality requirements from this site are met with the use of the regional pond. 23. The site design must incorporate rate control onsite to match existing rates. The applicant is proposing the use of an infiltration basin in the southeast corner of the site to meet rate control. An overall rate reduction from the site is met. 24. Pretreatment is required prior to discharge into an infiltration basin. A sump manhole is proposed at STR-14 however the 4 -foot sump depth should be based on the outlet elevation to the pond (SE). 25. An infiltration rate of 0.45 inches per hour has been used in the pond calculations, this equates to an allowable infiltration depth of 1.8 feet in 48 hours. The basin depth of 1.0 feet will drawdown within 48 hours. 26. Soil classifications from the geotechnical investigation can be used for preliminary design purposes, however confirmation infiltration testing of the constructed systems will be required. 27. Soils that have infiltration rates greater than 8.3 inches per hour must be amended to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour, per the CSWGP. 28. Provide rational method calculations confirming adequacy of the storm sewer design for the 10 -year storm event and connection to the existing storm sewer system. Calculations should adhere to the following guidelines: a. The rational method runoff coefficient (c) is designated by land use and should be assigned a value no less than 0.7. b. Minimum allowable velocity in closed conduit = 3.0 fps c. Maximum allowable velocity in closed conduit = 12.0 fps 29. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing. 30. A stormwater maintenance agreement will be required. A template will be provided to the applicant. HvdroCAD Model 31. Update model for existing and proposed conditions using Atlas 14 storm events with an MSE3 type distribution 2 -yr (2.84"), 10 -yr (4.22"), 100 -yr (6.87"), 10 -day snowmelt (7.2") Monticello Senior Living May 30, 2019 Page 4 32. In the HydroCAD model the directly connected impervious should be modeled as separate, not a weighted CN. 33. HydroCAD model area for existing (5.020 acres) and proposed (5.995 acres) do not match, please revise to model the same areas. 34. Existing HydroCAD model uses C soils and the proposed model is using B soils. Please confirm the soil type and make it consistent for both models. 35. HydroCAD model, Pond 4P the 48" grate device's invert elevation is inaccurate please correct this. 36. HydroCAD model, add a starting elevation for Pond 4P to reflect the elevation of the outlet pipe. Utilitv Plan 37. The plans call for excavating into Hart Blvd to tie into the existing watermain and extending two new 8 -inch water services to the site. Confirm that the existing 6 -inch watermain stubs to the site cannot be utilized to maintain adequate pressures and fire flows. The applicant indicated that a fire flow test was completed to determine this. 38. The applicant's engineer has indicated that the sanitary sewer connections are proposed to connect to the existing sanitary sewer to the rear of the lot and not extend from Hart Boulevard as shown on the plans. Further review comments will be provided once the plans are updated. An outside drop section per City detail plate 3002 shall be provided in the plans for these connections. 39. Identify the existing sanitary sewer manhole modifications due to grade changes. It appears the manhole along CSAH 39 will be located in the proposed trail. 40. A note should be added to the plans that the City will not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that is associated with variations in the utility as -built elevations. These elevations shall be verified in the field prior to construction. 41. The contractor shall apply for a utility excavation permit from Public Works prior to connecting to or modifications to City utilities. 42. Irrigation plans should be providing with the building permit submittal for review. Civil Details 43. Include MnDOT pedestrian ramp details. 44. Include outside drop section for sanitary manhole detail no. 3002. 45. Include trash guard for end section detail plate no. 4007 46. Include piling for flared end section detail plate no. 4008 47. Include "utility excavation in city streets 5 years or older" detail plate no. 7006 for street patching if determined necessary based on watermain connection needs as noted above. Monticello Senior Living May 30, 2019 Page 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan/SWPPP 48. For the proposed infiltration area, include information in the SWPPP that the infiltration area will not be excavated to final grade until the contributing drainage area has been stabilized. In addition, rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls must be implemented to keep all runoff and sediment out of the infiltration practice. (Part 16.4) 49. Include estimated quantities for all proposed temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices. (Part 5.7) 50. Specify what type of erosion control blanket is proposed on the plan sheets. (Part 5.5) 51. Provide detail for proposed check dams. (Part 5.5) 52. Specify temporary and permanent stabilization methods for all exposed soils on the plan sheets. (Part 5.5) 53. Specify how the normal wetted perimeter of the last 200 feet of the temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale will be stabilized within 24 hours of connecting to a surface water or property edge in the plan sheets. (Part 8.6) 54. Specify in the SWPPP that the dewatering plan must include BMPs to prevent sediment transport, erosion, and adverse impacts to downstream receiving waters. In addition, the dewatering plan must include any specific chemical treatments that will be used. (Part 10.2-10.5) 55. Specify maintenance and inspection requirements to be consistent with the NPDES CSW Permit Parts 11.2-11.11 in the SWPPP. (Part 11.2-11.11) 56. Add inlet protection to the catch basins on west side of Hart Blvd adjacent fronting the site. 57. Add perimeter protection such as bioroll around infiltration basin. 58. The proposed development falls within the DNR Wild and Scenic River District for the Mississippi River and must incorporate best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the NPDES/SDS stormwater permit for construction and be identified in the SWPPP. Landscape Plan 59. Proposed landscaping shall be adjusted so that it does not block the EOF route and not interfere with access and maintenance of existing and proposed utilities. Confirm that the proposed landscaping onsite along CSAH 39 will provide adequate sight lines for vehicles existing Hart Boulevard into CSAH 39. Other 60. Add a note that all construction shall conform to the City's General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction, dated April 2017, located on the City's website, Engineering Department. Monticello Senior Living May 30, 2019 Page 6 61. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement for the retaining wall and fire access drive that is proposed within the drainage and utility easement. The City will provide the agreement for the applicant's review. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please give me a call at 612-360-1304 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Sincerely, WSB IA!,.- - i. 4,OPLI Shibani K. Bisson, PE Senior Project Manager Jt4-17 v ❑� 2 April 2019 0 Ip ❑ RE: CSAH 39 -PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RESTRIPING X955 Wright County applied for and was selected to receive Highway Safety Improvement funding for safety improvements along the CSAH 39 corridor from Hart Blvd in Monticello to O'Dean Ave NE in Otsego. Work will include pavement preservation and re -striping for a continuous two-way center Wright County left -turn lane (TWLTL). The project will also include minor widening at intersections to maintain Highway Department existing right -turn lanes. All work will be done within the existing right-of-way. 3600 Braddock Ave NE Buffalo, MN 55313 The continuous TWLTL will provide spatial separation between opposing lanes of traffic, reducing head on collisions. In addition, due to the density of driveways, restriping will also remove left Ph: (763)682-7383 turning vehicles from the through lane; improving flow, road efficiency and reducing rear -end Fax: (763)682-7313 collisions. VIRGIL HAWKINS, P.E. EXISTING CSAH 39 TYPICAL SECTION Highway Engineer I CHAD HAUSMANN, P.E. 2 12 12' 2 Assistant Highway Engr. SHLD• THRU WJE THRU LANE 11 -I STEVE MEYER Maintenance ' I. Superintendent I I i< 44' >i JEREMY CARLSON, P.L.S. Right -of -Way Agent i i PROPOSED CSAH 39 TYPICAL SECTION SARA BUERMANN, P.E. i Traffic Engineer —'2 -� 11' 1c' 11' ¢ _g 2' SHED•I THRU LANE BUFFER LnNE I THRU —E ISHLD- 10' WIDTH AT RIGHT TURN LANES I The work east of CSAH 19 to O'Dean Ave NE will begin late summer 2019 and will be done under traffic. Motorists may encounter delays as the road is reduced intermittently to a single lane during daytime hours. Work will continue west of CSAH 19 in 2020. The more extensive pavement preservation project will require a detour in 2020. If there are any questions, please contact Chad Hausmann, Assistant Highway Engineer, chausmannna,co.wrieht.mn.us, 763-682-7387. An Equal Opportunity Employer (reserved for recording information) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT MONTICELLO SENIOR LIVING (LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIVER VIEW SQUARE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated , 2019, is by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and Monticello Senior Housing Owner LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ("Developer") 1. BACKGROUND. A. On , 2019, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow an assisted living facility in an R-4 (medium-high density residential) Zoning District. A copy of the City Council resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit is attached in Exhibit A to this Agreement. The Developer submitted an application to the City with supporting development plans (including, but not limited to, site plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, drainage and utility plan, landscaping plan, building plan) to develop the vacant land in the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, River View Square, consisting of 5.02 acres (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). Page 1 B. The proposed site improvement and conditional use permit for the Property includes a 3 - story building, consisting of 125 dwelling units for a senior housing facility to be developed in two phases. The first phase will consist of 92 units with an additional 33 units planned for the second phase. The total units in the building will provide varying levels of care -- assisted living, independent living and memory care units. The building will incorporate supporting amenities such as dining rooms, pantries, multi-purpose rooms, chapel, beauty shop, activity rooms, theater room, medical clinic space, therapy, library, fitness room spa, and management offices. The operations of this senior living center will be 24 hours a day, 7- days a week. 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The City approved the conditional use permit for the assisted living facility in the R-4 District, including off-street parking spaces and a loading area on the west side of the building as indicated in the Planning Commission Agenda dated June 4, 2019, and approved by the City Council. The conditions of approval consist of: Developer enters into this Agreement, furnishes the security required by it, and records this Agreement, together with any appropriate consents prior to the City's issuance of a building permit for, or development of, the Property. 3. RIGHT TO PROCEED. Within the development, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties with any appropriate consents and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, and 3) Developer has recorded this Agreement in the office of the Wright County Recorder. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Property shall be developed in accordance with the plans submitted for conditional use permit review and approved on , 2019 (including, but not limited to, site plan, erosion control, landscaping plan, parking plan, building plan) ("Approved Development Plans") except as modified under an approved revised site plan to illustrate a total of 125 off-street parking stalls, and by the approved conditions noted herein. The Approved Development Plans shall not be attached to this Contract. 5. PHASED DEVELOPMENT. This development will be completed in two phases. The first phase will comprise 92 units (78 units devoted to assisted living and 14 units devoted to memory care) with 111 parking stalls (61 surface stalls and 50 underground stalls). Development of the proposed second phase will consist of 33 Page 2 additional units and is subject to approval of a conditional use permit amendment process. At the time the Developer seeks to begin Phase I, the 5.02 acre development site is applicable to City review and fees, including all sanitary, watermain and storm sewer charges. 6. LICENSE. Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site development. This license is subject to the rights of future tenants of the Development and terminates upon completion of the work and improvements described in this Agreement. The City's agents, employees, officers and contractors entering the Development subject to this license shall exercise and observe reasonable safety precautions in performing work and inspections permitted by this license. 7. EROSION CONTROL, STORMWATER CONTROL AND STREET CLEANUP. Prior to initiating site grading, an erosion control plan shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The Developer shall clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from site and construction work in the Development by the Developer or any other person or entity. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, or repeatedly fails to clean and sweep streets, and such noncompliance or failure is not cured after ten (10) business days' notice to Developer, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate, including the performance of the necessary work by City staff or contracting to have it performed. Charges incurred with the enforcement of erosion control are the responsibility of the developer. No site and construction work will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the development is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan and storm water control measures are in place. 8. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. Construction traffic access and egress for grading, utility, parking lot and building construction is to be accessed from the west via two 24 -foot wide driveways along Hart Boulevard as approved by, and may be subject to further recommendations of, the City Engineer. 9. OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS. Upon completion of the work and construction required by this Agreement, the underground utility and drainage improvements lying within public easements shall become City property without further notice or action. Page 3 10. STORM SEWER AREA CHARGE. The development is subject to a storm sewer area charge in the amount of $40,501.36. The area charge is based on net acreage and is calculated as follows: Storm Sewer Base: 5.02 acres x $3,985.00 = $20,004.70 Storm Sewer Alternate: 5.02 Acres x $4,083.00 = $20,496.66 The storm sewer area charge for the development shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I. 11. SANITARY SEWER CHARGE. The development is subject to a sanitary sewer charge in the total amount of $136,896.00. The charge is based on the number of units in Phase I and is calculated as follows: 92 units x $1,488.00 = $136,896.00 The total sanitary sewer charge for the development shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I. 12. WATER MAIN CHARGE. The development is subject to a water main charge in the total amount of $101,476.00. The charge is based on the number of units in Phase I and is calculated as follows: 92 units x 1,103.00 = $101,476.00 The total watermain charge for the development shall be paid prior to the time of the issuance of a building permit of Phase I. 13. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. Approval of the conditional use permit and site plan is subject to the following conditions: A. The site plan shall be modified to demonstrate that a total of 125 off-street parking stalls can be provided upon the subject site, subject to review for modification of requirements at the time of the second phase. B. Phase 2 of the senior living facility shall be subject to conditional use permit amendment processing. C. All landscape areas upon the subject site shall be irrigated. D. Building finish materials are found to be consistent with Ordinance requirements. E. The Fire Marshal provide comment and recommendation regarding fire protection issues/requirements for the building. F. The applicants shall provide details related to waste storage and removal activities. Page 4 G. A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted subject to City review and approval. H. The submitted site plan shall be modified to illustrate the proposed monument sign location. I. All signs erected upon the subject site shall meet applicable Sign Ordinance requirements and be subject to sign permit. J. Units within the senior living facility shall conform with applicable minimum floor area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. This issue shall be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Building Official. K. Compliance with the comments of the City Engineer's review letter, dated May 30th, 2019. L. To ensure that drop -off -pick and up activities will not disrupt two-way traffic circulation, consideration be given to providing a designated (separate) drop-off/pick-up lane beneath the proposed entrance canopy. M. The developer shall execute the required project development agreement, stormwater maintenance agreement and encroachment agreement. 14. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. A. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all of the above plans, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form in Exhibit B to this Agreement, from a bank ("security") for $88,125.00. The amount of the security was calculated as follows: CONSTRUCTION COSTS: Sidewalks/Trails $ 70,500.00 CONSTRUCTION SUB -TOTAL (ESTIMATED) $ 70,500.00 OTHER COSTS: Lot Corners/Iron Monuments $ NA TOTAL COSTS $ 70,500.00 TOTAL SECURITIES: Total Costs X 125% $ 88,125.00 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The bank shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, on five (5) business days written notice to the Developer, for any violation of the terms of this Contract or without notice if the security is allowed to lapse prior to the end of the required term. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have Page 5 been satisfied, with City approval the security may be reduced from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until all improvements have been completed. B. To guarantee the completion of subject property landscaping improvements in compliance with approved plans, the Developer shall furnish the City with Security in the amount of $175,000.00 to guarantee landscaping of the subject property in accordance with approved plans. The Security shall be held for two complete growing seasons after installation of landscaping materials to guarantee compliance with City landscaping standards. C. The Developer shall furnish the City with Security in the amount of $15,060.00 to guarantee grading of the subject property in compliance with the approved grading plan. 15. SUMMARY OF CASH REQUIREMENTS. A. The Developer shall submit an escrow deposit for fees relating to City administration, legal and planning -related expenses associated with the Plat development. Fees for this service shall be at standard hourly rates per the City's adopted fee schedule estimated to be two percent (2.0%), or $6,000.00 of the estimated construction cost of the Public Improvements, assuming normal construction and project scheduling. B. The Developer shall pay a fee for the City's engineering administration as related to the Public Improvements. City engineering administration will include monitoring of construction observation related to Public Improvements, consultation with Developer and its engineer on status or problems regarding the project, coordination for final inspection and acceptance, project monitoring during the warranty period, and processing of requests for reduction in security. Fees for this service shall be at standard hourly rates per the City's adopted fee schedule estimated to be four percent (4.0%), of the estimated construction cost of the Public Improvements, assuming normal construction and project scheduling. Developer will provide a $2,820.00 escrow, which is separate and in addition to any other escrow funds for this Development, to pay the fees owed to the City under this Section. The Developer shall pay for construction observation performed by the City's consulting engineer. Construction observation shall include part or full-time inspection of proposed public utilities and will be billed on standard hourly rates per City's adopted fee schedule. The cost of the construction observation is included in the four (4%) estimate. Page 6 C. The Developer shall pay a fee for the City's engineering administration as related to grading and restoration of the subject property. City engineering administration will include monitoring of construction observation related to grading and restoration of the site, consultation with Developer and his engineer on status or problems regarding the project, coordination for final inspection and acceptance, and processing of requests for reduction in security. Fees for this service shall be at standard hourly rates per the City's adopted fee schedule estimated to be three percent (3.0%), Developer will provide a $7,350.00 escrow, which is separate and in addition to any other escrow funds for this Development, to pay the fees owed to the City under this Section. The fees owed by the Developer to the City under this Section shall be paid from the escrows amounts. Any amounts not utilized from the escrow account shall be returned to the Developer when all the Development has been completed in accordance with this Agreement. If additional escrow amounts are required for such costs incurred beyond the escrow deposit, the Developer shall be billed directly for such costs and there shall be no issuance of occupancy permits until all such obligations have been fully paid. D. The following is a summary of the cash requirements under this Contract which must be furnished to the City prior to the time of building permit issuance: Administration (2%) $ 2,000.00* Legal (2%) $ 2,000.00* Planning (2%) $ 2,000.00* Engineering and Inspection: Grading and Restoration (3%) $ 7,350.00* Streets and Utilities (4%) $ 2,820.00* GPS Locate $ 60.00* Total Cash Requirements $ 16,230.00 * Fees reconciled to actual expenses at close of project. 16. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the site, including but not limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval of the site plan, the preparation of this Agreement, review of any other plans and documents. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site approval and Page 7 development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorneys' fees. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year. 17. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. C. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has fee title to the Property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. Page 8 F. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer, including nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits and certificates of occupancy, and the halting of all work on the property. G. The Developer represents to the City that the development complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the development does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the development until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. 18. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 19. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: 17550 Hemlock Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN 55362. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow.] Page 9 CITY OF MONTICELLO (SEAL) And STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) Brian Stumpf, Mayor Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019, by Brian Stumpf and Jeff O'Neill, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public Page 10 DEVELOPER: Monticello Senior Housing Owner LLC UZ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) Michael Hoagberg, Its Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019, by Michael Hoagberg, the Manager of Monticello Senior Housing Owner LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the entity. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL, KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 JJJ Page 11 EXHIBIT A City Council Approval of CUP Page 12 EXHIBIT B FORM OF IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $ , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, 'Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated , 2 , of (Name of Bank) it, b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Monticello. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) . on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 20_ This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Monticello City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Monticello City Administrator, Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN 55362, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. Its Page 13 Page 14 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES/FINANCE PLAN Multi -Phase Project v3 Total Acres in Development Total Acres in Phase Total Units in Development Total Units in Phase 5.02 gross 5.02 net 5.02 gross 5.02 net Single Family Townhome 125 Mutli-Family Single Family Townhome 92 Multi -Family Trunk Area Charges & Park Dedication Acreage Acres or Credits Net Notes Charge Units Assessment Park & Pathway Dedication Park Dedication Provided NA Special Assessments Lift Station NA Little Mountain Booster Station NA Sanitary Sewer (unit) $1,488 92 $136,896.00 Paid at prevailing rate at time of permit Watermain (unit) $1,103 92 $101,476.00 Paid at prevailing rate at time of permit Storm Sewer Base (net acres) $3,985 5.02 $20,004.70 Paid at prevailing rate at time of permit Storm Sewer Alternate $4,083 5.02 $20,496.66 Paid at prevailing rate at time of permit City Review & Inspection Escrows City Escrow ( General overhead and Admin) 2.00% $2,000.00 $2,000 minimum; Actual; cost reconciled at project completion Legal 2.00% $2,000.00 $2,000 minimum; Actual; cost reconciled at project completion Planning 2.00% $2,000.00 $2,000 minimum; Actual; cost reconciled at project completion Engineering and Inspection $2,000 minimum; Actual; cost reconciled at project completion Grading, Restoration & 3.00% $7,350.00 Based on estimated grading cost, provide estimate Erosion & Sediment Control Inspection Streets and Utilities Review & Inspection 4.00% $2,820.00 Provide estimated pathway and sidewalk costs GPS Locate $60 1 $60.00 Total City Fees $16,230.001 Paid at time of building permit Improvement Construction Costs (Used to Calculate City Fees/Escrows/Securities) Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Roads, Driveways and Sidewalks/Trails Lighting, Street Signage, Mailboxes total (for purpose of Lot Corners/Iron Monuments other $300 Total Construction Cost for the purpose of calculating LOC Maximum allowable reduction prior to acceptance and bond Notes NA NA NA $70,500.00 Provide estimated pathway and sidewalk cost estimate NA NA 90.00%1 $79,3 Landscaping $175,000.00 Based on estimate of landscaping cost x 125% - provide estimate Prairie Restoration Based on estimate of restoration and maintenance cost Tree Preservation Grading $3,000 5.02 $15,060.00 Surety for gra ding to plan and restoration $190,060.50 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15th, 2019 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Special Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance to the 25' maximum height requirement for principal structures in the Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River District to 35' in height for a Multi- family/Assisted Living Facilitv in the R-4 (Medium -High Densitv Residence) District Applicant: Monticello Senior Housing Owner, LLC — Michael Hoagberg Steve Grittman introduced the item. He noted that at the previous June Planning Commission, the applicant proposed a Conditional Use Permit to accommodate the use of a site for an assisted living and multi -family building located on Hart Boulevard. Grittman explained a miscommunication with DNR staff occurred resulting in a variance request to the height in the Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River District (MWSRRD). Under DNR code, the height is restricted to 35 feet, however the City of Monticello has a more restrictive standard of 25 feet. DNR staff noted because the standard is more restrictive with the City, their code applies. Grittman indicated that the applicant's plan show a 35 foot tall building from finished grade. Staff recommended approval of the application for variance with conditions. He noted that the site could accommodate a two story rather than a three story building, but the impact to the site would be greater. He noted that the amount of green space would be significantly less and more stormwater would be impacted. It was noted that the applicant did request tabling of action on the previous application for CUP to allow a decision on the variance. Sam Murdoff asked how many units were proposed for the third floor. Grittman estimated 35-40 units. John Alstad asked if there may be other developable parcels in the MWSRRD. Grittman explained that the subject parcel is the only R-4 piece in the MWSRRD. It was noted that the Mississippi Shores project is above the 25 feet requirement but was approved previous to the new code for the MWSRRD adopted in 2011. Angela Schumann noted a three story multi -family building in the vicinity. Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meeting) — July 2nd, 2019 Page 1 1 3 Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. John Tennessen, 1580 Hart Boulevard, noted frustration with the City's more restrictive code in the MWSRRD. He recommended amending the code to meet the DNR's standard. He explained the concerns the restriction had on building expansion and new businesses. Steve Grittman responded that the City is looking into amending the ordinance to sync with State rules with a possible August Planning Commission consideration. David Lemieur, 3265 137th Lane Northwest, Andover (property owner) explained appreciation for the rezoning of the property. He noted frustration with the City in the process for the variance and explained that the 35 foot building was shown on previous plans with no issues. Lemieur stated that the property has been marketed for sale for 19 years as a commercial site with no interest. He explained that the building would be an asset and compatible to the surrounding sites. Michael Hoagberg, Headwater's Development, noted that his team have done everything they could to stay within city code and zoning. They were cautious with the selecting a height of a building. He noted that the project would not be possible with only two stories especially with city code standards for setbacks, surface coverage area, and unit size. Hoagberg noted that business inefficiency would exist with a smaller building. He explained that in all of the City's process for land use that the 35 foot building was shown on his plans. Hoagberg noted that the 35 feet was used per the DNR's standards. Albert Blazevic, a property owner, noted frustration with the City's process. He noted that the building height was already discussed at previous meetings. Shawn Weinand, 40656 Chelsea Road, strongly suggested to amend the City's code to match the DNR's standard for height in the MWSRRD. Weinand supported the development plans submitted by Headwater's Development. Lloyd Hilgart, 6413 82nd St NE., asked staff if Bondhus Corporation recently received a variance for height in the MWSRRD. Schumann confirmed. Hilgart explained that the view would have minimal impacts with the development of the site. Hilgart appreciated that the applicant was still at the table and noted the City's error in the processing the variance. Hilgart noted that the City would review the amendment to the code. Schumann noted that a preliminary review of the code amendment to the MWSRRD would occur in August, but would not likely be approved for a few months due to the DNR's required review of the amendment. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Sam Murdoff expressed concerns with the project requiring a variance. Steve Grittman explained the process for appeal of the variance decision. Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meeting) — July 2nd, 2019 Page 2 13 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PC -2019-022 APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SENIOR MULTI- FAMILY/ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IN AN R-4 DISTRICT AT A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. EXHIBIT Z Monticello Senior Living Facility Variance to Wild and Scenic River District Height Limit of 25 feet Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square 1. The applicant successfully completes processing of the Conditional Use Permit for the project, and complies with the conditions of approval required by the City Council. 2. Other conditions of staff and Planning Commission. 3. Adjournment MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:57 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: August 6, 2019 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meeting) — July 2nd, 2019 Page 3 13 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR A BUILDING IN THE MISSISSIPPI WILD AND SCENIC RECREATIONAL RIVER OVERLAY DISTRICT (MWSRR) LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIVERVIEW SQUARE WHEREAS. Michael Hoagberg, on behalf of Monticello Senior Housing, LLC, is requesting a variance to the maximum height requirements for a building in the MWSRR Overlay District to construct a building up to 3S feet in height; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site drawing and other documents illustrating the location of the proposed building on the property for review; and WHEREAS, the proposed use is subject to an application for Conditional Use Pen -nit, separately from the height variance; and WHEREAS, the applicable height allowance under the City's current Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational Overlay District regulations is 25 feet; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota would allow a building height up to 35 feet under its existing rules; and WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with all other requirements of the base zoning district of RA Medium and High Density Residence District. and WHEREAS, the requested additional height would accommodate: the allowable density on three floors, rather than two floors of units; and WHEREAS, the additional height would substantially reduce the lot coverage necessary for the building to house the allowed number of units; and WHEREAS, the additional height would increase green and open space on the property; and WHEREAS, the additional green space would have the effect of reducing stonnwater impacts from the project; and WHEREAS, the additional height would have the likely effect of reducing building massing of the project, and decreasing visual impact from surrounding streets or property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15, 2019, on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all comments and the staff report, and, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, makes the following Findings of Fact in regard to the proposed variance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties in improving the property in a reasonable manner, due to the location of the lot and the impacts of the varying height requirements applicable to buildings in the base zoning district and overlays. 2. The existing parcel is of otherwise sufficient size and area. 3. Additional building height will accommodate a reduced impact on the property in terms of impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. 4. The proposed height will increase green and open space on the subject property compared to a lower building of the same density. 5. The increased height will result in a reduced visual impact from surrounding property due to significantly less building mass and lot coverage. 6. These facts constitute reasonable use of the property under the request, and for which the site conditions and code requirements create practical difficulties in achieving this reasonable use. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, SITTING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS, that the requested variance to the maximum height requirements for a building in the Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District is approved. ADOPTED BY the Monticello Planning Commission this 15'h day of July, 2019. CITY OF MONTICELLO a Sam Murdoff, Cha' ATTEST: ngela ori ommunity Development Director City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 4B. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2019-57 accenting a petition and authorizing preparation of a Feasibilitv Report for the extension of Fallon Avenue north of the Fallon Avenue and 7th Street intersection at an estimated cost of $20.000 (JO/ML) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A petition has been received for the extension of Fallon Avenue north of the newly constructed roundabout at 7the Street and Fallon Avenue. It was determined that the petition contains the signatures of the owners of at least 35% in frontage of the property bordering the proposed improvements. The petition states that a "street be improved by development of road, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, storm sewer, sanitary sewer mains and water mains pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429". In 2016 the city purchased property from the Church of St. Henry of Monticello, Minnesota for the construction of the Fallon Avenue and 7th Street Roundabout and the future extension of 7th Street. The city paid $963,407 for the property and this agreement indicated that the St. Henry's Church shall not be accessed for any part of the Fallon Avenue bridge and 7th Street intersection of the future Fallon Avenue road extension and utility project. It was also agreed that the city would construct a curb cut/ access driveway apron to the Fallon Avenue extension in the northwest corner of the church remainder parcel at an acceptable distance north of the new roundabout. The purchase agreement also indicated that if the adjacent Malone, Busch, or Jameson properties are re -zoned commercial use that the city would pay the church the difference between the per square foot purchase price and the fair market value for commercial or mixed use as the date the property is rezoned. The proposed project would construct an approximately 400' extension of Fallon Avenue as shown in the attached drawing. The preliminary project cost estimate is $615,000 and this will be further analyzed as part of the feasibility report. The feasibility report will also look at existing conditions, funding sources (including special assessments), preliminary project schedule and determination of the necessity, feasibility and cost- effectiveness of the proposed improvements. Since a petition was received a resolution determining whether the petition is legally sufficient or not. If the petition is determined to be valid a simple majority vote from council is required for ordering the improvement following the completion of the feasibility report. If a valid petition isn't received a super majority vote is required to order the improvement. Al. Budget Impact: The cost to complete the feasibility report is estimated at $20,000 and if the project moves forward this cost would be included in the assessments. Due to the agreement with St. Henry's it is anticipated that the city would be responsible for a portion of the improvement and the amount would be determined as part of the feasibility report. This report would be funded as part of the capital projects fund and it was not included in the 2019 budget. A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff impacts are expected to be minimal. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2019-57 accepting the petition as valid and order the City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 completion of a feasibility report for the extension of Fallon Avenue north of 7th Street. 2. Motion to accept the petition as valid and to not to move forward with a feasibility report. 3. Motion to reject the petition as invalid. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Action #1 accepting the petition as valid and ordering the completion of a feasibility report for the extension of Fallon Avenue north of 7th Street. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resolution B. Petition C. Roadway extension exhibit D. Engineer's estimate E. Agreement with St. Henry's Church W CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-57 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PETITION AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE EXTENSION OF FALLON AVENUE NORTH OF THE 7TH STREET AND FALLON AVENUE INTERSECTION WHEREAS, a petition was filed with the City of Monticello requesting the extension of Fallon Avenue north of the intersection of 7th Street and Fallon Avenue; and WHEREAS, the owners of said petition constitute more than 35 percent of the frontage of real property abutting the said improvement and WHEREAS, the improvements would include road, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, storm sewer, sanitary sewer mains and water mains pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELL0, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer and that the City Engineer is instructed to report back to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost- effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 12th day of August, 2019. Brian Stumpf, Mayor ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator Monticello, Minnesota, July 15,2019. To the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on the future extension of Fallon Avenue north of the intersection of 711 Street and Fallon Avenue hereby petition that such street be improved by development of road, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, storm sewer, sanitary sewer mains and water mains pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. Si na re of Owner Description of Property 11 ), '?d� z. emc� `f'}') `y�1� 4a2 .�aucvt CUte. yl�crctcccQ.�� 3. 4. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. I lam' ty Cier f Monticello, Minnesota, July 15,2019. To the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on the future extension of Fallon Avenue north of the intersection of 7t" Street and Fallon Avenue hereby petition that such street be improved by development of road, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, storm sewer, sanitary sewer mains and water mains pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. Sig ture of Owner e Description of Property .� 5;K,e .ti 2. .� . 3. 4. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. i Clerk Monticello, Minnesota, July 15,2019. To the City Council of Monticello, Mnnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on the future extension of Fallon Avenue north of the intersecton of -p Street and Fallon Avenue hereby petition that such street be improved by development of road, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, storm sewer, sanitary sewer mains and water mains pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. Signature of Owner Description of PropertyBSAail . `f ° 4. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. r' Cip Clerk 47 Monticello, Minnesota, July 15,2019. To the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on the future extension of Fallon Avenue north of the intersection of 7th Street and Fallon Avenue hereby petition that such street be improved by development of road, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, storm sewer, sanitary sewer mains and water mains pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. Signature of Owner Description of Property ou� 2. 1=� `7A 3. 4. Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. Clerk ,7 , w �♦ Iiw IIw I,w ' I ♦ �rJ�Y_a � i i ♦i� i o,�\ � � I Af no k 1 4t - 4 ' # -lit .. '\•,+tet. >- -4-Y f tk I .- � '. ,ire. .•A � � x' ' _. �r , � i. .. f • III' J. 41 a` ''� 1 y ; 105' x9 ' 293' Ilk !♦♦ ; `` f' i 225' ^` ..♦..:..� 5" - � 1. (� f f � •! Ily.y � .fit � ��?* � r. . �` \ • .': �< 1111111 � F. '�. '�'3 .� v � � ,1 .. . x ♦� �♦ ILL.�`:u`� 4.��`�� •l1/I:,R1/1 ��`• I ~•'�'� �* i� �_..f.•�}��+. /,• 4 :yyy►►► i \ 1111 `. `��`` ��-��'� 1 �11J1 �'� ��'' \ I k .. 7 / ._ R�'v Ir 1111!11' ``'its! 1111+1 `1111111111 `r. '-- I 95' 1 III1� ` !•+111, 1111111 11JIr9�11 _ --- - . � f f � _ `I11111',4 1j111---�a■■■■\■• J;'�,` f � � . i � ,t? _ �... }.1` a IIs++�, } !!� M�+�v. ,t` `,, f if• � r 19 }}yyam� \ . ��.ttt tl ■ ■ a� `� . I 'yl -n ,. ' r si s'� ♦fav `i. it OPINION OF PROBABLE COST WSB Project: Fallon Avenue N Extension Design By: KJG Project Location: Monticello, MN Checked By.- SB City Project No.: WSB Project No: 014568-000 Date: 8/6/2019 MnDOT Item Estimated Total Estimated Unit Estimated Total Specification Description Unit No. Quantity Price Cost o A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5%) LS 1 $ 13,435.90 $ 13,435.90 2 2101.524 CLEARING TREE 12 $ 250.00 $ 3,000.00 3 2101.524 GRUBBING TREE 12 $ 250.00 $ 3,000.00 4 2104.502 SALVAGE SIGN EACH 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00 5 2104.503 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 200 $ 5.00 $ 1,000.00 6 2104.503 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER L F 150 $ 7.50 $ 1,125.00 7 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 45 $ 4.50 $ 202.50 8 2104.518 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK S F 430 $ 3.50 $ 1,505.00 9 2105.601 DEWATERING LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 10 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 775 $ 14.00 $ 10,850.00 11 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 767 $ 14.00 $ 10,738.00 12 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)- 2' C Y 1533 $ 16.00 $ 24,528.00 13 2106.507 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 4720 $ 12.00 $ 56,640.00 14 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 5 $ 250.00 $ 1,250.00 15 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 10 $ 150.00 $ 1,500.00 16 2130.523 WATER MGAL 50 $ 50.00 $ 2,500.00 17 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5- 6" TON 725 $ 18.00 $ 13,050.00 18 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3,B)- 2" TON 260 $ 74.00 $ 19,240.00 19 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)- 2" TON 260 $ 76.00 $ 19,760.00 20 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 3165 $ 8.00 $ 25,320.00 21 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 480 $ 10.00 $ 4,800.00 22 2521.518 3" BITUMINOUS WALK S F 430 $ 5.00 $ 2,150.00 23 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 1294 $ 18.00 $ 23,292.00 24 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 64 $ 55.00 $ 3,520.00 25 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 26 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 100 $ 45.00 $ 4,500.00 27 2564.602 INSTALL SIGN EACH 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00 28 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 29 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 $ 150.00 $ 1,500.00 30 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 440 $ 3.00 $ 1,320.00 31 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 220 $ 2.50 $ 550.00 32 2574.507 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 362 $ 22.00 $ 7,964.00 33 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 LB 135 $ 25.00 $ 3,375.00 34 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3N S Y 2167 $ 5.00 $ 10,835.00 35 2575.505 SEEDING ACRE 0.5 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,500.00 36 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-151 LB 54 $ 8.00 $ 432.00 37 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE MULTI COMP L F 30 $ 2.25 $ 67.50 38 2582.503 4" DBLE SOLID LINE MULTI COMP L F 225 $ 1.75 $ 393.75 39 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PREF THERMO S F 30 $ 7.00 $ 210.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ 282,153.65 CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) $ 28,215.37 SUBTOTAL $ 310,369.02 INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) $ 86,903.32 TOTAL $ 397,272.34 B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 40 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 41 2503.603 8" PVC PIPE SEWER AND 3 SERVICES LF 585 $ 45.00 $ 26,325.00 42 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 3 $ 550.00 $ 1,650.00 43 2506.602 CHIMNEY SEAL EACH 3 $ 350.00 $ 1,050.00 44 2506.603 CONSTRUCT 48" DIA SAN MANHOLE LF 55 $ 375.00 $ 20,625.00 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ 51,650.00 CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) $ 5,165.00 SUBTOTAL $ 56,815.00 INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) $ 15,908.20 TOTAL $ 72,723.20 C. WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS 45 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 46 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 2 $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00 47 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 2 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 48 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 49 2504.603 6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52 L F 50 2504.603 8" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52 AND 3 SERVICES L F 51 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION S Y 52 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB D. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 53 2501.502 21" RC PIPE APRON 54 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 21" PIPE APRON 55 2503.503 12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V 56 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V 57 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III 58 2503.503 21" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III a 59 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER 60 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY 61 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 62 2506.602 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 63 2511.504 GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE 4 64 2511.507 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS IV EACH EACH LF LF LF LF EACH EACH LF EACH SY CY 2 $ 1,800.00 $ 30 $ 42.00 $ 585 $ 48.00 $ 20 $ 25.00 $ 1000 $ 8.50 $ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) $ SUBTOTAL $ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) $ TOTAL $ 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1 $ 750.00 $ 100 $ 50.00 $ 150 $ 55.00 $ 150 $ 60.00 $ 200 $ 65.00 $ 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 2 $ 550.00 $ 10 $ 375.00 $ 2 $ 2,500.00 $ 25 $ 5.00 $ 10 $ 85.00 $ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) $ SUBTOTAL $ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) $ TOTAL $ GRAND TOTAL $ 3,600.00 1,260.00 28,080.00 500.00 8,500.00 53,440.00 5,344.00 58,784.00 16,459.52 75,243.52 1,200.00 750.00 5,000.00 8,250.00 9,000.00 13, 000.00 _ 1,500.00 1,100.00 3,750.00 5,000.00 125.00 850.00 49, 525.00 4,952.50 54,477.50 15,253.70 69,731.20 614,970.26 RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into the 1 } 'day of 1�c e- _ , 2016, by and between THE CHURCH OF ST. HENRY OF MONTICELLO, MINN., a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Church"), and CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") (individually a "Parry" or collectively the "Parties"). WHEREAS, City and Church, as developer, entered into an Agreement dated July 30, 1998, related to the construction of the Church and the future development of the 7h Street Roadway project; and WHEREAS, since that time, the Church and property have been developed and 7a' Street constructed; and WHEREAS, in an effort to settle all past and outstanding issues, the Parties have agreed to the terms of this Agreement and on an amount to be paid by the City to the Church in settlement of any and all issues relating to the future Fallon Avenue Bridge Right of Way Acquisition and Construction Project. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, the Parties, expressly intending to be bound, agree as follows: A. SETTLEMENT 1. The Church will convey to the City 4.01 acres of land legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and an additional 1.691 acres of land which is legally described on Exhibits B-1 and B-2 attached hereto, subject to the Use Restrictions attached as Exhibit C. 2. The City will pay to the Church the total sum of Nine Hundred Sixty -Three Thousand Four Hundred Seven and no/100ths ($963,407.00) Dollars ("Settlement Amount") for the parcels. Payment shall be made at closing occurring sixty (60) days after the date of this Agreement. 3. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and the payment of the Settlement Amount are the result of a compromise and shall not be, nor shall there ever be deemed or construed to be, an admission by any party of any liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility on its part or on the part of its predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, or shareholders. The Parties expressly deny any such liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility. 4. The City represents to Church that the current zoning classification of the 1.691 acres is a single family residential use and that the City does not foresee any commercial use permitted on the adjacent parcels. 189444v1 189444v1 5. It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the City and Church that the Church shall not be specially assessed for any part of the Fallon Avenue bridge and 7t' Street intersection construction project, nor the future Fallon Avenue road extension and utility proj ect. 6. The City agrees that the new northerly Fallon Avenue road extension will be constructed entirely within the 1.691 acres conveyed by Church to the City. 7. The City agrees that no retaining walls will be constructed for the road construction project and the side slope required will be no greater than 3:1 to 4:1. 8. The City agrees to allow the Church the opportunity to review the preliminary Fallon Avenue extension construction plans and landscaping plans and to provide comment and input on the final design plans. 9. Any sidewalk built by the City may be constructed on either side of the new Fallon Avenue extension at the discretion of the City. 10. The City agrees to construct a curb cut/access driveway apron to the Fallon Avenue extension in the northwest corner of the Church remainder parcel at an acceptable distance north of the new roundabout. 11. The City agrees that if at any time within ten (10) years following the Effective Date of this Agreent, the City rezones or otherwise pen -nits any commercial use on the adjacent Malone, B�or Jameson parcels, the City shall pay to the Church the difference between the per square foot purchase price and the fair market value for the commercial or mixed commercial use as of the date the property is rezoned to commercial use or permitted as commercial use by the City. 12. The City shall forever waive all claims against the Church for any and all increased costs of the Fallon Avenue bridge construction and retaining walls, additional right of way acquisition costs, park dedication fees and private utility relocation, pursuant to the purported 1998 Agreement. B. MUTUAL RELEASES The Parties agree that in consideration hereof, the Parties and their respective predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, partners, principals, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, or shareholders hereby mutually release each other and each other's respective predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, partners, principals, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, or shareholders from any and all claims, counterclaims, debts, demands, actions, causes of action, liabilities, or controversies whatsoever, whether at law or in equity, whether in contract, in tort, or under statute, arising out of or related to any issues that were or could have been brought before any state, local, or federal court, or state or federal 189444v1 189444v1 agency, or in any arbitration proceeding, whether now known or unknown, liquidated or unliquidated, up to and as of the Effective Date. C. LEGAL COUNSEL Each of the Parties represents that they have executed the Agreement voluntarily and that in the execution of this Agreement, and the negotiations leading thereto, it had the opportunity to consult legal counsel of its own selection. Prior to the execution of this Agreement by each Party, the Party's attorney, if any, reviewed this Agreement and advised the Party with respect to making the settlement and release provided herein and of executing this Agreement. The Parties affirm that the terms of this Agreement have been completely read, understood, and voluntarily accepted; and that the Parties have executed this Agreement as a free and voluntary act of their own free will and without any threat, force, fraud, duress or coercion of any kind. D. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT In the event that either Party is in breach of any material obligation hereunder, the other Party, at its option, may commence an action against such breaching Party in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms and obligations identified in this Agreement. If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to all of its costs in prosecuting or defending said action, including a reasonable amount of its attorneys' fees, which may be set by the court in which the action for enforcement is brought, or in a separate action for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing Party may be entitled. E. APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement and the provisions herein shall be deemed to have been executed under the laws of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota law governs all substantive matters pertaining to the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of this Agreement, except such matters as are governed by federal law. F. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes any and all prior agreements and understandings. There are no representations, promises, or agreements pertaining to the terms or subject matter of this Agreement, whether express or implied, that are not set forth in this Agreement. 2. Failure of either Party to enforce any right or remedy available to it under this Agreement will not be construed as a waiver of the right or remedy with respect to any other breach or failure by the other Party. 3. This Agreement does not provide and is not intended to provide third parties with any remedy, claim, liability, reimbursement, cause of action, or other privilege. 189444v1 189444v1 4. This Agreement is binding on the Parties' predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, partners, principals, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, or shareholders. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of the Party represents and warrant that he/she has the authority to bind such party to the terms of this Agreement. 5. Titles to sections and the like are used merely for convenience and will not be taken as an interpretation of the contents of those provisions or as an attempt to enlarge, limit, or define terms covered by this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. 6. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by written agreement executed by authorized representatives of both City and Church. Both Parties acknowledge that, in some cases, such modifications or amendments would require Parish Corporate Board approval according to Archdiocesan guidelines. 7. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, which together will constitute the original Agreement. Facsimile and scanned (PDF) copies of signature pages shall be as effective as originals. 8. In construing the terms of this Agreement, or in determining the rights of the Parties hereto, no party shall be deemed to have solely drafted or created this Agreement. 9. The individuals who execute this Agreement expressly state that they are authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of their respective Party. Both Parties acknowledge that the Parish Corporate Board, which normally includes the Archbishop and Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, must approve this Agreement prior to its execution. G. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties relating to any claims between the Parties, and no change in this Agreement will be permitted without the mutual agreement of both Parties in writing. H. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall be effective upon execution of the Parties and approved by the Parish Corporate Board and the Archdiocese. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement through their authorized representatives. [Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank. Signatures on following pages.] 189444v1 1894440 Dated: , 2016 CITY OF MONTICELLO By Brian Stump , ay And�,�.c�� kll, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOT ) ss COUNTY OF ) This foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this QW\ day of 2016, by Brian Stumpf and Jeff O'Neill, respectively the Mayor and City A ministrator, for the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its Ci Council. Notary Public Al VICKI .SAN LEERHOFF NOTARY PUBUC MINNESOTA 14y Commission Expires 01131=1 189444v1 189444v1 Dated: _ , 2016 THE CHURCH OF ST. HENRY OF MONTICELLO, MINN. By 4Ar, JU - W4vL Rev. Anthony G. VanderLoop Vice -President By�. et Zaruba ecretary STATE OF MINNESOTA ) : ss COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) .I: -t... This foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this l �1 _ day of 2016, by Rev. Anthony G. VanderLoop and Janet Zaruba, respectively the Vice - President and Secretary of The Church of St. Henry of Monticello, Minn., a Minnesota non- profit corporation, on behalf of the Church. DANIEL STEVEN DUPAY •' NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA E. My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2019 b �K' Drafted By: Campbell Knutson Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone (651) 452-5000 [JJJ] 189444v1 189444v1 N l� EXHIBIT A Total Take Descriptions Lot 1, Block 2, CHURCH OF ST. HENRY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota. Lot 2, Block 2, CHURCH OF ST. HENRY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota. Outlot A, CHURCH OF ST. HENRY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota. Fallon Avenue, as dedicated on the plat of CHURCH OF ST. HENRY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota. 189444v1 1894440 EXHIBIT B-1 Option Number 3B Fee Taking Description That part of Lot 1, Block 1, CHURCH OF ST. HENRY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1, thence on an assumed bearing of south 69 degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds East, along the northerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 110.93 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 06 degrees 04 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 105.10 feet; thence South 07 degrees 19 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 225.34 feet; thence South 01 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of94.63 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating. 189444v1 189444v1 FX)iihi t R_9 MOST RV OW OF LOT t (POINT OF �\ S69* 2'36"E 1 110.93' q (� 1 ` POINT OF A 7 81�NF�lG l As=stes m. ssro4.52'w 1175.10' j INFRASIRIJC111RP:WiJ ;:'? 1 S7"19.5frE 225.34' LOT 1 QAC BLOCK 1 a4 S1 `i 4'.WE 94.63' ' LOT 1 ril S db LOT 2 s V iOT so .ME 0 too 200 ['5(")('1 OPTION NUMBER 38 FEE TAKING: 73,677 SQ. FT OR 1.691 ACRES Preparedby: 1 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 q (� 1 ` Minneapolis, MN 55416 A 7 nu u a sbeng.mm JEF!.FF!h As=stes m. j INFRASIRIJC111RP:WiJ ;:'? 1 189444v1 189444v1 LOT 1 BLOCK 1 CHURCH OF ST. HENRY 1 ST ADDITION Option Number 36 Fee Taking Description That partof Lot 1,Block 1,CHURCH OFST. HENRY, accordingtothe recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1,thence on an assumed bearing of South 69 degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds East, along the northerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 110.93 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 06 degrees 04 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 105.10 feet; thence South 07 degrees 19 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 225.34 feet; thence South 01 degrees 14 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 94.63 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot land said line there terminating. Parcel Sketch Option Number 38 City of Monticello, Minnesota WSB Project No. 01494-480 Date: 6/14/16 t' CITY or _. Montf6eflo EXHIBIT C Use Restrictions a. That the property may not be used as a facility, place of business or other place in which human abortion, sterilization, euthanasia or other acts which are contrary to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services promulgated by the USCCB are performed, or promoted though public advocacy of for which counseling is given which promotes and/or encourages individuals to obtain such services. Prohibited facilities or places of business shall include, but are not limited to, abortion clinics, fertility clinics and surrogacy clinics. b. That the property may not be used as a facility, place of business or other place in which pornographic or soft pornographic books, pictures, discs, or other media or materials, including any electronic forms of media, are directed to an adult rather than a general audience or clientele are displayed, sold, rented or otherwise made available for viewing. C. That the property may not be used as a facility, place of business or other place in which a tavern, bar, night club, dance hall or dance club is operated, or in which is operated a restaurant or other retail business where alcoholic beverages are sold unless the restaurant or other retail business where alcoholic beverages are sold: (1) has a seating capacity for at least 50 guests in its formal dining area; (2) has a full-service menu available with meals prepared on site within a Minnesota Department of Health licensed commercial kitchen each day the establishment is open for business; and (3) all meals are regularly served at tables to the general public and shall employ an adequate staff to provide the usual and suitable services to its guests, or which has been approved in writing by the Church of St. Henry. d. That the property may not be used as a facility, place of business or other place in which live performances directed to an adult audience rather than the general public are operated or conducted. 189444v1 189444v1 City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 4C. Consideration of establishing the Technical and Communitv Advisory Committees for the 2040 Monticello Communitv Vision & Comprehensive Plan and to appoint Council representatives to the 2040 Monticello Communitv Vision & Comprehensive Plan Technical and Communitv Advisory Committees (AS) The City Council is asked to approve establishment of the Comprehensive Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and to appoint member representation. The Monticello 2040 Community Vision and Comprehensive Plan process will include the support assistance of both a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). At this time, it is envisioned that the TAC will consist of city staff, City Council, Planning Commission and EDA representatives. The purpose of the TAC group will be to provide context on current and past city plans, provide technical assistance as the plan documents develop, and create communication and continuity for later plan consideration and approval. The CAC will include the TAC members, as well as a broader base of community leaders and stakeholders who will act as "plan champions". These members will be responsible for generating engagement participation and providing feedback at touchpoints throughout the plan process. At this time, the representation on the two committees has been outlined as follows. Council will note that the representation on the CAC may vary as volunteers are recruited. Council is welcome to make recommendations for additions or changes in addition to assigning their two representatives. Technical & Community Advisory Committee 2 — City Council 1 - Planning Commission 1 -EDA 1 — Parks & Recreation Commission 1 - School District Administration Citizen Advisory Committee Members listed above 1 — County Commissioner 1 - Township Board representative 1 — IEDC member 3 — Monticello residents at large (intended to include school district representation from Sherburne County area and from Monticello Township area) 1 — SHIP/health care representative 1 — Business representative (Chamber board representative recommended) — Youth/student representative City Council Agenda: 08/12/2019 The Lakota Group is in the process of preparing "role and responsibility" descriptions for the two committees. However, as activities related to community engagement and workshops are expected to gear up within the next few weeks, staff is asking the various boards and other entities to make their assignments at present. The first Comprehensive Plan event will be a community celebration on September 7, 2019, tentatively scheduled from 3 p.m. -7 p.m. The event will be held at West Bridge Park and will feature Music on the Mississippi, food trucks and community engagement activities for the comprehensive plan visioning process. Council will also note the first project workshops, including a joint Council and Planning Commission workshop, and a bus tour for the TAC/CAC will be scheduled on September 5 or 6, 2019. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to establish the Technical and Community Advisory Committees for the 2040 Monticello Community Vision & Comprehensive Plan and appoint Council members and to 2040 Monticello Community Vision & Comprehensive Plan Technical and Citizen Advisory Committees. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends establishment of the TAC and CAC in support of providing stakeholder participation and feedback for the 2040 planning efforts. Staff defers to the Council on matters of appointment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Sean Deringer �'PI F 5 04Fti 3800 Braddock Ave. NE, Buffalo, MN 55313 1-800-362-3667 Fax:763-682-7610 Monticello Monthly Report 2019 Printed on August 1, 2019 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 911 Abandoned Total: 8 07/09/19 18:00 911 Abandoned 2019055754 911 911ABANDON 07/15/19 11:43 911 Abandoned 2019057596 911 Abandoned WP19022199 911 911ABANDON 07/19/19 12:09 911 Abandoned 2019059025 911 911ABANDON 07/20/19 13:34 911 Abandoned 2019059386 911 911ABANDON 07/20/19 17:08 911 Abandoned 2019059437 911 911ABANDON 07/24/19 12:28 911 Abandoned 2019060616 911 911ABANDON 07/27/19 22:35 911 Abandoned 2019061947 911 911ABANDON 07/28/19 02:01 911 Abandoned 2019062001 911 911ABANDON 911 Abandoned; Traffic - Complaint Total: 1 07/09/19 16:49 07/19/19 11:54 911 Abandoned; Traffic 2019059021 9b1 911 HAN911 GUP 911ABAN ON; T 911 Hang-up Total: 29 07/02/19 14:07 911 Hang-up 2019053268 911 HAN911 GUP 07/03/19 12:08 911 Hang-up 2019053550 911 HAN911 GUP 07/03/19 20:24 911 Hang-up 2019053724 911 HAN911 GUP 07/04/19 11:46 911 Hang-up 2019053923 911 HAN911 GUP 07/04/19 13:43 911 Hang-up 2019053947 911 HAN911 GUP 07/06/19 13:22 911 Hang-up 2019054624 911 HAN911 GUP 07/07/19 13:02 911 Hang-up 2019055013 911 HAN911 GUP 07/07/19 18:09 911 Hang-up 2019055098 911 HAN911 GUP 07/08/19 04:00 911 Hang-up 2019055217 911 HAN911 GUP 07/09/19 16:49 911 Hang-up 2019055728 911 HAN911 GUP 07/09/19 17:51 911 Hang-up 2019055748 911 HAN911 GUP 07/11/19 20:30 911 Hang-up 2019056450 911 HAN911 GUP 07/12/19 13:57 911 Hang-up 2019056664 911 HAN911 GUP 07/13/19 09:43 911 Hang-up 2019056940 911 HAN911 GUP 07/13/19 13:29 911 Hang-up 2019056995 911 HAN911 GUP 07/14/19 20:56 911 Hang-up 2019057443 911 HAN911 GUP ZUERCHER Page 1 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/15/19 10:01 911 Hang-up 2019057555 911 HAN911 GUP 07/16/19 05:19 911 Hang-up 2019057842 Line 2019052904 911 911 HAN911 GUP 07/17/19 10:55 911 Hang-up 2019058305 911 OPEN 07/02/19 13:06 911 Open 911 HAN911 GUP 07/20/19 00:30 911 Hang-up 2019059285 911 HAN911 GUP 07/20/19 11:29 911 Hang-up 2019059364 Line 2019053320 911 HAN911 GUP 07/22/19 10:31 911 Hang-up 2019059936 911OPEN11 07/03/19 09:42 911 Open 911 HAN911 GUP 07/25/19 17:24 911 Hang-up 2019061101 911 HAN911 GUP 07/26/19 20:43 911 Hang-up 2019061536 Line 2019053540 911 911 HAN911 GUP 07/27/19 21:03 911 Hang-up 2019061918 911OPEN 07/03/19 23:46 911 Open 911 HAN911 GUP 07/28/19 12:20 911 Hang-up 2019062083 911 HAN911 GUP 07/28/19 15:11 911 Hang-up 2019062122 Line 2019053900 911 911 HAN911 GUP 07/29/19 12:43 911 Hang-up 2019062400 911 OPEN 07/04/19 14:42 911 Open 911 HAN911 GUP 07/30/19 16:08 911 Hang-up 2019062842 911 HAN911 GUP 911 Open Line Total: 77 07/01/19 08:39 911 Open Line 2019052840 911 OPEN11 07/01/19 10:45 911 Open Line 2019052904 911 911 OPEN 07/02/19 13:06 911 Open Line 2019053250 911 911OPEN 07/02/19 16:19 911 Open Line 2019053320 911OPEN11 07/03/19 09:42 911 Open Line 2019053517 11 911 OPEN 07/03/19 11:28 911 Open Line 2019053540 911 911OPEN 07/03/19 23:46 911 Open Line 2019053802 911 OPEN11 07/04/19 10:44 911 Open Line 2019053900 911 911 OPEN 07/04/19 14:42 911 Open Line 2019053960 911 911OPEN 07/04/19 14:44 911 Open Line 2019053962 911OPEN11 07/04/19 21:27 911 Open Line 2019054070 11 911 OPEN 07/05/19 14:45 911 Open Line 2019054305 911 911OPEN 07/05/19 15:22 911 Open Line 2019054318 911OPEN11 07/05/19 20:01 911 Open Line 2019054380 11 911 OPEN 07/06/19 09:56 911 Open Line 2019054558 911 911 OPEN 07/06/19 15:22 911 Open Line 2019054659 g 911OPEN11 07/07/19 06:52 911 Open Line 2019054939 11 911 OPEN 07/07/19 12:33 911 Open Line 2019055005 911 911 OPEN ZUERCHER Page 2 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes Reported 07/07/19 12:35 911 Open Line 2019055006 ggHow 911OPEN11 07/07/19 18:40 911 Open Line 2019055103 911 911 OPEN 07/08/19 00:52 911 Open Line 2019055200 911 911 OPEN 07/08/19 11:51 911 Open Line 2019055298 g 911OPEN11 07/08/19 18:45 911 Open Line 2019055437 911 911 OPEN 07/08/19 20:10 911 Open Line 2019055470 911 911 OPEN 07/08/19 21:26 911 Open Line 2019055495 g 911 OPEN11 07/09/19 13:35 911 Open Line 2019055676 911 911 OPEN 07/09/19 17:51 911 Open Line 2019055749 911 911OPEN 07/10/19 06:41 911 Open Line 2019055864 911 OPEN11 07/11/19 07:41 911 Open Line 2019056198 11 911 OPEN 07/11/19 18:34 911 Open Line 2019056403 911 911OPEN 07/11/19 21:54 911 Open Line 2019056476 911 OPEN11 07/11/19 22:41 911 Open Line 2019056487 11 911 OPEN 07/12/19 21:43 911 Open Line 2019056813 911 911 OPEN 07/12/19 21:47 911 Open Line 2019056817 g 911 OPEN11 07/13/19 10:35 911 Open Line 2019056955 911 911 OPEN 07/13/19 11:02 911 Open Line 2019056960 911 911OPEN 07/13/19 12:21 911 Open Line 2019056976 911OPEN11 07/14/19 13:47 911 Open Line 2019057326 911 911 OPEN 07/14/19 20:37 911 Open Line 2019057439 911 911 OPEN 07/15/19 11:41 911 Open Line 2019057595 g 911OPEN11 07/15/19 17:08 911 Open Line 2019057692 911 911 OPEN 07/16/19 04:57 911 Open Line 2019057838 911 911 OPEN 07/16/19 12:18 911 Open Line 2019057970 g 911OPEN11 07/16/19 13:48 911 Open Line 2019057997 911 911 OPEN 07/16/19 18:30 911 Open Line 2019058112 911 911OPEN 07/17/19 02:30 911 Open Line 2019058238 911 OPEN11 07/17/19 06:52 911 Open Line 2019058260 911 911 OPEN 07/19/19 08:39 911 Open Line 2019058960 911 911 OPEN 07/19/19 14:46 911 Open Line 2019059081 g 911OPEN11 07/19/19 18:51 911 Open Line 2019059184 911 911 OPEN 07/19/19 20:21 911 Open Line 2019059206 11 911 OPEN ZUERCHER Page 3 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/20/19 18:30 911 Open Line 2019059454 911OPEN11 07/21/19 01:55 911 Open Line 2019059580 11 911 OPEN 07/21/19 11:10 911 Open Line 2019059637 911 911 OPEN 07/21/19 11:38 911 Open Line 2019059643 911OPEN11 07/21/19 13:59 911 Open Line 2019059668 911 911 OPEN 07/21/19 14:39 911 Open Line 2019059674 911 911 OPEN 07/23/19 15:24 911 Open Line 2019060351 911OPEN11 07/23/19 19:41 911 Open Line 2019060431 911 911 OPEN 07/24/19 07:02 911 Open Line 2019060550 11 911 OPEN 07/24/19 11:19 911 Open Line 2019060603 911OPEN11 07/24/19 17:00 911 Open Line 2019060723 911 911 OPEN 07/25/19 13:07 911 Open Line 2019061001 911 911 OPEN 07/25/19 22:32 911 Open Line 2019061192 911 OPEN11 07/26/19 13:38 911 Open Line 2019061374 911 911 OPEN 07/26/19 18:08 911 Open Line 2019061466 911 911 OPEN 07/26/19 18:09 911 Open Line 2019061467 911OPEN11 07/26/19 18:21 911 Open Line 2019061480 911 911 OPEN 07/26/19 18:41 911 Open Line 2019061491 911 911 OPEN 07/26/19 22:24 911 Open Line 2019061576 911 OPEN11 07/27/19 13:50 911 Open Line 2019061777 911 911 OPEN 07/27/19 17:08 911 Open Line 2019061831 911 911 OPEN 07/27/19 21:05 911 Open Line 2019061919 911 OPEN11 07/28/19 02:49 911 Open Line 2019062008 11 911 OPEN 07/28/19 10:58 911 Open Line 2019062061 911 911 OPEN 07/31/19 05:27 911 Open Line 2019062990 911 OPEN11 07/31/19 21:49 911 Open Line 2019063248 11 911 OPEN 911 Open Line; Disorderly Total: 1 07/21/19 00:28 911 Open Line; 2019059561 911 OPEN; DISORD 911 Open Line; Dispatch - CAD - Addressing Problems; Domestic Disturbance Total: 1 07/21/19 18:11 911 Open Line; 2019059729 Domestic Disturbance WP19022996 911 911 OPEN; DISPCAD; 911 Text Total: 1 ZU=RCHER Page 4 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident 07/30/19 21:17 911 Text 2019062915 Abandoned Vehicle Total: 3 07/08/19 15:30 Abandoned Vehicle 2019055368 Abandoned Vehicle 07/15/19 12:33 Abandoned Vehicle 2019057606 Abandoned Vehicle 07/30/19 10:32 Abandoned Vehicle 2019062739 Abandoned Vehicle Agency Assist Total: 15 07/02/19 07:45 Agency Assist 07/03/19 01:10 Agency Assist 07/05/19 20:52 Agency Assist 07/08/19 13:51 Agency Assist 07/14/19 15:21 Agency Assist 07/16/19 03:06 Agency Assist 07/17/19 14:30 Agency Assist 07/21/19 12:02 Agency Assist 07/22/19 13:46 Agency Assist 07/22/19 14:53 Agency Assist 07/24/19 12:05 Agency Assist 07/24/19 13:42 Agency Assist 07/24/19 16:16 Agency Assist 07/28/19 16:18 Agency Assist 07/30/19 15:45 Agency Assist 2019053155 2019053459 2019054397 2019055340 2019057349 2019057834 2019058373 2019059649 2019059991 2019060021 2019060611 2019060638 2019060705 2019062137 2019062832 Agency Assist; Phone Call Total: 1 Agency Assist Agency Assist Agency Assist Warrant - Arrest Agency Assist Agency Assist Warrant - Arrest Agency Assist Agency Assist Agency Assist Agency Assist Agency Assist Warrant - Arrest Agency Assist Agency Assist Case Number Codes How Reported Text 911 TEXT WP19021267 ABANDVEFone WP19022207 1 ABANDVE WP19024041 ne ABANDVEH WP19020409 AGASSISSpT WP19020535 AGASSISTicer WP19020903 AGASSISTne WP19021257 AGASSIST ne WP19022094 AGASSISTne WP19022291 AGASSISTne WP19022470 AGASSIST ne WP19022956 AGASSISTne WP19023074 AGASSISTne WP19023091 AGASSIST ne WP19023302 AGASSISTne WP19023315 AGASSISTne WP19023342 AGASSIST ne WP19023834 AGASSISTne WP19024083 AGASSISTne 07/29/19 13:36 Agency Assist; Phone 2019062421 Criminal Damage to Property WP19023937 Phone AGASSIST; PH Alarm Total: 3 07/17/19 22:16 Alarm 2019058527 Alarm WP19022528 911 ALARM 07/18/19 02:44 Alarm 2019058584 Alarm WP19022542 Phone ALARM 07/25/19 01:41 Alarm 2019060881 Alarm WP19023404 911 ALARM Animal Total: 20 07/02/1911:03 Animal 07/02/1913:51 Animal 07/02/1917:27 Animal 07/05/1910:09 Animal 2019053217 Animal 2019053266 Animal 2019053349 Animal 2019054235 Animal WP19020431 Phone ANIMAL WP19020450 Phone ANIMAL WP19020482 Phone ANIMAL WP19020823 911 ANIMAL ZUERCHER Page 5 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/11/1911:33 Animal 2019056261 Phone ANABUSE 07/11/19 18:05 Animal - Abuse 2019056393 Animal - Abuse ANIMAL 07/13/1910:10 Animal 2019056951 Phone ANABUSE 07/19/19 14:51 Animal - Abuse 2019059086 Animal - Abuse ANIMAL 07/13/1911:32 Animal 2019056963 Animal WP19021931 Phone ANABUSpEh 07/19/19 16:23 Animal - Abuse 2019059133 Animal - Abuse ANIMAL 07/17/1912:44 Animal 2019058344 2019060005 Animal - Abuse Phone Phone ANIMAL 07/18/19 07:36 Animal 2019058611 Animal WP19022555 Phone Phone ANIMAL 07/20/1918:01 Animal 2019059447 Animal WP19022866 Phone 1 ANIMAL 07/22/1916:38 Animal 2019060066 Animal WP19023106 911 ANIMAL 07/23/19 08:14 Animal 2019060250 Phone ANIMAL 07/23/1913:26 Animal 2019060322 Animal WP19023203 Phone ANIMAL 07/24/1915:43 Animal 2019060693 Animal WP19023338 Phone ANIMAL 07/24/1917:17 Animal 2019060734 Animal WP19023356 Phone ANIMAL 07/24/19 21:16 Animal 2019060806 Animal WP19023383 911 ANIMAL 07/25/1915:56 Animal 2019061062 Animal WP19023477 911 ANIMAL 07/28/1916:34 Animal 2019062149 Animal WP19023837 Phone ANIMAL 07/30/19 09:09 Animal 2019062715 Phone ANIMAL 07/31/1912:27 Animal 2019063065 Animal WP19024164 Phone ANIMAL Animal - Abuse Total: 7 07/03/19 17:43 Animal - Abuse 2019053665 Animal - Abuse WP19020627 1 ANABUSE 07/11/19 18:05 Animal - Abuse 2019056393 Animal - Abuse WP19021692 Phone ANABUSE 07/19/19 14:51 Animal - Abuse 2019059086 Animal - Abuse WP19022720 Phone ANABUSpEh 07/19/19 16:23 Animal - Abuse 2019059133 Animal - Abuse WP19022739 ANABUSE one 07/22/19 14:15 Animal - Abuse 2019060005 Animal - Abuse WP19023081 Phone ANABUSE 07/24/19 17:56 Animal - Abuse 2019060750 Animal - Abuse WP19023363 Phone ANABUSE 07/27/19 19:14 Animal - Abuse 2019061873 Animal - Abuse WP19023745 1 ANABUSE 1 Animal - Barking Dog Total: 2 07/20/19 22:38 Animal - Barking Dog 2019059525 Animal - Barking Dog WP19022906 Phone ANBARK 07/23/19 14:23 Animal - Barking Dog 2019060336 Animal - Barking Dog WP19023209 ANBARKhone Animal - Bites - Attacks Total: 2 07/06/19 10:12 Animal - Bites - Attacks 2019054563 Animal - Bites - Attacks WP19020956 Phone ANBITE 07/19/19 09:05 Animal - Bites - Attacks 2019058964 Animal WP19022682 Phone ANBITE Assault Total: 4 07/03/19 16:46 Assault 2019053647 Abuse Adult WP19020623 Phone ASSAULT ZU=RCHER Page 6 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/04/1914:15 Assault 2019053955 Assault WP19020731 Phone ASSAULT 07/25/19 14:49 Assault 2019061036 Neighborhood Dispute WP19023467 Phone ASSAULT 07/30/1911:26 Assault 2019062751 Assault WP19024046 Phone ASSAULT ATL Total: 1 07/23/19 22:18 ATL 2019060467 ATL WP19023248 Phone ATL Burglary Total: 1 07/08/19 11:29 Burglary 2019055289 Suspicious -Circumstances WP19021235 BURG Phone Check Welfare Total: 34 07/02/19 23:33 Check Welfare 2019053446 Intoxicated Person WP19020527 CHKWELFone 07/02/19 23:59 Check Welfare 2019053450 Check Welfare WP19020530 Phone CHKWELF 07/03/19 10:32 Check Welfare 2019053528 Check Welfare WP19020569 Phone CHKWELLFh 07/03/19 16:40 Check Welfare 2019053644 Check Welfare WP19020620 CHKWELFone 07/04/19 17:26 Check Welfare 2019054005 Drugs WP19020753 one CHKWELF 07/06/19 04:40 Check Welfare 2019054516 Check Welfare WP19020939 911 CHKWELF 07/06/19 12:56 Check Welfare 2019054619 Check Welfare WP19020978 9 11 CHKWELF 07/11/19 06:08 Check Welfare 2019056187 Check Welfare WP19021607 Phone CHKWELF 07/11/19 06:38 Check Welfare 2019056191 Check Welfare WP19021612 911 CHKWELLFh 07/11/19 14:49 Check Welfare 2019056306 Check Welfare WP19021655 CHKWELFone 07/12/19 14:50 Check Welfare 2019056678 Check Welfare WP19021805 Phone CHKWELF 07/13/19 11:48 Check Welfare 2019056969 Check Welfare WP19021935 Officer CHKWELLFh 07/13/19 12:48 Check Welfare 2019056985 Check Welfare WP19021945 CHKWELFone 07/14/19 02:10 Check Welfare 2019057238 DUI WP19022047 911 CHKWELF 07/14/19 07:19 Check Welfare 2019057254 Motorist Aid WP19022058 Phone CHKWELLFh 07/14/19 20:50 Check Welfare 2019057441 Check Welfare WP19022141 CHKWELFone 07/14/19 22:20 Check Welfare 2019057465 Check Welfare WP19022149 Phone CHKWELF 07/17/19 20:14 Check Welfare 2019058499 Check Welfare WP19022517 Phone CHKWELF 07/18/19 13:07 Check Welfare 2019058716 Check Welfare WP19022598 Oicer CHKWELF 07/19/19 05:30 Check Welfare 2019058933 Check Welfare WP19022671 Phone CHKWELF 07/19/19 17:38 Check Welfare 2019059161 Check Welfare WP19022752 Phone CHKWELLFh 07/20/19 22:21 Check Welfare 2019059519 Check Welfare WP19022897 CHKWELFone 07/21/19 09:47 Check Welfare 2019059623 Check Welfare WP19022939 Phone CHKWELF 07/22/19 14:22 Check Welfare 2019060009 Check Welfare WP19023083 Phone CHKWELF ZUERCHER Page 7 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/23/19 18:54 Check Welfare 2019060411 Check Welfare WP19023231 Phone CITAID 07/03/19 11:51 Citizen Aid CHKWELF 07/24/19 18:55 Check Welfare 2019060773 Check Welfare WP19023372 Phone CITAID CHKWELF 07/26/19 22:46 Check Welfare 2019061585 Check Welfare WP19023652 911 CHKWELF 07/27/19 16:41 Check Welfare 2019061821 Check Welfare WP19023728 Phone Other CHKWELF 07/27/19 20:25 Check Welfare 2019061901 Check Welfare WP19023757 Phone Unwanted Person WP19022031 911 CHKWELF 07/28/19 15:41 Check Welfare 2019062129 Check Welfare WP19023829 911 Citizen Aid 2019057313 Citizen Aid WP19022082 CHKWELF 07/28/19 16:58 Check Welfare 2019062155 Check Welfare WP19023839 Phone 07/21/19 22:50 Citizen Aid 2019059809 Citizen Aid CHKWELF 07/30/19 07:28 Check Welfare 2019062696 Check Welfare WP19024026 911 CITAID 07/25/19 02:02 Citizen Aid CHKWELF 07/30/19 16:25 Check Welfare 2019062844 Check Welfare WP19024087 Phone CITAID CHKWELF 07/31/19 09:48 Check Welfare 2019063026 Check Welfare WP19024149 Phone CHKWELF Citizen Aid Total: 11 07/02/19 11:14 Citizen Aid 2019053220 Citizen Aid WP19020432 Phone CITAID 07/03/19 11:51 Citizen Aid 2019053542 Suspicious - Circumstances WP19020574 Phone CITAID 07/06/19 10:40 Citizen Aid 2019054573 Citizen Aid WP19020958 Phone CITAID 07/13/19 13:32 Citizen Aid 2019056996 Citizen Aid WP19021950 Other CITAID 07/13/19 23:17 Citizen Aid 2019057183 Unwanted Person WP19022031 911 CITAID 07/14/19 12:38 Citizen Aid 2019057313 Citizen Aid WP19022082 Phone CITAID 07/21/19 22:50 Citizen Aid 2019059809 Citizen Aid WP19023015 Phone CITAID 07/25/19 02:02 Citizen Aid 2019060885 Citizen Aid WP19023405 Phone CITAID 07/27/19 20:07 Citizen Aid 2019061896 Citizen Aid WP19023754 Phone CITAID 07/27/19 22:50 Citizen Aid 2019061953 Citizen Aid WP19023772 Phone CITAID 07/30/19 00:14 Citizen Aid 2019062650 Citizen Aid WP19024011 Phone CITAID Civil Complaint Total: 28 07/01/19 18:31 Civil Complaint 2019053037 Stolen - Vehicle WP19020359 Phone CIV 07/02/19 06:28 Civil Complaint 2019053136 Civil Complaint WP19020394 Phone CIV 07/02/19 13:08 Civil Complaint 2019053251 Civil Child Custody WP19020444 Phone CIV 07/02/19 14:10 Civil Complaint 2019053270 Civil Complaint WP19020453 Phone CIV 07/04/19 18:22 Civil Complaint 2019054023 Civil Complaint WP19020758 Phone CIV 07/05/19 04:06 Civil Complaint 2019054185 Civil Complaint WP19020806 911 CIV 07/05/19 09:35 Civil Complaint 2019054224 Civil Complaint WP19020818 911 CIV 07/05/19 10:34 Civil Complaint 2019054244 Suspicious - Circumstances WP19020826 Phone CIV 07/05/19 13:03 Civil Complaint 2019054281 Civil Complaint WP19020847 Phone CIV ZUERCHER Page 8 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/11/19 16:45 Civil Complaint 2019056359 Civil Complaint WP19021682 CIVPROC Phone Civil Process 2019052858 CIV CIVPROC 07/11/19 20:47 Civil Complaint 2019056453 Civil Complaint WP19021717 Phone CIVPROCppfficer 07/01/19 11:54 Civil Process 2019052926 CIV 07/12/19 16:07 Civil Complaint 2019056699 Civil Complaint WP19021816 Phone CIVPRO?fficer 07/01/19 15:17 Civil Process CIV CIVPROCpfficer 07/12/19 16:51 Civil Complaint 2019056714 Domestic Disturbance WP19021824 Phone CIVPROC 07/02/19 12:28 Civil Process 2019053237 CIV 07/12/19 22:44 Civil Complaint 2019056837 Civil Complaint WP19021881 Phone CIVPROCpfficer 07/03/19 13:00 Civil Process CIV Officer 07/13/19 15:34 Civil Complaint 2019057031 Civil Complaint WP19021966 Civil Process Phone fficer CIVPROCpp CIV 07/14/19 12:29 Civil Complaint 2019057310 Civil Complaint WP19022081 Phone CIV 07/14/19 13:10 Civil Complaint 2019057322 Civil Complaint WP19022086 911 CIV 07/15/19 15:49 Civil Complaint 2019057662 Stolen - Vehicle WP19022234 Phone CIV 07/19/19 18:41 Civil Complaint 2019059182 Civil Complaint WP19022759 Phone CIV 07/22/19 17:19 Civil Complaint 2019060077 Civil Complaint WP 19023110 Phone CIV 07/23/19 15:55 Civil Complaint 2019060363 Civil Complaint WP19023218 Phone CIV 07/25/19 13:35 Civil Complaint 2019061014 Civil Complaint WP19023455 Phone CIV 07/25/19 15:58 Civil Complaint 2019061063 Civil Complaint WP19023478 Phone CIV 07/28/19 14:31 Civil Complaint 2019062113 Civil Child Custody WP19023824 Phone CIV 07/29/19 16:19 Civil Complaint 2019062480 Civil Complaint WP19023958 Phone CIV 07/31/19 14:13 Civil Complaint 2019063103 Civil Complaint WP19024173 Phone CIV 07/31/19 16:48 Civil Complaint 2019063159 Civil Complaint WP19024186 Phone CIV 07/31/19 17:20 Civil Complaint 2019063165 Phone CIV Civil Process Total: 42 07/01/19 08:39 Civil Process 2019052838 CIVPROCfficer 07/01/19 08:53 Civil Process 2019052844 Officer CIVPROC 07/01/19 09:20 Civil Process 2019052858 CIVPROC 07/01/19 09:53 Civil Process 2019052869 CIVPROCppfficer 07/01/19 11:54 Civil Process 2019052926 CIVPROC 07/01/19 14:47 Civil Process 2019052968 CIVPRO?fficer 07/01/19 15:17 Civil Process 2019052978 CIVPROCpfficer 07/01/19 15:57 Civil Process 2019052992 Officer CIVPROC 07/02/19 12:28 Civil Process 2019053237 CIVPRO?fficer 07/03/19 12:46 Civil Process 2019053559 CIVPROCpfficer 07/03/19 13:00 Civil Process 2019053563 Officer CIVPROC 07/03/19 13:14 Civil Process 2019053571 fficer CIVPROCpp ZUERCHER Page 9 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/03/19 13:54 Civil Process 2019053588 CIVPR02pfficer 07/05/19 16:01 Civil Process 2019054324 fficer CIVPROC 07/09/19 11:45 Civil Process 2019055638 Officer CIVPROC 07/10/19 09:00 Civil Process 2019055887 CIVPROC 07/10/19 10:15 Civil Process 2019055908 fficer CIVPROC 07/11/19 13:10 Civil Process 2019056285 Officer CIVPROC 07/11/19 17:15 Civil Process 2019056372 CIVPROC 07/12/19 10:32 Civil Process 2019056604 fficer CIVPROC 07/15/19 10:52 Civil Process 2019057577 Officer CIVPROC 07/16/19 09:41 Civil Process 2019057920 CIVPROC 07/16/19 14:39 Civil Process 2019058022 fficer CIVPROC 07/17/19 10:58 Civil Process 2019058308 Officer CIVPROC 07/17/19 11:15 Civil Process 2019058312 CIVPROC 07/17/19 11:20 Civil Process 2019058315 fficer CIVPROC 07/17/19 13:35 Civil Process 2019058360 Officer CIVPROC 07/18/19 10:21 Civil Process 2019058675 CIVPROC 07/18/19 11:52 Civil Process 2019058699 fficer CIVPROC 07/19/19 09:54 Civil Process 2019058977 Officer CIVPROC 07/22/19 08:03 Civil Process 2019059866 CIVPROC 07/22/19 14:03 Civil Process 2019060002 fficer CIVPROC 07/22/19 14:15 Civil Process 2019060004 Officer CIVPROC 07/22/19 15:57 Civil Process 2019060047 CIVPR02pfficer 07/23/19 12:54 Civil Process 2019060310 fficer CIVPROC 07/24/19 12:51 Civil Process 2019060624 Officer CIVPROC 07/25/19 13:23 Civil Process 2019061007 CIVPR02pfficer 07/25/19 14:41 Civil Process 2019061033 fficer CIVPROC 07/26/19 11:02 Civil Process 2019061304 Officer CIVPROC 07/26/19 17:51 Civil Process 2019061456 Civil Process WP19023626 CIVPROCppfficer 07/29/19 14:13 Civil Process 2019062436 Officer CIVPROC 07/31/19 09:17 Civil Process 2019063020 Officer CIVPROC Commercial Fire Alarm Total: 2 07/19/19 23:53 Commercial Fire Alarm 2019059270 Commercial Fire Alarm WP19022795 Phone ALARM ZU=RCHER Page 10 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # 07/20/19 09:32 Commercial Fire Alarm 2019059344 Commercial General Alarm Total: 26 07/01/19 00:55 Commercial General 2019052778 07/01/19 02:37 Commercial General 2019052785 07/02/19 04:52 Commercial General 2019053126 07/02/19 07:33 Commercial General 2019053152 07/02/19 15:51 Commercial General 2019053303 07/03/19 04:01 Commercial General 2019053471 07/04/19 16:17 Commercial General 2019053986 07/10/19 02:53 Commercial General 2019055855 07/10/19 23:22 Commercial General 2019056148 07/14/19 15:28 Commercial General 2019057351 07/16/19 09:51 Commercial General 2019057923 07/18/19 00:44 Commercial General 2019058565 07/18/19 01:03 Commercial General 2019058569 07/21/19 08:19 Commercial General 2019059611 07/22/19 02:51 Commercial General 2019059845 07/23/19 19:38 Commercial General 2019060430 07/24/19 01:05 Commercial General 2019060519 07/24/19 18:17 Commercial General 2019060760 07/26/19 05:33 Commercial General 2019061244 07/26/19 05:37 Commercial General 2019061245 07/26/19 05:50 Commercial General 2019061247 07/27/19 17:03 Commercial General 2019061828 07/28/19 07:18 Commercial General 2019062025 07/28/19 10:34 Commercial General 2019062054 07/28/19 22:52 Commercial General 2019062225 07/29/19 06:12 Commercial General 2019062291 Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported Commercial Fire Alarm WP19022824 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19020266 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19020267 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19020391 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19020407 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19020466 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19020540 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19020744 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19021474 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19021591 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19022095 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19022318 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19022535 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19022538 911 ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19022934 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023025 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023237 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023257 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023366 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023533 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023534 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023536 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023732 Phone ALARM Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023799 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023868 Phone ALARM Commercial General Alarm WP19023886 Phone ALARM Commercial Medical Alarm Total: 1 07/09/19 12:30 Commercial Medical 2019055655 Commercial Medical Alarm WP19021385 Phone ALARM Compliance Check - Liquor Total: 24 pp 07/09/19 11:06 Compliance Check - 2019055609 COMPLIANicer LIQUOR ZU=RCHER Page 11 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/09/19 11:07 Compliance Check - 2019055610 COMPLIAQ89 LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:08 Compliance Check - 2019055611 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:08 Compliance Check - 2019055612 COMPLIANCE LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:09 Compliance Check - 2019055613 COMPLIANiff LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:09 Compliance Check - 2019055614 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:10 Compliance Check - 2019055615 COMPLIANCE LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:10 Compliance Check - 2019055616 COMPLIANiff LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:11 Compliance Check - 2019055617 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:11 Compliance Check - 2019055618 COMPLIANCE LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:11 Compliance Check - 2019055619 COMPLIANiff LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:12 Compliance Check - 2019055620 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:12 Compliance Check - 2019055621 COMPLIANCE LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:13 Compliance Check - 2019055622 COMPLIANiff LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:13 Compliance Check - 2019055623 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:13 Compliance Check - 2019055624 COMPLIANCE LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:14 Compliance Check - 2019055625 COMPLIANiff LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:14 Compliance Check - 2019055626 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:15 Compliance Check - 2019055627 COMPLIANCE LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:15 Compliance Check - 2019055628 COMPLIANiff LIQUOR 07/09/19 11:16 Compliance Check - 2019055629 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR 07/18/19 09:20 Compliance Check - 2019058639 COMPLIANCE LIQUOR 07/18/19 09:22 Compliance Check - 2019058640 COMPLIANiff LIQUOR 07/18/19 09:22 Compliance Check - 2019058641 COMPLIOOffia LIQUOR Court Order Violation Total: 3 07/14/19 14:14 Court Order Violation 2019057333 Court Order Violation WP19022088 Phone COV 07/26/19 16:40 Court Order Violation 2019061440 Court Order Violation WP19023607 Phone COV 07/31/19 11:09 Court Order Violation 2019063040 Court Order Violation WP19024154 Phone COV Criminal Damage to Property Total: 6 07/09/19 16:35 Criminal Damage to 2019055724 07/14/19 16:20 Criminal Damage to 2019057372 07/18/19 08:54 Criminal Damage to 2019058631 07/22/19 16:38 Criminal Damage to 2019060065 Criminal Damage to Property WP19021417 Phone CDP MVA - Hit & Run WP19022113 911 CDP Criminal Damage to Property WP19022560 CDP Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023105 Phone CDP ZUERCHER Page 12 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # 07/27/19 16:14 Criminal Damage to 2019061812 07/30/19 11:08 Criminal Damage to 2019062745 CSC Sex Offense Total: 4 Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported Criminal Damage to Property WP19023723 CDP Phone Criminal Damage to Property WP19024043 CDP Phone 07/03/19 14:03 CSC Sex Offense 2019053591 CSC Sex Offense 07/16/19 14:14 CSC Sex Offense 2019058009 CSC Sex Offense 07/20/19 13:20 CSC Sex Offense 2019059382 CSC Sex Offense 07/23/19 13:56 CSC Sex Offense 2019060328 CSC Sex Offense Disabled Vehicle Total: 2 07/25/1914:42 Disorderly 07/12/19 16:49 Disabled Vehicle 2019056713 Disabled Vehicle 07/22/19 20:38 Disabled Vehicle 2019060142 Disabled Vehicle Disorderly Total: 7 07/03/19 09:26 Disorderly 2019053515 07/09/1912:16 Disorderly 2019055650 07/10/1919:05 Disorderly 2019056086 07/17/1915:26 Disorderly 2019058391 07/19/19 20:53 Disorderly 2019059218 07/25/1910:49 Disorderly 2019060963 07/25/1914:42 Disorderly 2019061034 Divert Hospital Total: 3 Disturbance 07/02/19 17:18 Divert Hospital 2019053346 07/02/19 19:59 Divert Hospital 2019053395 07/24/19 17:21 Divert Hospital 2019060738 Domestic Disturbance Total: 20 07/01/19 20:28 Domestic Disturbance 2019053067 07/04/19 02:14 Domestic Disturbance 2019053837 07/04/19 03:13 Domestic Disturbance 2019053839 07/05/19 11:38 Domestic Disturbance 2019054258 07/06/19 17:10 Domestic Disturbance 2019054693 07/06/19 22:34 Domestic Disturbance 2019054814 07/08/19 20:44 Domestic Disturbance 2019055479 07/08/19 23:26 Domestic Disturbance 2019055520 07/09/19 12:12 Domestic Disturbance 2019055648 Disorderly Disorderly Disorderly Disorderly Intoxicated Person Agency Assist Disorderly Civil Complaint Domestic Disturbance Disorderly Civil Complaint Domestic Disturbance Domestic Disturbance Domestic Disturbance Domestic Disturbance Domestic Disturbance WCID19020590CSC Phone DISORD WP19022350 Phone CSC DISORD WP19022845 Phone CSC DISORD11 WP19023204 Phone CSC DISORD WP19021823 11 DISABLVEH WP19023138 DISABLVEHne WP19020560 911 DISORD WP19021377 Phone DISORD WP19021564 DISORD11 WP19022476 Phone DISORD WP19022778 Phone DISORD WP19023432 Phone DISORD WP19023465 911 DISORD DIVERTPhone DIVERTPhone DIVERTPhone WP19020368 DOMES WP19020690 DOMESTIC 11 WP19020691 DOMESWU WP19020834 DOMESTIC WP19021004 DOMESTIC WP19021052 DOMESTIC WP19021310 DOMESTICone WP19021325 DOMESTIC WP19021376 DOMESTIC D ZUERCHER Page 13 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/09/19 16:50 Domestic Disturbance 2019055729 Domestic Disturbance WP19021419 Phone DOMESTIC 07/09/19 20:59 Domestic Disturbance 2019055801 Domestic Disturbance WP19021448 DOMESTICone 07/12/19 06:07 Domestic Disturbance 2019056550 Domestic Disturbance WP19021754 911 DOMESTIC 07/13/19 18:03 Domestic Disturbance 2019057086 Domestic Disturbance WP19021986 DOMESTIC 07/14/19 02:49 Domestic Disturbance 2019057243 Domestic Disturbance WP19022050 911 DOMESTIC 07/18/19 16:01 Domestic Disturbance 2019058780 Domestic Disturbance WP19022612 Phone DOMESTIC 07/21/19 22:10 Domestic Disturbance 2019059798 Domestic Disturbance WP19023013 DOMESTIC 07/26/19 15:33 Domestic Disturbance 2019061418 Domestic Disturbance WP19023598 Phone DOMESTIC 07/26/19 19:53 Domestic Disturbance 2019061514 Domestic Disturbance WP19023633 Phone DOMESTIC 07/28/19 03:42 Domestic Disturbance 2019062013 Domestic Disturbance WP19023786 DOMESTIC 07/31/19 22:58 Domestic Disturbance 2019063264 Domestic Disturbance WP19024224 911 DOMESTIC Drugs Total: 5 07/02/19 15:30 Drugs 2019053296 Drugs WP19020463 Phone DRUGS 07/19/19 21:10 Drugs 2019059221 Drugs WP19022780 Phone DRUGS 07/23/1916:32 Drugs 2019060374 Drugs WP19023225 Phone DRUGS 07/24/1913:49 Drugs 2019060641 Drugs WP19023316 911 DRUGS 07/29/1919:45 Drugs 2019062571 Drugs WP19023988 Phone DRUGS Dumping Total: 1 07/22/19 08:21 Dumping 2019059868 Dumping WP19023034 DUMPINGone Extra Patrol Total: 1 07/02/19 22:43 Extra Patrol 2019053434 Phone XP Fire - Gas Leak Total: 4 07/11/19 08:36 Fire - Gas Leak 2019056213 Fire - Gas Leak WP19021618 911 FGASLEAK 07/12/19 21:03 Fire - Gas Leak 2019056794 Fire - Gas Leak WP19021860 911 FGASLEAK 07/17/19 15:31 Fire - Gas Leak 2019058392 Fire - Gas Leak BP19006525 911 FGASLEAK 07/27/19 19:00 Fire - Gas Leak 2019061869 Fire - Gas Leak WP19023744 Phone FGASLEAK Fire - Grass Total: 1 07/08/19 14:51 Fire - Grass 2019055354 Fire - Grass WP19021263 911 FGRASS Fire - Other Total: 2 07/15/19 16:39 Fire - Other 2019057680 Fire - Other WP19022240 Phone F 07/27/19 12:49 Fire - Other 2019061744 Fire - Other WP19023700 911 F ZUERCHER Page 14 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported Fire - Smoke - Odor Total: 2 07/14/19 23:49 Fire - Smoke - Odor 2019057484 Fire - Smoke - Odor WP19022158 FSMOK011 07/28/19 15:50 Fire - Smoke - Odor 2019062132 Fire - Smoke - Odor WP19023830 FSMOKE 11 Fire - Vehicle Total: 1 07/11/19 21:19 Fire - Vehicle 2019056461 Fire - Vehicle WP19021721 Phone FVEHICLE Fireworks Total: 13 07/03/19 22:00 Fireworks 2019053761 Fireworks WP19020669 Phone Fraud - Internet Total: 3 07/12/19 09:32 Fraud Internet FRAUDCH FIREWORKS 07/04/1914:49 Fireworks 2019053964 Fireworks WP19020734 Phone FRAUDINT FRAUDCH FIREWORKS 07/04/19 21:04 Fireworks 2019054063 Fireworks WP19020768 o� FIREWge 07/04/19 22:21 Fireworks 2019054096 Fireworks WP19020778 911 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019059128 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19022738 Phone FIREWORKS 07/04/19 23:42 Fireworks 2019054138 Fireworks WP19020792 Phone Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019060030 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19023093 Phone FIREWORKS 07/05/1919:46 Fireworks 2019054376 Fireworks WP19020894 o� FIREWge 07/05/19 21:49 Fireworks 2019054414 Fireworks HP19000868 Phone Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019062829 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19024082 Phone FIREWORKS 07/05/19 22:20 Fireworks 2019054421 Fireworks WP19020908 FIREWOPh4ne 07/12/19 21:46 Fireworks 2019056816 Fireworks WP19021869 FIREWORKS 07/12/19 22:22 Fireworks 2019056832 Fireworks WP19021876 Phone FIREWORKS 07/12/19 22:31 Fireworks 2019056835 Fireworks WP19021878 911 FIREWORKS 07/12/19 22:32 Fireworks 2019056836 Fireworks WP19021879 ORK FIREWge 07/29/19 22:01 Fireworks 2019062615 Fireworks WP19023999 911 FIREWORKS Fraud - Checks - Cards Total: 7 07/03/19 16:01 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019053629 Fraud - Checks - Cards WCID19020613 Officer FRAUD R1 Fraud - Internet Total: 3 07/12/19 09:32 Fraud Internet FRAUDCH 07/08/19 16:51 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019055391 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19021278 Phone WP19021802 Phone FRAUDINT FRAUDCH 07/15/19 12:59 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019057614 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19022211 Phone FRAUDCH 07/19/19 16:16 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019059128 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19022738 Phone FRAUDCH 07/22/19 15:13 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019060030 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19023093 Phone FRAUDCH 07/26/19 18:04 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019061463 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19023619 one FRAUDCH 07/30/19 15:43 Fraud - Checks - Cards 2019062829 Fraud - Checks - Cards WP19024082 Phone FRAUDCH Fraud - Forgery; Dispatch - CAD - Addressing Problems Total: 1 07/29/19 17:15 Fraud - Forgery; 2019062506 Fraud - Forgery WP19023967 ?11 ?(01 FRAUD R1 Fraud - Internet Total: 3 07/12/19 09:32 Fraud Internet 2019056589 Fraud Internet WP19021771 Phone FRAUDINT 07/12/19 14:24 Fraud - Internet 2019056670 Fraud - Internet WP19021802 Phone FRAUDINT ZUERCHER Page 15 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident 07/25/19 17:41 Fraud - Internet 2019061104 Fraud - Internet Funeral Escort Total: 1 Juvenile - Complaint 07/01/19 10:16 Funeral Escort 2019052892 Gun Incident Total: 1 Harassment 07/09/19 22:02 Gun Incident 2019055814 Assault Harassment Total: 10 07/01/19 19:51 Harassment 2019053059 Juvenile - Complaint 07/04/1917:18 HARASSp WP19020994 Harassment 2019054003 Harassment 07/06/1915:48 hone Harassment 2019054666 Harassment 07/07/1913:18 HARASSp WP19022355 Harassment 2019055019 Harassment 07/10/1916:53 HARASS WP19022502 Harassment 2019056052 Harassment 07/16/1914:43 hone Harassment 2019058023 Harassment 07/17/19 07:39 Harassment 2019058270 Harassment 07/17/1918:22 Harassment 2019058457 Harassment 07/24/19 07:20 Harassment 2019060552 Harassment 07/30/19 19:15 Harassment 2019062886 Civil Complaint Harassment; Disorderly Total: 1 07/10/19 18:49 Harassment; Disorderly 2019056081 Harassment Indecent Exposure Total: 1 07/18/19 02:06 Indecent Exposure 2019058582 Check Welfare Info Total: 15 07/02/19 17:01 07/08/19 06:54 07/09/19 03:08 07/09/19 10:50 07/19/19 13:33 07/22/19 15:28 07/23/19 14:06 07/24/19 14:30 07/26/19 13:02 07/29/19 09:17 07/30/19 08:12 Info Info Info Info Info Info Info Info Info Info Info 2019053337 2019055234 2019055551 2019055607 2019059058 2019060035 2019060331 2019060656 2019061351 2019062337 2019062704 Case Number Codes How Reported WP19023492 91 FRAUDI Ph FUNERAL one WP19021455 GUN Phone WP19020364 hone HARASS WP19020752 11 HARASSp WP19020994 hone HARASS WP19021134 hone HARASS WP19021547 11 HARASSp WP19022355 HARASS hone WP19022433 hone HARASS WP19022502 HARASSPhone WP19023269 hone HARASS WP19024109 hone HARASS WP19021560 Phone HARASS; DISORD WP19022541 INDECE911 NT INFO Phone Phone INFO INFO Phone INFO Phone Phone INFO INFO Phone INFO Phone Phone INFO INFO Phone INFO Phone Phone INFO ZU=RCHER Page 16 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/31/19 00:32 Info 2019062971 Phone INFO 07/31/19 09:54 Info 2019063027 Phone INFO 07/31/19 11:17 Info 2019063045 Phone INFO 07/31/1916:54 Info 2019063160 Phone INFO Intoxicated Person Total: 4 07/06/19 19:15 Intoxicated Person 2019054731 Intoxicated Person WP19021020 pphh INTOXPERone 07/11/19 15:08 Intoxicated Person 2019056315 Intoxicated Person WP19021656 911 INTOXPgER 07/17/19 19:49 Intoxicated Person 2019058487 Intoxicated Person WP19022512 INTOXPgER 07/18/19 00:58 Intoxicated Person 2019058567 Intoxicated Person WP19022537 INTOXPER Juvenile - Complaint Total: 18 07/01/19 20:21 Juvenile - Complaint 2019053066 Juvenile - Complaint WP19020367 Phone JUVCOMP 07/02/19 12:31 Juvenile - Complaint 2019053240 Juvenile - Complaint WP19020440 JUVCOMhone 07/07/19 01:49 Juvenile - Complaint 2019054900 Juvenile - Complaint WP19021089 JUVCOMhone 07/08/19 01:05 Juvenile - Complaint 2019055203 Unwanted Person WP19021202 JUVCOMhone 07/08/19 11:44 Juvenile - Complaint 2019055292 Juvenile - Complaint WP19021238 JUVCOMPhone 07/08/19 22:04 Juvenile - Complaint 2019055504 Juvenile - Complaint WP19021319 icer JUVCO-O 07/10/19 20:33 Juvenile - Complaint 2019056104 Juvenile - Complaint WP19021575 JUVCOMhone 07/12/19 11:06 Juvenile - Complaint 2019056613 Juvenile - Complaint WP19021779 JUVCOMhone 07/13/19 16:47 Juvenile - Complaint 2019057047 Traffic - Complaint WP19021970 JUVCOMhone 07/14/19 16:36 Juvenile - Complaint 2019057380 Juvenile - Complaint WP19022108 JUVCOMhone 07/14/19 16:51 Juvenile - Complaint 2019057386 Juvenile - Complaint WP 19022111 JUVCOMhone 07/15/19 20:19 Juvenile - Complaint 2019057758 Juvenile - Complaint WP19022271 JUVCOMhone 07/18/19 11:57 Juvenile - Complaint 2019058701 Found Person WP19022583 JUVCOMhone 07/23/19 03:28 Juvenile - Complaint 2019060220 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19023157 JUVCOM11 07/25/19 13:53 Juvenile - Complaint 2019061020 Juvenile - Complaint WP19023459 JUVCOMhone 07/28/19 20:46 Juvenile - Complaint 2019062196 Juvenile - Complaint WP19023857 JUVCOMhone 07/30/19 15:49 Juvenile - Complaint 2019062836 Juvenile - Complaint WP19024085 JUVCOMhone 07/31/19 15:33 Juvenile - Complaint 2019063129 Juvenile - Complaint WP19024177 JUVCOMhone Juvenile - Curfew Violation Total: 1 07/05/19 23:47 Juvenile - Curfew 2019054454 Juvenile - Curfew Violation WP19020919 JUVCURFEW Juvenile - Party Total: 1 07/07/19 01:24 Juvenile - Party 2019054893 Intoxicated Person WP19021084 JUVPARTYne ZUERCHER Page 17 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported Juvenile - Runaway Total: 3 07/07/19 20:45 Juvenile - Runaway 2019055142 Juvenile - Runaway WP19021184 Property WP19020273 Medical - Breathing 2019057454 07/15/19 08:28 Medical - Breathing JUVRUNhone 07/27/19 12:22 Juvenile - Runaway 2019061739 Juvenile - Complaint WP19023699 Lost - Found Property 2019052930 Lost - Found Property WP19020317 JUVRUNhone 07/30/19 20:10 Juvenile - Runaway 2019062898 Juvenile - Runaway WP19024114 LOSTPROP 07/05/19 12:49 Lost - Found Property JUVRUNhone Lock Out - Lock In Total: 1 Property WP19020848 07/05/19 10:21 Lock Out - Lock In 2019054238 Lock Out - Lock In WP19020825 Phone LOSTPROP 07/10/19 11:53 Lost - Found Property 2019055929 LOCK Lost - Found Property Total: 11 07/01/19 05:46 Lost - Found Property 2019052796 Lost - Found Property WP19020273 Medical - Breathing 2019057454 07/15/19 08:28 Medical - Breathing 2019057531 LOSTPROP 07/01/19 12:30 Lost - Found Property 2019052930 Lost - Found Property WP19020317 LOSTPROP 07/05/19 12:49 Lost - Found Property 2019054276 Lost - Found Property WP19020848 LOSTPROP 07/10/19 11:53 Lost - Found Property 2019055929 Lost - Found Property WP19021506 LOSTPROP 07/18/19 06:34 Lost - Found Property 2019058602 Lost - Found Property WP19022550 LOSTPROP 07/18/19 12:38 Lost - Found Property 2019058711 Lost - Found Property WP19022588 LOSTPROP 07/18/19 16:13 Lost - Found Property 2019058783 Lost - Found Property WP19022615 LOSTPROP 07/19/19 16:16 Lost - Found Property 2019059129 Lost - Found Property WP19022736 LOSTPROP 07/22/19 14:49 Lost - Found Property 2019060020 Lost - Found Property WP19023090 LOSTPROP 07/24/19 18:26 Lost - Found Property 2019060763 Lost - Found Property WP19023371 LOSTPROP 07/27/19 17:08 Lost - Found Property 2019061830 Lost - Found Property WP19023733 LOSTPROP Medical - Abdominal Pain Total: 1 07/24/19 03:14 Medical - Abdominal 2019060531 911 MABDOMINAL Medical - Allergies - Stings Total: 1 07/30/19 13:09 Medical - Allergies - 2019062775 Medical - Allergies - Stings WP19024060 MALLERGIES Medical - Back Pain Total: 1 07/15/19 06:51 Medical - Back Pain 2019057520 Medical - Back Pain WP19022170 911 MBACK Medical - Bleeding - Lacerations Total: 1 07/16/19 06:30 Medical - Bleeding - 2019057854 Medical - Bleeding - WP19022300 911 MBLEE Medical - Breathing Problems Total: 9 07/05/19 08:44 Medical - Breathing 2019054215 07/14/19 00:09 Medical - Breathing 2019057199 07/14/19 21:44 Medical - Breathing 2019057454 07/15/19 08:28 Medical - Breathing 2019057531 Medical - Breathing Problems WP19020814 11 MBREA HING Medical - Breathing Problems WP19022036 911 MBREATHING Medical - Breathing Problems WP19022147 911 MBREATHING MBREATHING ZU=RCHER Page 18 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes Reported 07/16/19 03:02 Medical - Breathing 2019057833 Medical - Breathing Problems WP19022290 gHow 07/14/19 16:41 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019057381 07/16/19 05:02 MBREATHING 07/18/19 23:47 Medical - Breathing 2019058900 Medical - Breathing Problems WP19022658 07/23/19 21:10 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019060455 07/24/19 14:38 Medical - Fall Under 6 MBREATHING 07/25/19 13:25 Medical - Breathing 2019061010 Medical - Breathing Problems WP19023457 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019061365 WALL Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet MBREATING 07/31/19 01:19 Medical - Breathing 2019062977 2019055338 911 WP19021256 Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19022399 MBREATHING NG 07/31/19 13:24 Medical - Breathing 2019063086 Medical - Breathing Problems WP19024168 Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19023243 Civil Complaint Phone MBREATHING Medical - Breathing Problems; Dispatch - CAD - Addressing Problems Total: 1 07/06/19 06:51 Medical - Breathing 2019054529 Medical - Breathing Problems WP19020945 911 MBREATHING; Medical - Chest Pain Total: 3 07/01/19 14:12 Medical - Chest Pain 2019052953 911 MCHESTgP 07/13/19 02:51 Medical - Chest Pain 2019056901 Medical - Chest Pain WP19021900 MCHESTPI 07/30/19 17:21 Medical - Chest Pain 2019062855 Medical - Chest Pain WP19024093 Phone MCHESTP Medical - Diabetic Total: 1 07/04/19 10:29 Medical - Diabetic 2019053891 Medical - Diabetic WP19020714 911 MDIABETIC Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet Total: 10 07/03/19 21:03 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019053739 07/10/19 18:56 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019056083 07/11/19 00:54 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019056169 07/14/19 16:41 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019057381 07/16/19 05:02 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019057839 07/16/19 20:40 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019058155 07/23/19 21:10 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019060455 07/24/19 14:38 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019060660 07/26/19 08:14 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019061268 07/26/19 13:27 Medical - Fall Under 6 2019061365 Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19020660 2019054626 911 WALL Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19021571 MPSYCHhone Phone Medical - Psychiatric - 2019054665 WALL WP19020993 Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19021599 911 WALL 07/08/19 12:24 Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19022115 Medical - Psychiatric - Phone WALL Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19022294 MPSYCHhone 911 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019055338 WALL WP19021256 Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19022399 Phone WALL 07/11/19 14:21 Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19023243 Civil Complaint Phone WALL Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19023324 MPSYCHhone 911 WALL Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19023541 911 WALL Medical - Fall Under 6 Feet WP19023578 911 WALL Medical - Overdose - Poisoning Total: 1 g 07/13/19 22:16 Medical - Overdose - 2019057166 Medical - Overdose - PoisoninVP19022023 MOVERDOSE Medical - Psychiatric - Behavioral Total: 12 07/06/19 13:31 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019054626 Medical - Breathing Problems WP19020980 MPSYCHhone 07/06/19 15:40 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019054665 Agency Assist WP19020993 911 MPSYC 07/08/19 12:24 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019055313 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19021244 MPSYCHhone 07/08/19 13:47 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019055338 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19021256 MPSYCHhone 07/11/19 14:21 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019056296 Civil Complaint WP19021650 MPSYCHhone ZUERCHER Page 19 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/11/19 16:56 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019056365 Medical - Non Emergency WP19021678 911 MSEIZURE 07/15/19 11:37 Medical - Seizure 2019057590 Medical - Seizure MPSYC 07/14/19 01:24 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019057221 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19022043 911 MSEIZURE 07/15/19 12:26 Medical - Seizure 2019057603 Medical - Seizure MPSYC 07/18/19 15:46 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019058775 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19022610 911 MSEIZURE 07/15/19 23:17 Medical - Seizure 2019057801 Medical - Seizure MPSYCHhone 07/19/19 12:41 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019059036 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19022707 WP19021409 MSEIZURE 07/17/19 06:24 Medical - Seizure 2019058253 Medical - Seizure MPSYCHhone 07/22/19 00:19 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019059829 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19023022 911 MSEIZURE 07/19/19 10:23 Medical - Seizure 2019058988 Medical - Seizure MPSYC 07/24/19 18:05 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019060754 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19023364 07/10/19 20:47 MSEIZURE 2019056108 Medical - Sick WP19021578 MPSYCHhone 07/24/19 20:34 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019060801 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19023381 911 07/13/19 09:59 Medical - Sick 2019056944 Medical - Sick MPSYC Medical - Psychiatric - Behavioral; Dispatch - CAD - Addressing Problems Total: 1 07/23/19 11:11 Medical - Psychiatric - 2019060282 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19023185 911 MPSYCH: DISPCAD Medical - Seizure Total: 6 07/09/19 23:11 Medical - Seizure 2019055830 Medical - Seizure WP19021462 911 911 MSEIZURE 07/15/19 11:37 Medical - Seizure 2019057590 Medical - Seizure WP19022196 911 WP19020827 911 MSEIZURE 07/15/19 12:26 Medical - Seizure 2019057603 Medical - Seizure WP19022203 Medical - Sick 2019055635 Medical - Sick WP19021368 911 MSEIZURE 07/15/19 23:17 Medical - Seizure 2019057801 Medical - Seizure WP19022282 911 07/09/19 15:56 Medical - Sick 2019055710 Medical - Sick WP19021409 MSEIZURE 07/17/19 06:24 Medical - Seizure 2019058253 Medical - Seizure WP19022422 911 MSICK 07/09/19 21:34 Medical - Sick 2019055811 MSEIZURE 07/19/19 10:23 Medical - Seizure 2019058988 Medical - Seizure WP19022688 MSICK 07/10/19 20:47 MSEIZURE Medical -Sick Total: 10 07/02/19 13:32 Medical - Sick 2019053259 911 MSICK 07/05/19 10:35 Medical - Sick 2019054245 Medical - Sick WP19020827 911 MSICK 07/09/19 11:26 Medical - Sick 2019055635 Medical - Sick WP19021368 911 MSICK 07/09/19 15:56 Medical - Sick 2019055710 Medical - Sick WP19021409 911 MSICK 07/09/19 21:34 Medical - Sick 2019055811 Medical - Sick WP19021453 911 MSICK 07/10/19 20:47 Medical - Sick 2019056108 Medical - Sick WP19021578 911 MSICK 07/13/19 09:59 Medical - Sick 2019056944 Medical - Sick WP19021919 911 MSICK 07/18/19 07:25 Medical - Sick 2019058609 Medical - Sick WP19022553 911 MSICK 07/22/19 09:15 Medical - Sick 2019059910 911 MSICK 07/26/19 13:09 Medical - Sick 2019061355 Medical - Sick WP19023573 911 MSICK Medical - Stroke Total: 2 07/05/19 20:52 Medical - Stroke 2019054398 Medical - Stroke WP19020902 911 MSTROKE 07/07/19 01:51 Medical - Stroke 2019054901 Medical - Stroke WP19021088 911 MSTROKE Medical - Unconscious - Fainting Total: 6 07/08/19 21:19 Medical - Unconscious - 2019055493 Medical - Unconscious - WP19021314 911 MUNCONSCIOUS zU=RCHER Page 20 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time 07/16/19 16:21 07/21/19 10:30 07/22/19 15:18 07/22/19 19:59 07/30/19 14:11 Initial Call Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unknown Total: 4 07/19/19 11:39 Medical - Unknown 07/23/19 08:09 Medical - Unknown 07/27/19 01:26 Medical - Unknown 07/27/19 09:31 Medical - Unknown Missing Person Total: 4 07/05/19 22:59 Missing Person 07/07/19 11:33 Missing Person 07/17/19 16:31 Missing Person 07/31/19 20:16 Missing Person Motorist Aid Total: 7 07/01/19 20:15 Motorist Aid 07/06/19 01:10 Motorist Aid 07/06/19 19:39 Motorist Aid 07/08/19 15:24 Motorist Aid 07/10/19 12:47 Motorist Aid 07/16/19 19:29 Motorist Aid 07/27/19 02:09 Motorist Aid MVA - Car Deer Total: 1 07/31/19 18:47 MVA - Car Deer MVA - Hit & Run Total: 4 07/02/19 16:19 MVA - Hit & Run 07/05/19 13:21 MVA - Hit & Run 07/23/19 11:49 MVA - Hit & Run 07/31/19 13:07 MVA - Hit & Run MVA - Injuries Total: 2 07/18/19 09:53 MVA - Injuries CFS # 2019058070 2019059629 2019060032 2019060133 2019062799 2019059019 2019060249 2019061635 2019061685 2019054438 2019054987 2019058414 2019063223 2019053065 2019054484 2019054743 2019055366 2019055943 2019058132 2019061640 Final Incident Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unconscious - Medical - Unknown Medical - Unknown Medical - Unknown Missing Person Missing Person Missing Person Missing Person 2019063193 MVA - Car Deer 2019053319 MVA - Hit & Run 2019054284 MVA - Hit & Run 2019060295 MVA - No Injuries 2019063081 MVA - Hit & Run 2019058668 MVA - Injuries Case Number Codes How Reported WP19022366 MUNCO911 NSCIOUS WP19022943 911 MUNCONSCIOUS WP19023094 Phone MUNCONSCIOUS WP19023136 MUNCO911 NSCIOUS WP19024073 911 MUNCONSCIOUS WP19022701 MUNKNgOWN MUNKAN WP19023662 MUNKNgOWN WP19023679 MUNKNOWN WP19020914 MISSPER1 WP19021118 hone MISSPER WP19022485 hone MISSPER WP19024211 hone MISSPER MOTORAID ne MOTORAI D MOTORAID ne MOTORAILhD MOTORAIDone MOTORAID ne MOTORAID ne WP19024196 911 MVACD WP19020471 MVAHR WP19020857 MVAHR WP19023188 MVAHR WP19024167 MVAHR WP19022568 911 MVAINJ ZUERCHER Page 21 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call 07/21/1916:17 MVA -Injuries MVA - No Injuries Total: 21 07/01/19 05:15 MVA - No Injuries 07/02/19 11:47 MVA - No Injuries 07/03/19 12:57 MVA - No Injuries 07/03/19 18:03 MVA - No Injuries 07/09/19 11:36 MVA - No Injuries 07/11/19 05:27 MVA - No Injuries 07/11/19 08:08 MVA - No Injuries 07/12/19 19:21 MVA - No Injuries 07/12/19 20:31 MVA - No Injuries 07/14/19 11:10 MVA - No Injuries 07/16/19 08:58 MVA - No Injuries 07/17/19 16:09 MVA - No Injuries 07/18/19 11:27 MVA - No Injuries 07/20/19 15:02 MVA - No Injuries 07/20/19 15:48 MVA - No Injuries 07/22/19 17:35 MVA - No Injuries 07/22/19 19:18 MVA - No Injuries 07/26/19 05:41 MVA - No Injuries 07/26/19 15:59 MVA - No Injuries 07/28/19 21:56 MVA - No Injuries 07/31/19 08:52 MVA - No Injuries CFS # 2019059701 2019052794 2019053226 2019053562 2019053672 2019055637 2019056184 2019056203 2019056763 2019056783 2019057293 2019057905 2019058408 2019058691 2019059407 2019059417 2019060081 2019060112 2019061246 2019061427 2019062214 2019063014 Final Incident MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries Agency Assist MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries MVA - No Injuries Neighborhood Dispute Total: 2 07/18/19 12:38 Neighborhood Dispute 2019058710 Neighborhood Dispute 07/26/19 19:31 Neighborhood Dispute 2019061503 Neighborhood Dispute Noise Total: 4 07/02/19 21:46 07/12/19 22:48 07/13/19 00:34 07/14/19 01:50 Case Number Codes How Reported MVAINJ WP19020271 MVA WP19020434 MVA WP19020581 MVA WP19020635 MVA WP19021370 MVA WP19021605 MVA WP19021616 MVA WP19021845 MVA WP19021853 MVA WP19022074 MVA MVA WP19022482 MVA WP19022579 MVA WP19022854 MVA WP19022858 MVA WP19023111 MVA WP19023129 MVA WP19023535 MVA WP19023604 MVA WP19023865 MVA WP19024144 MVA 911 911 911 911 911 WP19022589 NEIGHBDISP WP19023631 911 NEIGHBDI P Noise 2019053423 Noise WP19020517 911 NOISE Noise 2019056838 Noise WP19021880 NOISE Noise 2019056873 Noise WP19021891 Phone NOISE Noise 2019057229 Noise WP19022045 NOISE Noise; Unwanted Person Total: 1 ZU=RCHER Page 22 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/21/19 02:52 Noise; Unwanted 2019059585 Noise WP19022919 NOISE; UNWANTED Off -Road Vehicle Complaint Total: 2 07/02/19 20:30 Off -Road Vehicle 2019053405 Off -Road Vehicle Complaint WP19020510 ORV Phone 07/29/19 12:04 Off -Road Vehicle 2019062383 Off -Road Vehicle Complaint WP19023921 ORV Phone Open Door -Window Total: 1 07/25/19 06:31 Open Door - Window 2019060906 Open Door - Window WP19023414 OPEN Ordinance Violation Total: 8 07/03/19 08:07 Ordinance Violation 2019053496 Ordinance Violation WPRK19020552 ORDINANCE 07/05/19 18:34 Ordinance Violation 2019054355 Ordinance Violation WPRK19020888RDINANCE Parking WP19021126 07/06/19 06:30 Ordinance Violation 2019054526 Ordinance Violation WP19020943 Parking 2019055033 Parking WP19021143 ORDINANCE 07/06/19 06:30 Ordinance Violation 2019054527 Ordinance Violation WP19020944 PARKING 07/10/1917:15 Parking 2019056060 ORDINANCE 07/09/19 21:13 Ordinance Violation 2019055807 Ordinance Violation WPRK190214589RDINANCoge 07/10/19 12:54 Ordinance Violation 2019055947 Ordinance Violation WP19021512 2019056431 Parking WP19021708 ORDINANCE 07/10/19 13:27 Ordinance Violation 2019055957 Ordinance Violation WP19021516 07/14/19 07:01 Parking 2019057252 Parking ORDINANNffffC��E 07/28/19 00:27 Ordinance Violation 2019061977 Ordinance Violation WPRK19023778RDINANCer Parking Total: 12 07/01/1912:42 Parking 2019052934 Parking WP19020319 PARKING 07/07/1912:31 Parking 2019055004 Parking WP19021126 PARKING 07/07/1914:22 Parking 2019055033 Parking WP19021143 PARKING 07/10/1917:15 Parking 2019056060 Parking WP19021550 gG PARKING11 07/11/1919:49 Parking 2019056431 Parking WP19021708 PARKING 07/14/19 07:01 Parking 2019057252 Parking WP19022056 PARKING 07/15/1916:59 Parking 2019057688 Parking WP19022247 PARKING 07/17/1917:38 Parking 2019058446 Parking WP19022494 PARKING 07/22/19 09:18 Parking 2019059912 Parking WP19023041 PARKING 07/22/1911:02 Parking 2019059945 Parking WP19023051 PARKING 07/22/1916:00 Parking 2019060049 Parking WP19023099 PARKING 07/30/19 08:20 Parking 2019062707 Parking WP19024037 PARKING Phone Call Total: 6 07/02/19 17:13 Phone Call 2019053341 Other PH 07/08/19 18:38 Phone Call 2019055436 Other PH 07/14/19 16:24 Phone Call 2019057375 Other PH ZUERCHER Page 23 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/16/19 20:56 Phone Call 2019058160 Other PH 07/17/19 14:15 Phone Call 2019058369 Other PH 07/30/19 19:03 Phone Call 2019062882 Phone Call WP 19024110 Other PH POR Check Total: 5 07/10/19 08:33 POR Check 2019055881 Officer REPO POR Repossession 07/10/19 09:19 POR Check 2019055894 Officer REPO 07/09/19 20:01 Repossession POR 07/10/19 09:27 POR Check 2019055895 REPO Officer Repossession 2019056539 POR 07/10/19 09:38 POR Check 2019055900 Repossession Officer POR REPO 07/12/19 13:51 POR Check 2019056663 911 REPO POR Repossession Probation Check Total: 14 07/08/19 18:46 Probation Check 2019055438 Officer REPO PROB Repossession 07/08/19 18:56 Probation Check 2019055442 Officer REPO 07/09/19 20:01 Repossession PROB 07/11/19 16:17 Probation Check 2019056346 REPO 911 Repossession 2019056539 PROB 07/12/19 09:05 Probation Check 2019056576 Repossession 2019057420 PROB REPO 07/12/19 09:12 Probation Check 2019056578 911 REPO PROB Repossession 07/12/19 09:38 Probation Check 2019056595 REPO PROB 07/12/19 11:13 Probation Check 2019056614 PROB 07/12/19 11:31 Probation Check 2019056621 PROB 07/12/19 11:41 Probation Check 2019056625 PROB 07/12/19 13:26 Probation Check 2019056656 PROB 07/12/19 13:41 Probation Check 2019056659 PROB 07/19/19 15:12 Probation Check 2019059091 Officer PROB 07/25/19 18:48 Probation Check 2019061125 Officer PROB 07/31/19 20:40 Probation Check 2019063231 Officer PROB Repossession Total: 10 07/05/19 21:42 Repossession 2019054409 REPO 07/09/1911:33 Repossession 2019055636 REPO 07/09/19 20:01 Repossession 2019055791 REPO 07/12/19 03:13 Repossession 2019056539 REPO 07/14/1919:11 Repossession 2019057420 REPO 07/17/1916:46 Repossession 2019058422 911 REPO 07/22/19 09:42 Repossession 2019059917 REPO ZUERCHER Page 24 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call 07/22/19 20:28 Repossession 07/22/19 21:43 Repossession 07/30/1913:02 Repossession Residential Fire Alarm Total: 1 07/02/19 22:01 Residential Fire Alarm CFS # Final Incident 2019060137 2019060158 2019062773 2019053427 Residential Fire Alarm Residential General Alarm Total: 3 Case Number Codes How Reported REPO REPO REPO WP19020519 911 ALARM 07/04/19 12:15 Residential General 2019053928 Residential General Alarm WP19020719 Phone ALARM 07/14/19 07:59 Residential General 2019057261 Residential General Alarm WP19022059 Phone ALARM 07/16/19 15:31 Residential General 2019058041 Residential General Alarm WP19022362 Phone ALARM Residential Medical Alarm Total: 3 07/15/19 04:12 Residential Medical 2019057510 Residential Medical Alarm WP19022166 Phone SIA 07/14/19 01:05 SIA Business Walk SIA 07/13/19 08:50 ALARM 07/23/19 14:06 Residential Medical 2019060330 Residential Medical Alarm WP19023206 Phone SIA 07/13/19 21:22 SIA Area Watch 2019057141 ALARM 07/24/19 14:29 Residential Medical 2019060653 Residential Medical Alarm WP19023322 Phone SIA Area Watch 2019061713 ALARM Search Warrant Total: 2 SIA 07/13/19 01:39 SIA Citizen Aid 07/03/19 14:54 Search Warrant 2019053615 Search Warrant WCID19020601 Officer SEARCHWT 07/12/19 05:52 Search Warrant 2019056546 Search Warrant WSIU1902175 SEARCH Wer SIA Area Watch Total: 4 07/11/19 20:14 SIA Area Watch 2019056441 SIA 07/14/19 01:05 SIA Business Walk SIA 07/13/19 08:50 SIA Area Watch 2019056930 SIA 07/27/19 02:25 SIA Business Walk 2019061643 SIA 07/13/19 21:22 SIA Area Watch 2019057141 2019062793 SIA 07/27/19 11:14 SIA Area Watch 2019061713 SIA SIA Citizen Aid Total: 1 SIA SIA Business Walk Through Total: 5 07/06/19 00:08 SIA Business Walk 2019054461 SIA 07/14/19 01:05 SIA Business Walk 2019057213 Officer SIA 07/27/19 02:25 SIA Business Walk 2019061643 SIA 07/30/19 13:59 SIA Business Walk 2019062793 SIA 07/30/19 23:36 SIA Business Walk 2019062957 Officer SIA SIA Citizen Aid Total: 1 07/13/19 01:39 SIA Citizen Aid 2019056888 Officer SIA SIA Community Presentation Total: 2 07/09/19 13:25 SIA Community 2019055672 SIA ZUERCHER Page 25 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/11/19 18:38 SIA Community 2019056407 SIA SIA Door Check Total: 2 07/16/19 00:26 SIA Door Check 2019057816 SIA 07/17/19 00:48 SIA Door Check 2019058221 SIA SIA Foot Patrol Total: 3 07/06/19 05:05 SIA Foot Patrol 2019054519 SIA 07/09/19 23:35 SIA Foot Patrol 2019055833 SIA 07/23/19 05:47 SIA Foot Patrol 2019060228 SIA SIA House Check Total: 2 07/16/19 01:20 SIA House Check 2019057824 Officer SIA 07/30/19 10:35 SIA House Check 2019062741 SIA SIA Other Total: 2 07/07/1914:24 SIA Other 2019055034 SIA Other WP19021144 Officer SIA 07/31/1919:17 SIA Other 2019063200 Officer SIA SIA Parks Total: 11 07/03/1910:58 SIA Parks 2019053534 SIA 07/04/1911:03 SIA Parks 2019053912 SIA 07/05/19 10:18 SIA Parks 2019054237 SIA 07/13/19 01:25 SIA Parks 2019056885 SIA 07/13/19 20:03 SIA Parks 2019057113 SIA Parks WPRK19022001 SIA 07/25/19 01:53 SIA Parks 2019060884 SIA 07/25/19 08:04 SIA Parks 2019060916 SIA 07/27/19 01:17 SIA Parks 2019061633 SIA 07/28/19 01:43 SIA Parks 2019061991 SIA 07/29/19 08:09 SIA Parks 2019062312 SIA 07/31/19 08:04 SIA Parks 2019063005 SIA Sign - Signal Repair Total: 1 07/30/19 11:52 Sign - Signal Repair 2019062756 hone SIGNREP Soliciting Total: 3 07/07/19 18:50 Soliciting 2019055110 Unwanted Person WP19021171 hone SOLICITp 07/15/19 14:11 Soliciting 2019057631 Check Welfare WP19022221 hone SOLICIT 07/30/1913:48 Soliciting 2019062790 Soliciting WP19024070 hone SOLICIT ZUERCHER Page 26 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported Stalking Total: 1 07/04/1919:21 Stalking Stolen - Property Total: 1 07/03/19 17:50 Stolen - Property Stolen - Vehicle Total: 1 07/29/19 00:16 Stolen - Vehicle 2019054041 Stalking 2019053668 Stolen - Property 2019062246 Stolen - Vehicle Suspicious - Circumstances Total: 19 07/07/19 01:53 Suspicious - 2019054902 07/09/19 16:12 Suspicious - 2019055717 07/09/19 23:49 Suspicious - 2019055834 07/11/19 06:43 Suspicious - 2019056194 07/14/19 11:43 Suspicious - 2019057301 07/14/19 12:08 Suspicious - 2019057306 07/17/19 14:23 Suspicious - 2019058372 07/18/19 13:37 Suspicious - 2019058726 07/20/19 00:15 Suspicious - 2019059280 07/20/19 21:08 Suspicious - 2019059493 07/23/19 06:45 Suspicious - 2019060237 07/23/19 13:17 Suspicious - 2019060320 07/25/19 09:28 Suspicious - 2019060941 07/25/19 16:02 Suspicious - 2019061065 07/25/19 18:33 Suspicious - 2019061120 07/26/19 11:28 Suspicious - 2019061318 07/27/19 15:09 Suspicious - 2019061796 07/28/19 01:51 Suspicious - 2019061998 07/28/19 16:08 Suspicious - 2019062135 WP19020762 STALKINGhone WP19020628 STOLPRO1 WP19023877 STOLVEH one Suspicious -Person -Vehicle WP19021090 SUSPCI911 RC Suspicious - Circumstances hne WP19021415 Phone SUSPCIRC Suspicious - Circumstances WP19021465 C SUSPCIRhe Suspicious - Circumstances WP19021613 SUSPCIRCon Suspicious - Circumstances WP19022078 SUSPCIRCne Suspicious - Circumstances WP19022080 SUSPCIRhC Suspicious - Circumstances WCID1902246 SUSPCIRoneC Suspicious - Circumstances WP19022593 91 SUSPCIRC Suspicious - Circumstances WP19022800 SUSPCIR1C Suspicious - Circumstances WP19022885 SUSPCIRCone Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023164 SUSPCIRCne Theft WP19023202 Ph Phone SUSPCIRC Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023426 SUSPCIRCone Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023479 SUSPCIRCne Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023497 SUSPCIRCne Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023562 SUSPCI911 RC Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023720 91 SUSPCIRC Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023779 SUSPCIR1C Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023833 SUSPCIRCone Suspicious - Circumstances; Threats Total: 1 07/14/19 23:29 Suspicious - 2019057482 Domestic Disturbance WP19022154 911 SUSPCIRC; THREATS Suspicious - Person - Vehicle Total: 20 07/01/19 09:43 Suspicious - Person - 2019052864 07/03/19 06:16 Suspicious - Person - 2019053478 07/03/19 16:55 Suspicious - Person - 2019053649 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19020291 SUSPPV Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19020543 SUSPPVhone Suspicious -Person -Vehicle WP19020626 SUSPPV11 ZUERCHER Page 27 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes Reported 07/04/19 14:44 Suspicious - Person - 2019053961 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19020733 gHow SUSPPV 11 07/06/19 02:04 Suspicious - Person - 2019054501 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19020934 hone 07/03/1914:36 Theft 2019053607 Theft SUSPPV 07/06/19 09:31 Suspicious - Person - 2019054554 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19020951 hone THEFT SUSPPV 07/06/19 17:44 Suspicious - Person - 2019054699 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19021005 hone Phone SUSPPV 07/07/19 00:23 Suspicious - Person - 2019054865 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19021072 hone 2019054489 Theft WP19020926 SUSPPV 07/09/19 10:59 Suspicious - Person - 2019055608 Drugs WP19021366 hone THEFT 07/07/1913:14 Theft SUSPPV 07/10/19 09:13 Suspicious - Person - 2019055891 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19021491 hone SUSPPV 07/10/19 19:31 Suspicious - Person - 2019056093 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19021567 Theft WP19021260 Phone SUSPPVhone 07/12/19 09:34 Suspicious - Person - 2019056592 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WCID1902177 SUSPPVhone 07/09/1914:52 Theft 2019055689 Theft 07/20/19 19:02 Suspicious - Person - 2019059461 Theft WP19022872 hone THEFT SUSPPV 07/21/19 20:48 Suspicious - Person - 2019059766 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19023006 hone Phone SUSPPV 07/23/19 11:31 Suspicious - Person - 2019060286 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19023186 hone Theft 2019055915 Theft WP19021498 SUSPPV 07/24/19 04:29 Suspicious - Person - 2019060534 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19023262 hone THEFT 07/10/1915:32 SUSPPV 07/27/19 22:44 Suspicious - Person - 2019061950 Citizen Aid WP19023770 Officer SUSPP 07/29/19 22:51 Suspicious - Person - 2019062630 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19024004 hone Theft WP19021542 911 SUSPPV 07/31/19 20:53 Suspicious - Person - 2019063232 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19024212 hone 07/16/1915:15 Theft 2019058034 SUSPPV 07/31/19 23:27 Suspicious - Person - 2019063274 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19024228 Phone THEFT SUSPPV Suspicious - Person - Vehicle; Dispatch - CAD - Addressing Problems Total: 1 07/08/19 19:59 Suspicious - Person - 2019055465 Suspicious - Person - Vehicle WP19021305 Phoe SUSPPV; DIWPCAD Theft Total: 17 07/01/1915:52 Theft 2019052991 Theft WP19020338 Phone THEFT 07/03/1914:36 Theft 2019053607 Theft WP19020606 Phone THEFT 07/03/19 20:34 Theft 2019053728 Theft WP19020655 Phone THEFT 07/06/19 01:17 Theft 2019054489 Theft WP19020926 Phone THEFT 07/07/1913:14 Theft 2019055017 Theft WP19021132 Phone THEFT 07/08/1914:26 Theft 2019055348 Theft WP19021260 Phone THEFT 07/09/1914:52 Theft 2019055689 Theft WP19021398 Phone THEFT 07/10/1910:11 Theft 2019055907 Theft WP19021496 Phone THEFT 07/10/1910:26 Theft 2019055915 Theft WP19021498 Phone THEFT 07/10/1915:32 Theft 2019056000 Theft WP19021538 Phone THEFT 07/10/1916:09 Theft 2019056017 Theft WP19021542 911 THEFT 07/16/1915:15 Theft 2019058034 Burglary WP19022360 Phone THEFT ZU=RCHER Page 28 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/23/19 07:39 Theft 2019060244 Theft WP19023169 Theft - Gas Drive Off Phone Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/06/19 22:48 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/07/19 16:39 Theft - Gas Drive Off THEFT Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/23/19 11:45 Theft 2019060294 Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023187 Theft - Gas Drive Off 911 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/15/19 17:23 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/16/19 11:04 Theft - Gas Drive Off THEFT Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/24/1915:38 Theft 2019060687 Theft WP19023333 THEFTGASone Phone THEFTGASne WP19021750 PhS ne THEFT THEFT 07/26/19 09:29 Theft 2019061283 Civil Complaint WP19023547 Phone THEFTGASne WP19022250 PhS ne THEFT THEFT 07/31/1916:32 Theft 2019063152 Theft WP19024182 THEFTGASne Phone ne THEFTGAS THEFT Theft; Drugs Total: 1 07/20/19 21:15 Theft; Drugs Theft - From Vehicle Total: 5 07/05/19 17:52 Theft - From Vehicle 07/10/19 10:18 Theft - From Vehicle 07/14/19 11:25 Theft - From Vehicle 07/20/19 15:10 Theft - From Vehicle 07/23/19 15:13 Theft - From Vehicle Theft - Gas Drive Off Total: 24 07/01/19 06:54 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/02/19 20:18 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/03/19 05:01 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/04/19 09:42 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/05/19 22:35 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/06/19 17:23 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/06/19 21:57 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/06/19 22:48 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/07/19 16:39 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/08/19 12:14 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/10/19 12:31 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/12/19 05:11 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/12/19 16:29 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/14/19 12:38 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/15/19 17:23 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/16/19 11:04 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/20/19 09:07 Theft - Gas Drive Off 07/21/19 11:29 Theft - Gas Drive Off 2019059496 Suspicious - Circumstances WP19022887 Phone DRUGS 2019054341 2019055909 2019057296 2019059409 2019060347 2019052811 2019053402 2019053472 2019053878 2019054430 2019054694 2019054791 2019054822 2019055068 2019055309 2019055939 2019056542 2019056707 2019057314 2019057694 2019057940 2019059338 2019059642 Civil Complaint WP19020879 THEFTGASone WP19020509 THEFTVEH Theft - From Vehicle WP19021501 Phone PhS ne THEFTVEH Theft - From Vehicle WP19022076 Phone THEFTGASone WP19020913 THEFTVEH Theft - From Vehicle WP19022855 WP19021010 PhS ne THEFTVEH Suspicious - Circumstances WP19023213 THEFTGASone WP19021060 THEFTVEH Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Civil Complaint Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Theft - Gas Drive Off Civil Complaint Theft - Gas Drive Off WP19020278 THEFTGASone WP19020509 THEFTGASne WP19020541 PhS ne THEFT WP19020709 THEFTGASone WP19020913 THEFTGASne WP19021010 PhS ne THEFT WP19021039 THEFTGASone WP19021060 THEFTGASne WP19021153 PhS ne THEFT WP19021241 THEFTGASone WP19021508 THEFTGASne WP19021750 PhS ne THEFT WP19021819 THEFTGASone WP19022083 THEFTGASne WP19022250 PhS ne THEFT WP19022327 THEFTGASone WP19022822 THEFTGASne WP19022951 ne THEFTGAS ZUERCHER Page 29 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/23/19 13:00 Theft - Gas Drive Off 2019060313 Theft - Gas Drive Off WP19023199 Phone THEFTSHOne 07/02/19 19:23 Theft - Shoplifting 2019053385 Theft - Shoplifting THEFTGAS 07/25/19 13:37 Theft - Gas Drive Off 2019061015 Civil Complaint WP19023456 ne THEFTS%ope 07/03/19 13:59 Theft - Shoplifting 2019053589 Theft - Shoplifting THEFTGAS 07/27/19 12:43 Theft - Gas Drive Off 2019061742 Theft - Gas Drive Off BP19006868 Phone THEFTSHOP1 07/04/19 13:50 Theft - Shoplifting 2019053950 Theft - Shoplifting THEFTGAS 07/28/19 21:16 Theft - Gas Drive Off 2019062204 Theft - Gas Drive Off WP19023858 Phone THEFTS 07/05/19 11:53 Theft - Shoplifting 2019054261 Theft - Shoplifting THEFTGAS 07/29/19 09:15 Theft - Gas Drive Off 2019062336 Theft - Gas Drive Off WP19023902 Phone THREATS 07/07/19 12:06 Threats 2019054997 Threats THEFTGAS 07/29/19 18:22 Theft - Gas Drive Off 2019062541 Theft - Gas Drive Off WP19023982 Phone THREAT 07/09/19 23:49 Threats 2019055835 Check Welfare THEFTGAS Theft - Shoplifting Total: 17 07/01/19 21:16 Theft - Shoplifting 2019053080 Theft - Shoplifting WP19020373 Phone THEFTSHOne 07/02/19 19:23 Theft - Shoplifting 2019053385 Theft - Shoplifting WP19020499 Phone THEFTS%ope 07/03/19 13:59 Theft - Shoplifting 2019053589 Theft - Shoplifting WP19020589 Phone THEFTSHOP1 07/04/19 13:50 Theft - Shoplifting 2019053950 Theft - Shoplifting WP19020728 Phone THEFTS 07/05/19 11:53 Theft - Shoplifting 2019054261 Theft - Shoplifting WP19020835 THEFTA101 P 07/05/19 22:05 Theft - Shoplifting 2019054417 Theft - Shoplifting WP19020907 THREATS 07/07/19 12:06 Threats 2019054997 Threats WP19021122 THEFTSHOne 07/06/19 01:15 Theft - Shoplifting 2019054487 Theft - Shoplifting WP19020925 THREAT 07/09/19 23:49 Threats 2019055835 Check Welfare WP19021464 THEFTSHOne 07/08/19 13:56 Theft - Shoplifting 2019055343 Theft - Shoplifting WP19021258 THREATS THEFTS%ope 07/08/19 17:31 Theft - Shoplifting 2019055406 Traffic - Complaint WP19021284 11 THEFTSHOP 07/08/19 18:28 Theft - Shoplifting 2019055430 Theft - Shoplifting WP19021291 911 THEFT HOP 07/09/19 13:27 Theft - Shoplifting 2019055674 Civil Complaint WP19021389 THEFTS%ope 07/13/19 19:01 Theft - Shoplifting 2019057097 Theft - Shoplifting WP19021992 THEFTSHOne 07/17/19 18:43 Theft - Shoplifting 2019058463 Theft - Shoplifting WP19022505 THEFTSHOne 07/21/19 15:21 Theft - Shoplifting 2019059684 Theft - Shoplifting WP19022969 THEFTS%ope 07/26/19 14:45 Theft - Shoplifting 2019061395 Theft - Shoplifting WP19023589 THEFTSHOne 07/27/19 15:07 Theft - Shoplifting 2019061795 Theft - Shoplifting WP19023719 THEFTSHOne 07/31/19 14:44 Theft - Shoplifting 2019063111 Theft - Shoplifting WP19024174 THEFTS%ope Threats Total: 15 07/02/1914:33 Threats 2019053277 Threats WP19020458 Phone THREATS 07/02/1918:26 Threats 2019053368 Threats WP19020489 Phone THREATS 07/05/1916:02 Threats 2019054326 Threats WP19020872 Phone THREATS 07/06/1911:52 Threats 2019054592 Threats WP19020968 911 THREATS 07/06/1919:46 Threats 2019054747 Threats WP19021024 Phone THREATS 07/07/19 12:06 Threats 2019054997 Threats WP19021122 gS1 THREAT 07/09/19 23:49 Threats 2019055835 Check Welfare WP19021464 Phone THREATS ZUERCHER Page 30 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes Reported 07/12/19 19:04 Threats 2019056755 Threats WP19021842 gHow 1 T 07/03/19 17:21 Traffic - Complaint THREATS 07/16/1914:53 Threats 2019058026 Threats WP19022357 Phone T THREATS 07/20/1915:39 Threats 2019059415 Threats WP19022857 Phone THREATS 07/21/19 02:08 Threats 2019059581 Citizen Aid WP19022918 Phone 911 THREATS 07/24/1913:27 Threats 2019060631 Threats WP19023311 Phone Traffic - Complaint WP19020962 911 THREATS 07/25/1912:05 Threats 2019060984 Threats WP19023444 Phone Traffic - Complaint 2019055104 Traffic - Complaint WP19021169 THREATS 07/27/19 12:50 Threats 2019061746 Threats WP19023703 1 07/08/19 13:53 Traffic - Complaint 2019055341 Traffic - Complaint THREATS 07/29/1919:37 Threats 2019062568 Threats WP19023985 Phone T 07/10/19 17:22 Traffic - Complaint THREATS Traffic - Complaint Total: 28 07/02/19 17:03 Traffic - Complaint 2019053338 Traffic - Complaint WP19020478 Phone T 07/03/19 17:21 Traffic - Complaint 2019053659 Traffic - Complaint WP19020624 911 T 07/03/19 21:22 Traffic - Complaint 2019053746 Traffic - Complaint WP19020665 Phone T 07/04/19 15:06 Traffic - Complaint 2019053968 Traffic - Complaint WP19020738 911 T 07/06/19 11:02 Traffic - Complaint 2019054579 Traffic - Complaint WP19020962 911 T 07/07/19 18:40 Traffic - Complaint 2019055104 Traffic - Complaint WP19021169 Phone T 07/08/19 13:53 Traffic - Complaint 2019055341 Traffic - Complaint WP19021259 Phone T 07/10/19 17:22 Traffic - Complaint 2019056064 Traffic - Complaint WP19021553 Phone T 07/11/19 08:50 Traffic - Complaint 2019056216 Traffic - Complaint WP19021620 Phone T 07/12/19 13:20 Traffic - Complaint 2019056653 Citizen Aid WP19021796 Phone T 07/13/19 18:30 Traffic - Complaint 2019057089 Traffic - Complaint WP19021990 911 T 07/13/19 21:57 Traffic - Complaint 2019057155 DUI WP19022017 Phone T 07/13/19 22:34 Traffic - Complaint 2019057170 Traffic - Complaint WP19022024 Phone T 07/15/19 10:44 Traffic - Complaint 2019057571 Traffic - Complaint WP19022191 911 T 07/17/19 18:56 Traffic - Complaint 2019058465 Traffic - Complaint WP19022506 Phone T 07/20/19 11:11 Traffic - Complaint 2019059359 Traffic - Complaint WP19022831 911 T 07/21/19 14:20 Traffic - Complaint 2019059672 Phone T 07/22/19 13:59 Traffic - Complaint 2019059996 Check Welfare WP19023078 Phone T 07/22/19 22:45 Traffic - Complaint 2019060174 911 T 07/24/19 12:37 Traffic - Complaint 2019060619 Off -Road Vehicle Complaint WP19023305 Phone T 07/25/19 02:22 Traffic - Complaint 2019060888 Traffic - Complaint WP19023407 Phone T 07/25/19 21:05 Traffic - Complaint 2019061177 Traffic - Complaint WP19023512 911 T 07/26/19 22:49 Traffic - Complaint 2019061588 Traffic - Complaint WP19023653 911 T ZUERCHER Page 31 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/27/19 11:44 Traffic - Complaint 2019061730 Traffic - Complaint WP19023693 911 Traffic Stop 2019052803 Officer T 07/27/19 16:57 Traffic - Complaint 2019061825 Traffic - Complaint WP19023729 Traffic Stop 911 Traffic Stop WSIl119020339TS Officer T 07/27/19 23:03 Traffic - Complaint 2019061956 Traffic Stop 2019053053 911 Officer T 07/28/19 13:21 Traffic - Complaint 2019062097 Traffic - Complaint WP19023816 Officer Phone TS T Traffic Stop 07/29/19 18:19 Traffic - Complaint 2019062539 Traffic - Complaint WP19023981 911 TS 07/02/19 10:40 Traffic Stop T Traffic Stop Traffic - Hazard Total: 3 07/03/19 12:57 Traffic - Hazard 2019053561 Traffic - Hazard WP19020580 Phone THAZARD 07/15/19 16:39 Traffic - Hazard 2019057679 Traffic - Hazard WP19022243 Phone THAZARD 07/15/19 16:52 Traffic - Hazard 2019057684 Traffic - Hazard WP19022242 Phone THAZARD Traffic Stop Total: 230 07/01/19 02:05 Traffic Stop 2019052781 Officer TS 07/01/19 06:35 Traffic Stop 2019052803 Officer TS 07/01/19 15:35 Traffic Stop 2019052983 Traffic Stop WSIl119020339TS Officer 07/01/19 19:28 Traffic Stop 2019053053 Officer TS 07/02/19 02:23 Traffic Stop 2019053119 Traffic Stop WP19020390 Officer TS 07/02/19 05:25 Traffic Stop 2019053127 Officer TS 07/02/19 10:40 Traffic Stop 2019053212 Traffic Stop WP19020429 Officer TS 07/02/19 12:04 Traffic Stop 2019053228 Officer TS 07/02/19 12:12 Traffic Stop 2019053230 Officer TS 07/02/19 14:21 Traffic Stop 2019053272 Officer TS 07/02/19 17:37 Traffic Stop 2019053351 Officer TS 07/03/19 08:59 Traffic Stop 2019053508 Officer TS 07/03/19 16:28 Traffic Stop 2019053639 Officer TS 07/03/19 17:40 Traffic Stop 2019053664 Officer TS 07/03/19 23:01 Traffic Stop 2019053793 Agency Assist WP19020681 Officer TS 07/04/19 01:40 Traffic Stop 2019053827 Officer TS 07/04/19 10:07 Traffic Stop 2019053884 Officer TS 07/04/19 17:11 Traffic Stop 2019054001 Officer TS 07/04/19 17:18 Traffic Stop 2019054004 Officer TS 07/04/19 20:00 Traffic Stop 2019054047 Officer TS 07/04/19 21:48 Traffic Stop 2019054080 Officer TS 07/04/19 23:08 Traffic Stop 2019054117 Officer TS ZUERCHER Page 32 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/05/19 00:22 Traffic Stop 2019054149 Officer TS 07/05/19 00:55 Traffic Stop 2019054157 Officer TS 07/05/19 01:46 Traffic Stop 2019054172 Officer TS 07/05/19 17:25 Traffic Stop 2019054336 Officer TS 07/05/19 17:46 Traffic Stop 2019054338 Officer TS 07/05/19 18:53 Traffic Stop 2019054360 Officer TS 07/05/19 19:54 Traffic Stop 2019054378 Officer TS 07/05/19 23:35 Traffic Stop 2019054446 Officer TS 07/06/19 00:13 Traffic Stop 2019054462 Officer TS 07/06/19 02:28 Traffic Stop 2019054507 Officer TS 07/06/19 05:26 Traffic Stop 2019054521 Officer TS 07/06/19 07:34 Traffic Stop 2019054533 Traffic Stop WP19020946 Officer TS 07/06/1910:32 Traffic Stop 2019054569 TS 07/06/19 11:44 Traffic Stop 2019054590 TS 07/06/19 11:55 Traffic Stop 2019054594 Officer TS 07/06/19 14:37 Traffic Stop 2019054645 Officer TS 07/06/19 15:07 Traffic Stop 2019054653 Officer TS 07/06/19 15:17 Traffic Stop 2019054656 Officer TS 07/06/19 15:25 Traffic Stop 2019054660 Officer TS 07/06/19 15:26 Traffic Stop 2019054661 Officer TS 07/06/19 15:36 Traffic Stop 2019054663 Officer TS 07/06/19 15:55 Traffic Stop 2019054668 Officer TS 07/06/19 16:11 Traffic Stop 2019054672 Officer TS 07/06/19 16:14 Traffic Stop 2019054673 Officer TS 07/06/19 16:26 Traffic Stop 2019054683 Officer TS 07/06/19 16:31 Traffic Stop 2019054684 Officer TS 07/06/19 16:59 Traffic Stop 2019054692 Traffic Stop WP19021003 Officer TS 07/06/19 22:33 Traffic Stop 2019054813 Officer TS 07/07/19 16:09 Traffic Stop 2019055055 Officer TS 07/07/19 16:20 Traffic Stop 2019055060 Officer TS 07/07/19 16:29 Traffic Stop 2019055066 Officer TS 07/07/19 16:33 Traffic Stop 2019055067 Officer TS 07/07/19 16:40 Traffic Stop 2019055069 Officer TS ZUERCHER Page 33 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/07/19 16:55 Traffic Stop 2019055076 Traffic Stop WP19021156 Officer TS 07/07/19 17:07 Traffic Stop 2019055080 Officer TS 07/07/19 17:16 Traffic Stop 2019055084 Officer TS 07/07/19 17:26 Traffic Stop 2019055085 Officer TS 07/07/19 17:41 Traffic Stop 2019055090 Officer TS 07/07/19 17:47 Traffic Stop 2019055091 Traffic Stop WP19021165 Officer TS 07/07/19 17:50 Traffic Stop 2019055092 Officer TS 07/07/19 17:56 Traffic Stop 2019055094 Officer TS 07/07/19 20:21 Traffic Stop 2019055136 Officer TS 07/07/19 21:59 Traffic Stop 2019055162 Officer TS 07/07/19 23:15 Traffic Stop 2019055182 Officer TS 07/07/19 23:33 Traffic Stop 2019055184 Officer TS 07/08/19 00:03 Traffic Stop 2019055191 Traffic Stop WP19021198 Officer TS 07/08/19 00:23 Traffic Stop 2019055196 Officer TS 07/08/19 03:11 Traffic Stop 2019055213 Officer TS 07/08/19 07:21 Traffic Stop 2019055237 Officer TS 07/08/19 10:28 Traffic Stop 2019055276 Officer TS 07/08/19 22:13 Traffic Stop 2019055510 Traffic Stop WP19021323 Officer TS 07/09/19 06:04 Traffic Stop 2019055556 Officer TS 07/09/19 06:43 Traffic Stop 2019055560 Traffic Stop WP19021342 Officer TS 07/09/19 08:52 Traffic Stop 2019055580 Officer TS 07/09/19 09:41 Traffic Stop 2019055589 Officer TS 07/09/19 11:46 Traffic Stop 2019055639 TS 07/10/19 05:22 Traffic Stop 2019055860 Officer TS 07/10/19 12:22 Traffic Stop 2019055934 Traffic Stop WP19021509 Officer TS 07/10/19 20:14 Traffic Stop 2019056101 Officer TS 07/10/19 23:42 Traffic Stop 2019056151 Traffic Stop WP19021593 Officer TS 07/11/19 00:05 Traffic Stop 2019056158 Officer TS 07/11/19 00:25 Traffic Stop 2019056162 Traffic Stop WP19021596 Officer TS 07/11/19 00:52 Traffic Stop 2019056167 Drugs WP19021598 Officer TS 07/11/19 13:02 Traffic Stop 2019056284 Traffic Stop WP19021646 Officer TS 07/11/19 15:08 Traffic Stop 2019056314 Traffic Stop WSIU1902165 TS Officer 07/11/19 16:33 Traffic Stop 2019056354 Officer TS ZUERCHER Page 34 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/11/19 21:29 Traffic Stop 2019056465 DUI WP19021728 Officer TS 07/11/19 23:37 Traffic Stop 2019056500 Officer TS 07/12/19 00:06 Traffic Stop 2019056506 Officer TS 07/12/19 00:19 Traffic Stop 2019056510 Traffic Stop WP19021740 Officer TS 07/12/19 00:47 Traffic Stop 2019056516 Officer TS 07/12/19 10:50 Traffic Stop 2019056609 Officer TS 07/12/19 13:45 Traffic Stop 2019056661 Officer TS 07/12/19 18:13 Traffic Stop 2019056743 Traffic Stop WP19021834 Officer TS 07/12/19 19:09 Traffic Stop 2019056757 Officer TS 07/12/19 21:43 Traffic Stop 2019056814 Officer TS 07/13/19 00:08 Traffic Stop 2019056866 Officer TS 07/13/19 08:55 Traffic Stop 2019056931 Officer TS 07/13/19 15:29 Traffic Stop 2019057029 Officer TS 07/14/19 14:30 Traffic Stop 2019057338 Officer TS 07/14/19 16:47 Traffic Stop 2019057384 Officer TS 07/15/19 09:40 Traffic Stop 2019057545 Officer TS 07/15/19 10:38 Traffic Stop 2019057568 Officer TS 07/15/19 10:49 Traffic Stop 2019057574 Officer TS 07/15/19 10:59 Traffic Stop 2019057579 Officer TS 07/15/19 11:04 Traffic Stop 2019057581 TS 07/15/19 16:05 Traffic Stop 2019057668 Officer TS 07/15/19 22:26 Traffic Stop 2019057790 Officer TS 07/15/19 22:31 Traffic Stop 2019057792 Officer TS 07/15/19 23:22 Traffic Stop 2019057802 Officer TS 07/15/19 23:41 Traffic Stop 2019057806 Officer TS 07/15/19 23:43 Traffic Stop 2019057807 Officer TS 07/15/19 23:54 Traffic Stop 2019057810 Officer TS 07/16/19 00:13 Traffic Stop 2019057812 Officer TS 07/16/19 01:33 Traffic Stop 2019057828 Traffic Stop WP19022289 Officer TS 07/16/19 01:59 Traffic Stop 2019057829 Officer TS 07/16/19 09:37 Traffic Stop 2019057916 Officer TS 07/16/19 09:44 Traffic Stop 2019057921 Officer TS 07/16/19 12:35 Traffic Stop 2019057975 Officer TS ZUERCHER Page 35 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/16/19 12:55 Traffic Stop 2019057983 Officer TS 07/16/19 14:04 Traffic Stop 2019058002 Officer TS 07/16/19 14:54 Traffic Stop 2019058027 Officer TS 07/16/19 21:15 Traffic Stop 2019058163 Officer TS 07/16/19 21:57 Traffic Stop 2019058180 Drugs WP19022406 Officer TS 07/16/19 22:25 Traffic Stop 2019058195 Officer TS 07/17/19 00:25 Traffic Stop 2019058215 Officer TS 07/17/19 01:35 Traffic Stop 2019058233 Officer TS 07/17/19 13:12 Traffic Stop 2019058352 Traffic Stop WP19022461 Officer TS 07/18/19 00:18 Traffic Stop 2019058559 Officer TS 07/18/19 14:46 Traffic Stop 2019058754 Officer TS 07/18/19 23:36 Traffic Stop 2019058897 Officer TS 07/18/19 23:59 Traffic Stop 2019058902 Officer TS 07/19/19 00:22 Traffic Stop 2019058905 Officer TS 07/19/19 00:28 Traffic Stop 2019058907 Officer TS 07/19/19 10:50 Traffic Stop 2019058998 Officer TS 07/19/19 13:17 Traffic Stop 2019059049 TS 07/19/19 14:37 Traffic Stop 2019059073 Officer TS 07/19/19 14:46 Traffic Stop 2019059079 Officer TS 07/20/19 05:03 Traffic Stop 2019059311 Officer TS 07/21/19 09:43 Traffic Stop 2019059621 Traffic Stop WP19022937 Officer TS 07/21/19 11:59 Traffic Stop 2019059647 Traffic Stop WP19022954 Officer TS 07/21/19 15:58 Traffic Stop 2019059697 Officer TS 07/21/19 21:56 Traffic Stop 2019059793 Officer TS 07/21/19 23:46 Traffic Stop 2019059822 Traffic Stop WP19023019 Officer TS 07/22/19 04:46 Traffic Stop 2019059854 Traffic Stop WP19023028 Officer TS 07/22/19 13:19 Traffic Stop 2019059983 Officer TS 07/22/19 13:24 Traffic Stop 2019059985 Officer TS 07/22/19 13:32 Traffic Stop 2019059986 Officer TS 07/22/19 13:43 Traffic Stop 2019059990 Officer TS 07/22/19 15:23 Traffic Stop 2019060033 Drugs WSIU1902309$ Officer S 07/22/19 22:24 Traffic Stop 2019060169 Officer TS 07/22/19 22:29 Traffic Stop 2019060172 Officer TS ZUERCHER Page 36 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/22/19 23:29 Traffic Stop 2019060184 Traffic Stop WP19023147 Officer TS 07/23/19 00:37 Traffic Stop 2019060198 Officer TS 07/23/19 00:55 Traffic Stop 2019060201 Officer TS 07/23/19 01:07 Traffic Stop 2019060203 Officer TS 07/23/19 01:19 Traffic Stop 2019060205 Officer TS 07/23/19 01:29 Traffic Stop 2019060207 Officer TS 07/23/19 02:08 Traffic Stop 2019060213 Officer TS 07/23/19 02:57 Traffic Stop 2019060218 Traffic Stop WP19023156 Officer TS 07/23/19 23:17 Traffic Stop 2019060482 Officer TS 07/23/19 23:40 Traffic Stop 2019060495 Officer TS 07/24/19 00:34 Traffic Stop 2019060509 Officer TS 07/24/19 17:49 Traffic Stop 2019060747 Officer TS 07/24/19 21:59 Traffic Stop 2019060819 Officer TS 07/24/19 23:19 Traffic Stop 2019060849 Officer TS 07/24/19 23:43 Traffic Stop 2019060858 Officer TS 07/24/19 23:55 Traffic Stop 2019060859 Officer TS 07/25/19 00:16 Traffic Stop 2019060866 Traffic Stop WP19023400 Officer TS 07/25/19 02:43 Traffic Stop 2019060889 Officer TS 07/25/19 07:58 Traffic Stop 2019060915 Traffic Stop WP19023416 Officer TS 07/25/19 10:22 Traffic Stop 2019060958 Officer TS 07/25/19 10:30 Traffic Stop 2019060960 Traffic Stop WP19023431 Officer TS 07/25/19 12:04 Traffic Stop 2019060982 Officer TS 07/25/19 12:05 Traffic Stop 2019060983 Officer TS 07/25/19 12:07 Traffic Stop 2019060986 Officer TS 07/25/19 12:15 Traffic Stop 2019060990 Officer TS 07/25/19 23:32 Traffic Stop 2019061209 Officer TS 07/25/19 23:43 Traffic Stop 2019061211 Officer TS 07/26/19 00:55 Traffic Stop 2019061224 Officer TS 07/26/19 09:57 Traffic Stop 2019061293 Traffic Stop WP19023552 Officer TS 07/26/19 10:46 Traffic Stop 2019061300 Traffic Stop WP19023556 TS 07/26/19 10:52 Traffic Stop 2019061301 Officer TS 07/26/19 11:03 Traffic Stop 2019061306 TS 07/26/19 12:08 Traffic Stop 2019061335 Officer TS ZUERCHER Page 37 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/26/19 13:32 Traffic Stop 2019061369 Traffic Stop WP19023579 TS 07/26/19 22:14 Traffic Stop 2019061571 Officer TS 07/26/19 23:41 Traffic Stop 2019061607 Officer TS 07/27/19 02:03 Traffic Stop 2019061638 Officer TS 07/27/19 02:12 Traffic Stop 2019061641 Officer TS 07/27/19 10:39 Traffic Stop 2019061699 Officer TS 07/27/19 11:16 Traffic Stop 2019061717 Officer TS 07/27/19 11:19 Traffic Stop 2019061718 TS 07/27/19 11:35 Traffic Stop 2019061724 Officer TS 07/27/19 11:44 Traffic Stop 2019061728 TS 07/27/19 11:44 Traffic Stop 2019061729 Traffic Stop WP19023691 Officer TS 07/27/19 17:14 Traffic Stop 2019061832 Officer TS 07/27/19 22:11 Traffic Stop 2019061939 Officer TS 07/28/19 00:02 Traffic Stop 2019061968 Officer TS 07/28/19 07:55 Traffic Stop 2019062028 Officer TS 07/28/19 07:55 Traffic Stop 2019062029 Officer TS 07/28/19 08:00 Traffic Stop 2019062030 Officer TS 07/28/19 08:24 Traffic Stop 2019062035 Officer TS 07/28/19 08:33 Traffic Stop 2019062037 Traffic Stop WP19023792 Officer TS 07/28/19 09:44 Traffic Stop 2019062042 Traffic Stop WP19023794 Officer TS 07/28/19 11:02 Traffic Stop 2019062063 Traffic Stop WP19023805 Officer TS 07/28/19 22:10 Traffic Stop 2019062215 Officer TS 07/28/19 22:35 Traffic Stop 2019062220 Officer TS 07/28/19 23:27 Traffic Stop 2019062231 Officer TS 07/28/19 23:40 Traffic Stop 2019062236 Officer TS 07/29/19 01:59 Traffic Stop 2019062268 Officer TS 07/29/19 13:45 Traffic Stop 2019062423 Officer TS 07/29/19 13:52 Traffic Stop 2019062426 Officer TS 07/29/19 15:48 Traffic Stop 2019062468 Officer TS 07/29/19 19:26 Traffic Stop 2019062563 Officer TS 07/29/19 23:00 Traffic Stop 2019062635 Officer TS 07/30/19 00:08 Traffic Stop 2019062649 Traffic Stop WP19024012 Officer TS 07/30/19 12:47 Traffic Stop 2019062766 Traffic Stop WP19024056 Officer TS ZUERCHER Page 38 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported 07/30/19 13:24 Traffic Stop 2019062782 Officer 07/06/19 08:58 Training 2019054546 TS 11 07/30/19 13:43 Traffic Stop 2019062786 Officer 07/24/1913:51 Training 2019060644 TS 07/30/19 15:46 Traffic Stop 2019062833 Officer 07/29/19 08:58 Training 2019062330 TS 07/30/19 18:38 Traffic Stop 2019062876 Officer Transport Total: 3 TS 07/31/19 00:13 Traffic Stop 2019062967 Officer TS TRANSPORT 07/31/19 12:53 Traffic Stop 2019063078 Officer TS TRANSPORT 07/31/19 14:09 Traffic Stop 2019063101 Traffic Stop WP19024171 Officer TS 07/12/1915:50 Trespass 07/31/19 20:40 Traffic Stop 2019063230 Phone Officer TS 07/15/1915:27 Trespass 07/31/19 22:52 Traffic Stop 2019063263 Phone Officer TS 07/31/1911:28 Trespass 07/31/19 22:59 Traffic Stop 2019063265 Phone Officer TS Unwanted Person Total: 5 Traffic Stop ; Medical - Diabetic Total: 1 07/12/19 12:26 Traffic Stop ; Medical - 2019056636 Traffic Stop WCID1902180$ S; MDI%0fC Training Total: 3 07/06/19 08:58 Training 2019054546 11 TRAINING 07/24/1913:51 Training 2019060644 TRAINING 07/29/19 08:58 Training 2019062330 TRAINING Transport Total: 3 07/02/1913:22 Transport 2019053254 TRANSPORT 07/09/19 08:56 Transport 2019055584 TRANSPORT 07/17/19 08:23 Transport 2019058277 Transport WCVL1902243�RANSPORT Trespass Total: 3 07/12/1915:50 Trespass 2019056691 Trespass WP19021809 Phone TRES 07/15/1915:27 Trespass 2019057651 Trespass WP19022231 Phone TRES 07/31/1911:28 Trespass 2019063049 Trespass WP19024157 Phone TRES Unwanted Person Total: 5 07/06/19 01:32 Unwanted Person 2019054495 Unwanted Person WP19020930 g UNWAAED 07/10/19 10:00 Unwanted Person 2019055903 Civil Complaint WP19021495 UNWANTEge 07/15/19 17:51 Unwanted Person 2019057704 Medical - Psychiatric - WP19022256 911 UNWANTED 07/17/19 12:27 Unwanted Person 2019058333 Court Order Violation WP19022451 UNWANgTEge 07/21/19 03:25 Unwanted Person 2019059587 Unwanted Person WP19022920 1h UNWANTED Walk Away Total: 1 07/17/19 14:18 Walk Away 2019058370 Juvenile - Complaint WP19022467 911 WALKAWAY ZU=RCHER Page 39 of 40 Incident Start Date/Time Initial Call CFS # Final Incident Case Number Codes How Reported Warrant - Arrest Total: 4 07/12/19 00:28 Warrant - Arrest 2019056512 Warrant - Arrest WP19021741 WATTEMPTOfficer 07/03/19 23:11 Warrant - Attempt 2019053795 Warrant - Attempt WP19020683 WARRESTicer 07/14/19 16:00 Warrant - Arrest 2019057363 Warrant - Arrest WP19022105 WARRESRer 07/20/19 03:09 Warrant - Arrest 2019059310 Warrant - Arrest WP19022811 WARRESTicer 07/25/19 19:51 Warrant - Arrest 2019061147 Warrant - Arrest WP19023504 911 WARRESOTicer Warrant - Attempt Total: 9 07/02/19 21:19 Warrant - Attempt 2019053412 Warrant - Attempt WP19020516 WATTEMPTOfficer 07/03/19 23:11 Warrant - Attempt 2019053795 Warrant - Attempt WP19020683 WATTEMPTer 07/11/1915:15 Warrant - Attempt 2019056318 WATTEMPTer 07/12/19 17:34 Warrant - Attempt 2019056730 Warrant - Attempt WP19021839 911 WATTEMPT 07/19/19 15:36 Warrant - Attempt 2019059102 Officer WATTEMPT 07/23/19 21:25 Warrant - Attempt 2019060458 WATTEMPT 07/26/19 08:11 Warrant - Attempt 2019061267 pp WATTEMPTOfficer 07/26/19 16:41 Warrant - Attempt 2019061441 WATTEMPT 07/31/19 19:58 Warrant - Attempt 2019063217 Warrant - Arrest WP19024210 WATTEMPTer Total Records: 1131 ZU=RCHER Page 40 of 40 AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 12, 2019 — 7:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, MCC AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. 7:30 p.m. Concept State Planned Unit Development proposal for a mixed use development including a multi -unit residential multi -family apartment complex and future commercial development 3. Adj ournment Joint City Council & Planning Commission Agenda: 8/12/19 JM. Consideration of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development proposal for a mixed use development including a multi -building multi-familv apartment complex and future commercial development. (NAC/AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on June 24th, 2019 to discuss the concept submittal request prepared by Buchholtz Development/Construction. The discussion involved a review of the initial concept proposal, including staff comments, as well as preliminary response by the developer and City officials. In the discussion, Planning Commission and Council requested additional information on the adoption of the medium to high density residential uses within the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as information related to commercial land use areas and demand. At the conclusion of the joint meeting on June 24th, it was requested that a follow-up meeting be arranged to allow for further discussion of the concept. A second meeting was scheduled on July 29th, 2019 and was cancelled at the request of the developer. The developer requested additional time to prepare a revised concept. The developer's revised concept is included in this packet for Planning Commission and Council review and comment. Staff has not had an opportunity to complete additional review on the revised concept. As requested at the meeting of June 24th, staff has prepared additional supporting data and summary analysis below related to medium to high density housing land use and commercial inventory to support continued discussion of the concept proposal. Medium to High Density Residential The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance for medium to high density residential were approved by the City in April of 2014 after significant discussion. At the time of adoption, the city elected not to guide and zone land for high density development. However, both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance amendments included language relating to criteria for future designation consideration. Language is in excerpt below for both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan: "A complete housing stock includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi family housing types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate expanding the existing supply of higher density housing. It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher density housing to: ➢ Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population. ➢ Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the community. ➢ Provide housing needed to attract the workforce required to achieve economic development goals of the City Higher density residential land uses should be located and designed to be compatible with nearby residential or mixed uses, on lots able to accommodate Joint City Council/Planning Commission Agenda: 07/29/19 larger buildings and added traffic generation. In addition, siting factors for high density residential uses will prioritize access to services and amenities including public utilities, parks, trails and open space, and commercial and/or medical services It will be important, when considering potential designation of high density housing development, that the parcels meet the specific standards of the zoning district, and such development can be accommodated in accordance with the policies in this Plan. " While these comments and the comments in the zoning ordinance are intended to be instructive they are not necessarily the only factors that might come into play on specific properties. " Zoning Ordinance: "The purpose of the "R-4 ", medium-high density residential district is to provide for medium to high density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per building, and at densities of between 10 and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to establish higher density residential opportunities in areas appropriate for such housing, to be determined by the City on a case by case basis. The City of Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when, in its sole discretion, all aspects of the property support the potential uses of the R-4 district, including location, private and public services, and compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area. In making a determination as to the suitability of a site for R-4 rezoning, the City will prioritize the following site and area factors: Replacement Land Uses. R-4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and circumstances: • Land already zoned for R-3. • Land currently zoned for commercial uses, but which would not be considered `prime" commercial (the City would like to protect 'prime " commercial areas that show the most promise for that use in the future). Proximity to Other Residential Neighborhoods. • R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high density residential areas, however the nature and concentration of existing multi family structures shall be carefully considered to avoid an over concentration of these uses. • R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to lower residential uses, if it is determined that the high density site can address the site and area factors provided here. Architectural Compatibility and Building Massing. • In the vicinity of lower density residential areas, R-4 District buildings need to be lower profile with regards to size and mass, or need to be screened or buffered by distance and natural features. Requirement for Adequate Public Facilities. High density residential development shall be located to provide for the following essential services and amenities: 2 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Agenda: 07/29/19 • Access to public parks, pathways, and open space, without overburdening them. R-4 development may be required to provide additional facilities to meet the City's open space planning policies. • Connection to public utilities. • Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic generation that would utilize local streets in lower density residential areas. • Proximity to commercial and/or medical services. This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family housing as defined in this ordinance, as opposed to lower density housing types such as townhouses, two-family homes, or single family homes. " During the amendment's consideration, City Planner NAC also provided a powerpoint for purposes of discussion identifying locations which met the noted criteria. The powerpoint is attached as supporting data. The subject site for the Buchholtz proposal is among the sites previously noted for discussion as a potential R-4 location. Commercial Land Use The most current Commercial Land Availability map is included for reference. The 2019 map illustrates approximately 270 acres of available commercial land. The parcels are a variety of size and zoning designations. Absorption of commercial land over the last ten years has been slower as compared to the years between 2003-2008. Presumably this relates to both the recession and the changing nature of retail commercial use. Since 2009, commercial projects have included small to mid-size users such as Von Hanson's, Goodwill, Mattress Firm/AT & T, Petsmart, Marshall's, AutoZone, Affordable Storage and Walgreen's, to name a few. These small to mid-size users represent approximately 35 acres of commercial absorption from 2009- 2019. Larger commercial development has been slower, dominated by vehicle sale users such as Ryan and Monticello RV. The notable exception has been Mills Fleet Farm, which is approximately 30 acres developed with two 2+ acre parcels remaining to be developed. In summary, these developments total approximately 65 acres of commercial development from 2009 to present. However, this list does not include expansions such as those at Moon Motors, or reuse of available commercial property, such as the former Cruiser's, Kmart or Camping World sites. As a sub -regional center for commerce, Monticello will want to ensure adequate availability for commercial uses across the spectrum, including area suitable for retail, commercial service and office/professional uses. Recently, demand for office/professional use has increased. Council will note the recent rehabilitation of the Oakwood Professional Building, and the construction of the Fallon Office Building and Sherburne State Bank project as examples. As related to the Buchholtz proposal, the prior staff memo provides analysis of the mixed use concept which retains approximately 10 acres of commercial land (out of 18.3 total acres) in proposed lots fronting Chelsea and Cedar Streets. The parcel is approximately 620' in length and ranges from 900'-1300' in width from north to south. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Agenda: 07/29/19 For comparative purposes, planning staff analyzed the land area needed to site a big box retailer. Menards and Costco (for example), both require about 12 acres for their traditional layouts. The Chelsea Road area near the CSAH 19/I-94 interchange is approximately 35 acres in total. In terms of dimensions, there could be some squeeze for width, as Menards and Costco appear to locate on sites approximately 550-600 feet in site width. The Chelsea Road property is 500 feet between Chelsea and I-94. The property located between 7th Street East and I-94 is adequately sized in terms of both acreage (12 acres) and width. These parcels also have easy access to highway interchanges. For reference, the Monticello Home Depot is about 10 acres, Walmart is 20 acres, and the Cub Foods and Runnings sites are about 6-7 acres each. It should also be noted that most large retail users are currently gearing their search to highly visible freeway or highway frontages. The concept subject site does not have highway/freeway frontage and only limited visibility from TH25. Planned Unit Development — Concept Submittal Review Dale Buchholtz Construction is requesting informal concept plan review prior to submitting formal land use applications for the proposed development. The purpose of the Concept Proposal is to: 1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning Commission, and City Council; 2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a requirement for extensive engineering and other plans. 3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD design and review. The staff memo for the concept submittal outlined a series of comments and issues. Although the developer's concept has been revised, City Council and Planning Commission are asked to comment specifically on the following. The concept stage PUD review is intended to provide the developer with clarity on these items so that they may determine the next steps for their proposal. 1. Overall Land Use 2. Density 3. Setbacks 4. Building Design 5. Parking Supply, and the extent of the detached garages 6. Building Materials and Architecture 7. Landscaping, green space, setbacks, and other site plan improvements. 8. Circulation and Access 9. Street right of way 10. Internal private street design and circulation 11. Engineering comments and recommendations The June 24th staff memo suggested that the plan does not address the access relationship between the proposed commercial and residential uses and lacks open space. Staff has therefore provided for comparison purposes an alternative conceptual small area plan for the commercial zoning district lying between Cedar and Edmonson from Chelsea Road to School Boulevard. Although encompassing a larger area the proposed site, the plan .19 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Agenda: 07/29/19 addresses the relationship between the two uses, illustrating street access connections, incorporating a common green space corridor and orienting medium to high density uses toward Edmonson. The use of planned unit development for the proposed site would be used to support the mixed use concept of both high density residential and commercial uses. Council and Planning Commission will note that planned unit development should support a superior development product achieved through flexibility in design standards. An excerpt from the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for PUD provides that PUD is intended to: "provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non- residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable through the conventional zoning district." B. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Aerial Site Image B. Applicant Narrative C. Revised Concept Layout — 4 Building D. Concept Site Plan E. Exterior Elevation Illustration F. Interior Illustration G. Revised Concept Layout — 5 Building — Reference only H. Concept Proposal Information I. Premier Bank Letter J. City of Moorhead Letter K. Cedar/Edmonson Mixed Commercial/Residential Staff Concept Plan L. June 20, 2019 Concept Plan Staff Memo M. Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Land Use chapter N. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, R-4 District O. 2014 R-4 Density Powerpoint Presentation, including potential R-4 locations P. 2019 Commercial Inventory Map Q. Official Zoning Map 5 Dale Buchholz Construction I Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Created by: City of Monticello Lengthy Legals - See City Hall I PID 155500142104 Good morning Angela, Please find attach the fourth rendition of the site plan for the Monticello mixed use Planned Unit Development. I have attached the following documents: • A Colored Site Plan detailing the site layout and exterior amenities • 3D Colored Rendering of the Buildings • 3D rendering of the apartment interior • Site plan detailing the site specific information • Premiere Bank letter • A past "Mixed Use" project testimonial letter from the City of Moorhead • Site Plan III (5 buildings for reference purposes only) Based on the input that we received from the initial concept review meeting, we essentially abandoned our entire initial plan altogether and undertook a total project redesign. Some of the changes that are worth noting are as follows: • Aesthetically the buildings have been redesigned featuring a more urban look that is reminiscent of the many recent "mixed-use" projects in areas such as Edina, St. Louis Park, and Maple Grove. • Even though the project continues to be a Planned Unit Development the criteria set forth in the R4 Zoning classification is the guiding force for the multifamily portion of the project. • The redesigned site does not include any above ground garages. The buildings were redesigned with under unit attached heated garage(S) which is within the guidelines of the R4 zoning. • The R4 green space requirement of 500 SF per unit has been exceeded by 46%. (Please note that the retention pond was not included in the calculation of green space.) • Exterior amenities have been added including a commercial grade playground, an outdoor volleyball court, and multiple outdoor picnic areas featuring stamped concrete and commercial grade park grills. Interior Amenities will include a Wi-Fi Lounge and Coffee Bar which will encourage positive interaction amongst the residents. • The final site plan reduced the number of buildings from 5 buildings to 4 buildings. The buildings have been positioned in a manner that allows the apartment views to overlook the green space as opposed to the back of the commercial buildings. • The retention pond has been relocated to the west end of the site, which allows for far better circulation/access for both the commercial and multifamily. • The multifamily density per acre is within the R4 zoning standards. The redesign has added additional costs to the multifamily portion of the mixed-use development; however, in the end the upgrades will undoubtedly create a far better cohesiveness between the multifamily and the commercial amenities within the PUD development. Furthermore, the urban look of the buildings will serve as a seamless transition from between the Highway 25 Commercial corridor and the industrial corridor to the east. The end result is that upgraded apartment buildings will not only serve as a catalyst for commercial development, but also, as Wayne Elam noted, the higher end apartment project will help attract "higher end finishes on the commercial uses" thus improving the overall appeal and long-term stability to the development. I would appreciate if you would share this along with all the attached information with the City Council and Planning Commission. Thank you, Brendan Muldoon Commercial Realtor & Business Intermediary PROPERTY RESOURCES GROUP MURPHY BUSINESS & FINANCIAL CORPORATION 4265 451h Street South, Suite 200 Fargo, North Dakota 58104 Phone: (701) 499-3938 Cell: (701) 318-2699 \ ��I 11LI rJ�I- � IJJJ J J IJ .JJJ1I�R1I�JJ SJAJ11-1 JJ J 1.J I PRIVATE DRIVE—�-- - I i/ PICNIC I , 1, i• IC C II i , I I I ! SAND j i �., 51 Uh1T 51 U JIT 51 UNIT 51 U147 APARTMENT APA — AP4RTMENT APA —MEN i j ; PLAYGROUND i I I WATER RETENTION Qla'a z POND PI NIC — — n y i I , FEE T T PRIVATE DRIVE _.:_..........----.... � � ---------------------------------- PROJECT SUMMARY - BUCHHOLZ RHET 51 Unit Apartment (4) ARCHITECTURE One Bedroom 18 Two Bedroom 27 SCALE 1" = 70'-0" Three Bedroom 6 © Total Units 204 1w �z LU �Q �z O cn z O 0 w W77 O 0.lm O 1 ' i'_ - ---------------------- ----- w q b; W; ws s oNc) mZ owo �_� ; fs O S: w$� Mao, `ry� C An, out Ww j cFiY� r 07wGis 0101 1 llllillllllll4 `113 1111AIfI NN Joao=�f� = 33{ i}� t �Y 1< n ;t $ V ��¢g UZ emu a IN (A� r � � 1 O 0.lm O 1 ' i'_ - ---------------------- ----- w q z ��3 a its ° s Q Nl'KF�O 1 r 1 llllillllllll4 `113 1111AIfI rrT ♦ t t (A� r � � 1 Iaa t -f. co i I (III l�lllfll��° °i 11111111' � � u- - 1 � 1 � �1III111111111I1f1111111111111i1I�I� Ag. 41 1 ___L40 Sol W lilt OZ �a El I '� I figI In 1 d A I °YirorNID�s.Mtlwwu'M WvgNWag[�\„6U3'tdN x.uM+ol•!f w q z ��3 a its ° s Q Nl'KF�O I figI In 1 d A I °YirorNID�s.Mtlwwu'M WvgNWag[�\„6U3'tdN x.uM+ol•!f -7 'r J�] LIJITSAH "III 11LI _r,�R,,�JITSJA I I I I i I I I I � WATER RETENTION POND PRIVATE DRIVE I I" i A45 A 4 U 45 LIN APA MEN TME NT PA PICNIC \ f J J x* PI IC PRIVATE DRIVE 1 �'! PROJECT SUMMARY 1 BUCHHOLZ RHET 45 Unit Apartment (5) ARCHITECTURE One Bedroom 18 OrN Two Bedroom 21 SCALE 1" = 70'-0" 0 Three Bedroom 6 © Total Units 255 II I II ' II I II ' II II I I � I I I I II I I )a I y I APA PICNIC I I T I I I y SAN.I I VOL YBALL Z i I 1J I I I I I I I Specific PUD Concept Proposal A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone number(s) of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor, and any other relevant associates. Owner of Record Premier Bank (Tom Kern) 301 Central Avenue, Osseo MN 55369 (612) 741-1862 tkern@premierbanks.com Prospective Buyer/ Developer Dale Buchholz Construction (Mark Buchholz) 4379 33rd Avenue South, Suite 121, Fargo, ND 58104 (701) 371-1646 mdbuchholz@.Rmail.com Rhet Architecture (Rhet Fiskness) 27 11th Street North, Fargo, ND 58102 (701) 388-2867 rhet@rhet-arch.com Property Resources Group (Brendan Muldoon, Realtor representing Prospective Buyer) 426545 th Street South, Suite 200, Fargo, ND 58104 (701) 318-2699 brendan@prgcommercial.com Commercial Realty Solutions (Wayne Elam, Realtor representing Owner of Record) 3 Highway 55 West, Buffalo, MN 55313-4320 (763) 682-2400 info@commercialrealtvsolutions.com 2. A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in acres and square feet and current legal description(s). a. Property does not currently have a physical address. The parcel identification number as follows. i. 155500142104 ii. The property is bound by Chelsea Road to the North, Edmonson Road to the East, Cedar Street to the West, and parcels to the South (155500142300, 155230000010, and 155500142401) b. Zoning: B-4 Regional Business District c. Parcel Size: 18.6106 acres (810,678 SF) A narrative explaining the applicant's proposed objectives for the PUD, and public values that the applicant believes may be achieved by the project. The new construction will allow Monticello's tax base to grow and compete with neighboring cities by attracting new residents and retaining existing residents with a diversity of new housing types. This is accomplished using a PUD that establishes generous building setbacks, greenspace, and density criteria. The architectural design will feature a timeless quality using traditional materials and colors. The apartments will feature a variety of one, two, and three bedroom units with balconies for market rate rents. 4. A listing of general information including the number of proposed residential units, commercial and industrial land uses by category of use, public use areas including a description of proposed use, and any other land use proposed as part of the PUD. a. Proposed Number of Residential Units: 156 units- 369,998 SF (9.11 acres) b. 440,653 SF (10.11 acres) of commercial use to remain consistent with the existing zoning of B-4 Regional Business District c. Legal Description: Sect -14 Twp -121 Range -025 UNPLATTED LAND MONTICELL01 N1/2 OF NW1/4 LY S OF N586.37 FT OF SD N1/2 OF NW1/4 &LY ELY OF ELY LN OF OLD ST HWY 25 NKA CEDAR ST &LY WLY &SLY OF CTY RD 117 THAT WAS PRE - TAKEN FOR R/W BY STATE 5. Calculation of the proposed density of the project and the potential density under standard zoning regulations, including both gross density and net density, accounting for developable and undevelopable land. Undevelopable land shall include all wetlands, floodplains, sensitive ecological areas identified in the Natural Resource Inventory, slopes greater than 18%, poor soils and areas of concentrated woodlands. a. Please see attached Development Plan for the Calculation of the Proposed Density of the Project. b. The subject property does not include wetlands, floodplains, or sensitive ecological areas identified in the Natural Resource Inventory, slopes greater than 18%, poor soils and areas of concentrated woodlands. 6. Outline a conceptual development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be completed (including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas). a. The multi -family portion of the project shall be built out in 3 phases. The first of which shall commence in September 2019 and shall be completed in April 2020. Phase 2 shall commence August of 2020 and shall be completed in May of 2021. The third phase shall commence August of 2021 and shall be completed in May of 2022. b. The commercial portion of the project shall be completed based on market demand. The initial projections are that the commercial land will be absorbed at 3 acres per year or over a 3 -year period. The commercial land will be professionally marketed to third party buyers as well as on a build -to -suit basis. 7. A Concept PUD Proposal illustrating the nature and type of proposed development. At a minimum, the plan should show: a. Area calculations for gross land area- 18.6106 acres b. Existing zoning district(s)- B-4 Regional Business District c. Layout of proposed lots and proposed uses. Denote outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space (schools, parks, etc.) - See attached Development Plan. d. Area calculations for each parcel - See attached Development Plan. e. General location of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property and within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel - Non Applicable f. Location of existing and proposed streets within and immediately adjacent to the subdivision parcel - See attached Development Plan. g. Proposed sidewalks and trails - See attached Development Plan. h. Proposed parking areas - See attached Development Plan. i. Proposed parks, common areas, and preservation easements (indicate public vs. private if applicable) — Non Applicable. j. General location of wooded areas or significant features (environmental, historical, cultural) of the parcel - Non Applicable. k. Location of utility systems that will serve the property — To be determined. 1. Other: An applicant may submit any additional information that may explain the proposed PUD. 8. A listing of the areas of flexibility from the standard zoning sought through the use of PUD design. The PUD is based on the City of Monticello B4 Business zoning and R4 -Medium High Density Residential District as a basis for design. Modifications to the R4 district includes a 60' front yard setback and less density. R4 -Medium High Density Residential district provides for up to 25 units per acre while the proposed development plan provides for 18.4 units per acre. With regard to the commercial based land within the PUD the proposed plan does not seek to deviate from the guidelines set forth in the B4 -Regional District Zoning. Who we are. AMA Premier Where we've been. AWMRMM Where we're destined. IMIMMBank Minnesota n } We travel together. Ml n n esota -Donald B. Regan 4134 DEEGAN COURT - MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362 - PHONE 763-271-7670 - FAX 763-271-7671 ' www.premierbanks.com VIA EMAIL ONLY July 26, 2019 City of Monticello Attn: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Monticello City Hall 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Email: anaela.schumann(a),ci.monticello.mn.us Re: Dale Buchholz Construction Proposal Dear Ms. Schumann: I am the President, Northwest Area of Premier Bank Minnesota ("Premier") the owner of approximately 16.36 acres of vacant property located on Chelsea Road in the City of Monticello (the "Proaertv"). This letter is regarding the planned unit development proposal submitted by Dale Buchholz Construction ("Buchholz") for a mixed use development consisting of a residential multi -family apartment complex and future commercial development (the "Development"). Premier respectfully requests that this letter be included in the agenda materials for the Special/Joint meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission and City Counsel scheduled for Monday July 29. As a result of foreclosure proceedings, Premier acquired ownership of the Property on February 26, 2009. For the last ten years, Premier has continuously and actively marketed the Property for sale. While Premier has received some interest in the Property during this time, Buchholz is the first party with which Premier has entered into a purchase agreement over a 10 -year period and has demonstrated far more interest in the site than any prior prospects. Buchholz has successfully completed numerous apartment and mixed use development projects over the company's history and has the experience and competence to complete the Development. As a local bank that has been active in Monticello since the opening of our branch in 2006, Premier believes the Property is a great location for this type of Development and is a strong advocate for the proposal submitted by Buchholz. Premier, like other local retail users in Monticello, is keenly aware of the need for more housing units to enable sustainable growth. We believe in Buchholz's vision for the Development: that the best way to encourage commercial and retail users to build on this Property is to establish a dense core of housing units in the interior of the Property, immediately adjacent to smaller lots reserved for commercial and retail development. Throughout the communities in which Premier operates, this type of mixed use development is increasingly popular. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Please feel free to contact me at tkern�premierbanks.com or 763-493- 3456 if you have questions or concerns. Sincerely, Thomas J. Kern President, Northwest Area ALBERTVILLE " BLOOMINGTON ' FARIBAULT ' FARMINGTON ' HASTINGS ' MONTICELLO ' NORTHFIELD ' OWATONNA FDIC Q April 12, 2019 Re: Downtown Moorhead redevelopment project To whom it may concern: Moorhead's 11t Ave N corridor is transitioning from primarily industrial uses to a mixed used corridor in the heart of our city. Once such site that recently underwent this transition is "The Grove," a site previously used as an aggregate batch plant and now home to 135 housing units. The multi -family residential project was constructed in three phases. It included two 48 -unit buildings with an approximate market value of $4.2 million each and a 39 -unit building with an approximate market value of $4 million. The City of Moorhead and the Moorhead Economic Development Authority worked together to identify the project site, assemble property, demolish the existing structures, and market the site to find a developer who was able to deliver a large enough project to fund mitigation of the highly contaminated site. In 2015, Mark Buchholz, Dale Buchholz Construction, came forward as the developer to take on a project of this magnitude. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) had identified this site and listed it as a concerned site for chlorinate vapor. The site was heavily impacted by chlorinated solvents, petroleum, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The City of Moorhead and the developer worked together to obtain a Contamination Cleanup Grant of $1.2M from the State of Minnesota. The project also received Tax Increment Financing (Pay -Go TIF) for the remaining $600,000 of environmental cleanup costs. This project and the new residents it drew to this area has been be a catalyst for additional growth in this important downtown adjacent area. Sincerely, 6NP6WM0W Christina Volkers, City Manager City of Moorhead Email: chris.volkersCacitvofi-noorhead.com Derrick LaPoint, President/CEO Downtown Moorhead Inc. dlanoint(@dtmoorhead.org City of Moorhead 1 500 Center Avenue I PO Box 779 1 Moorhead MN 56561 1 www.cityofmoorhead.com NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANITS4 INC, 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: June 19, 2019 RE: Monticello — PRG (Buchholtz) Multi Family Project— Concept PUD Review NAC FILE NO: 191.07 — 19.10 PLANNING CASE NO: PROPERTY ID: 155-500-142104 Application and Proiect Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a proposed concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on the parcel bound by Chelsea Road to the north, Edmonson Road to the east, Cedar Street to the west and primarily vacant land to the south. The parcel is approximately eighteen and a half acres in size. It gains access to future development on the property via all three of the bordering streets. The concept project consists of a series of multiple family buildings in the south and east portion of the property, on about 8.5 total acres. The property abutting Chelsea Road and Cedar Street would be retained as commercial land for future development. The applicant shows a potential subdivision of those commercial lots reflecting access points that would be shared to minimize road connections. The proposal is made by Dale Buchholz Construction of Fargo, North Dakota. The property is currently zoned B-4 Regional Business District. However, the developers are asking for approximately 8.5 acres of the parcel to be rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, utilizing the R-4, Medium -High Residence District as the baseline zoning for comparative purposes. The other 10.1 acres will remain to be developed under the existing zoning of B-4 Regional Business District. The housing portion of the project consists of three apartment buildings, each building holding 52 units, 156 units total. Each apartment complex will have a variety of one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom options. Detail on unit size was not provided at this level of review. The multi -family housing would have 134 uncovered parking spots, 9 of those handicap accessible, and 262 covered parking spots in a series of 17 detached garage buildings. For the residential 8.5 acres, a gross residential density of approximately 18.4 units per acre is shown. For the project to proceed, there are a series of City reviews or approvals: o PUD Concept Review (the subject of this report). The project requires a PUD as it proposes to develop a single parcel that will have three separate principal buildings, and certain aspects of site design may require flexibility; Further approvals would include the following: o Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment reguiding the proposed residential parcel from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live"; o Preliminary and Final Plats incorporating the residential and commercial parcels, dedicating the appropriate right of way, and resubdividing the property for the proposed commercial and residential uses; o Rezoning to PUD utilizing the R-4, Medium and High Density Residential District for the proposed multi -family area; The current proposal is for a PUD Concept Plan review, which is not a formal zoning or land use application, but is intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to get City feedback on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The Planning Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project, ask questions of the proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised by the project. The neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting, but it is not a formal public hearing. This memorandum provides an overview of the project and will serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is offered for a Concept Review. However, it is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a frank and open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept Review process is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to understand how the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development details can be more finely tuned to address City policy elements. PUD Concept Review Criteria. The Comprehensive Plan was recently amended to consider the reguiding and rezoning of certain "non -prime" commercial areas for multiple family residential use. The first stage for this proposed project in that regard consists of an informal Concept Plan review which is separate from the formal PUD application which will follow the Concept Review step. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as follows: (1) Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non- residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re -apply under the standard applicable zoning district. PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows: (a) PUD Concept Proposal Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat (as applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed development, the applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal concept plan and present it to the Planning Commission and City Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept Proposal is to: 1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning Commission, and City Council; 2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a requirement for extensive engineering and other plans. 3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD design and review. The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of the proposed land use, and identify potential issues that may guide the City's later consideration of a full PUD application. The City Council and Planning Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to the developer, and may include an opportunity for informal public comment as they deem appropriate. 2 Staff Preliminary Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary considerations evident at this point in the process include the following elements: Land Use. As stated above, the proposed land use is currently zoned B-4 Regional Business District, and guided "Places to Shop" (Commercial). The applicants propose 8.5 acres of the parcel to be reguided to "Places to Live" a residential category that would support potential multiple family development. The Planning Commission and City Council should specifically address whether the area of the site proposed for multi -family is considered to be in a non -prime commercial area given its location away from the Chelsea and Cedar commercial district and its distance from TH25. As a non -prime location, this would suggest that the rezoning proposal could be accommodated. Council should refer to the highlighted portions of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Land Use (Exhibit G) as a reference on preferred siting factors for high density residential uses. As noted above, the other 10.1 acres of property will remain consistent with the existing zoning of B-4 Regional Business District. The commercial property will then be divided into as many as six individual lots of similar size. The proposal supports the retention of the commercial designation bordering existing commercial along Chelsea and Cedar. The applicants have identified the south and east portion of the property for the multiple family portion of the project. The primary roadway exposure is toward Chelsea and Cedar. Due to the size of the project, it is unlikely that the areas without exposure would attract significant commercial development. While the real estate market was significantly slowed during the last several years, commercial development continued, occurring almost exclusively in more highly exposed areas. The proposed multi -family site would therefore be a candidate for non-commercial uses. More specifically in regard to "Places to Live" and housing, the City of Monticello completed a 2017 Housing Study which identifies the number of multi -family units in Monticello and vacancy rates at the time of study. The study outlines goals relating to rental housing as a whole and the management of affordable housing supply within the rental market. Staff would encourage the review of this document as part of the consideration of this item. The Housing Study (page 26-27) also includes projections on unit demand for rental housing, with goals relating to both affordable and higher -end rental units identified. The report cites a need for approximately 64 additional rental units to bring vacancy rates into balance, and based on projected demographics, a demand for 217-243 rental households of varied type. Planning Commission and Council will note that the Rivertown Suites project 3 within the downtown will add 47 units to the current total of rental units, with 20% of those units required to meet affordability requirements under the TIF District. Additional multi -family unit development is also encouraged as redevelopment occurs within the downtown. If the Planning Commission and Council provide concept -level feedback that the use areas as proposed are supportable, staff would recommend re - guiding only that portion of the property proposed for multi -family to "Places to Live" Parkinq. Parking supply is shown at 396 parking spaces (2.53 spaces per unit), both covered and uncovered. The total supply is adequate and meets the zoning requirement of 2.25 spaces/du. The uncovered parking amount of 134 parking spaces also meets the zoning requirement of a maximum of 1.1 space/du. However, the proposed garage space does not meet the zoning standards. Monticello's garage code requirement in the R-4 District states that the base parking requirement must be met through attached or underground for multiple family projects. Detached accessory garages are allowed only after base requirements for underground or attached garages are met. The proposal only shows above ground detached parking garages. Elevations or renderings for the garages were not provided at the time of this report. iii. Buildinq Heiqht and Architecture. The applicants have provided preliminary details relating to building design at this stage. Staff would note that the R-4 zoning district encourages certain specific elements related to roof line, building materials, and overall design. With regard to roofline, the R-4 code requires roofline articulation to avoid a single continuous ridgeline. Building materials should include a mixture of masonry and composition siding, rather than vinyl. In addition, PUD design is expected to exceed the basic district standards in exchange for the flexibility offered under the PUD process. iv. Site Planninq. A preliminary site plan is provided as a part of the PUD Concept plan. Staff notes that specific requirements for open space and extensive setback regulations apply in the R-4 District. If the applicants propose to vary from the base zoning standards, they should provide rationale that supports the variation, and note the additional amenities or elements of the site plan that balance the proposed flexibility. a. The zoning requirements for the setback standards need to be taken into consideration. The setback standards are as follows: i. 100 feet, front ii. 40 feet, corner side iii. 30 feet, interior side 12 iv. 40 feet, rear setback to building v. Clear open space from ROW - 60 feet vi. Clear open space from property line - 40 feet The site plan identifies a 100 -foot setback from the centerline of Edmonson. This measurement should instead be from the right of way line, which is likely to shift into the property as a part of the plat. As a result, it is likely that easterly building location would be required to be moved 60-70 feet farther west than the concept site plan. Other setbacks would also require verification at development stage and preliminary plat when paired with the recommendation of the City Engineer regarding rights of way dedication. Compliance with setbacks should be an issue for discussion. V. Open Space. To meet the zoning standards, the applicant must propose at least 500 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. The applicant indicates that the proposed pervious (green) surface area of 37% would exceed this standard. However, a significant portion of this area is in small patches in an around the buildings, as well as a part of a ponding area along the north development boundary line. The high amount of impervious surface (driveways, parking, garages and principal buildings) appears to limit usable green space available to future residents of the project. a. Trails. The addition of trails on the property will require further review. Trail locations will be important internal to the project, as well as along the major roadways serving the project. b. Sidewalks. The applicant proposed a total sidewalk area of 1,812 square feet. These sidewalks are limited to the front of each building. c. Landscaping and Buffering. The project will be subject to a significant buffer requirement between the commercial and residential properties impacting all sides of the multi -family project, requiring specific additional setbacks and landscaping to screen and buffer the differing land uses. This requirement is likely to result in additional setback beyond that shown on the Concept plan. vi. Access and Circulation. Based on the site plan provided by the applicant, the multi -family apartment building would gain its access with an internal private road system extending from the both Edmonson on the east and through the commercial area to Cedar on the west. A third private access on the East side from Edmonson Avenue, about 200-300 feet south of the first private road would also give access to the apartment complex. The internal circulation winds among the various detached garages, and would be unclear to visitors, and raise issues of visibility at the garage building corners. A clearer internal circulation pattern could be beneficial. 5 vii. The City Engineer makes the following additional notes relating to ongoing plan development: The City's transportation plan identifies a minimum 500 foot access spacing on collector roadways like Chelsea Road. The proposed access from Chelsea Rd meets this requirement. Applicant to complete a traffic study to estimate ADT, peak hour volumes, traffic distribution, etc. to determine potential access improvements and impacts the proposed project will have on adjacent roadways and to determine recommended improvements. The applicant shall plat at a minimum 50 feet of right of way along Edmonson Ave and Cedar Street from centerline and 65 feet of right of way along Chelsea Road from centerline. Additional right of way may be needed along these roadways and at the intersections of Chelsea Road and Cedar Street/Edmonson Ave depending on the findings from the traffic study. Consider extending an access to the southerly property to serve future development. The city's pathway guide map identifies a 10 -foot wide bituminous trail be constructed along the west side of Edmonson Ave. This trail will be required to be constructed with the proposed development. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design Manual. Rate control, volume control, water quality and pretreatment measures will be required. The site is part of the TH 25 subwatershed and eventually outlets to the regional pond on the west side of TH 25. There is limited capacity in the storm sewer stubs along Cedar Street and Chelsea Road to accommodate runoff from the site. Additional stormwater information will be provided to the applicant before the project moves forward into design. Sanitary sewer and watermain services are available within the adjacent roadways to serve the site. The watermain should be looped within site. The site is within the low and moderate DWSMA vulnerability areas, however outside of the ERA, therefore infiltration is allowed. Proposed commercial uses and if they involve potential contaminants will be reviewed at the time of proposed development submittal in accordance with the City's wellhead protection plan. Summary. As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and feedback to the developer at the Concept Review level. Again, the Concept Review process is most n valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to understand how the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it presents. City officials should identify any areas of concern that would require amendment to avoid the potential for eventual denial, as well as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for eventual approval. Specific comment should address the following considerations: 1. Overall Land Use 2. Density 3. Setbacks 4. Building Design 5. Parking Supply, and the extent of the detached garages 6. Building Materials and Architecture 7. Landscaping, green space, setbacks, and other site plan improvements. 8. Circulation and Access 9. Street right of way 10. Internal private street design and circulation 11. Engineering comments and recommendations The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review. Should the Planning Commission and Council desire additional research or information to aid in the concept feedback process for the applicant, the Planning Commission and Council have the option to table this item to a subsequent meeting. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Site Image B. Applicant Narrative C. Supplemental Narrative D. Concept Lot Layout E. Concept Site Plan, 6-19-19 F. Concept Elevations G. Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Land Use chapter H. 2017 Monticello Housing Study 7 The future vision for Monticello provides the foundation for the Comprehensive Plan (the vision statement appears in Chapter 1). The Land Use Plan, in turn, provides the framework for how land will be used to help achieve the future vision for Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks to reinforce desirable land use patterns, identify places where change is needed and guide the form and location of future growth. The Land Use Plan for Monticello was shaped by a variety of factors, including: ► Community input gathered through public workshops and Task Force discussions. ► The existing built and natural environment in Monticello. ► The vision for Monticello's future. ► Factors described in the Community Context chapter of the Plan. ► Systems plans for transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply. This represents a departure in form from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The 1996 Plan included the land use plan as part of a broader Development Framework section. The 1996 Plan described Monticello's land use plan by general district of the community as a means of attending to the unique issues in each district. The 2008 Update of the Comprehensive Plan establishes a separate land use chapter consisting of the following components: ► A section on Future Growth describes the implications of future resident growth and the amount of growth anticipated by the Plan. ► The Land Use Plan Mau (see Figure 3-2) shows the land uses assigned to each parcel of land. ► Land Use Categories further explain the Land Use Plan by describing the land uses depicted in the Map. This section includes land use policies describe the objectives that Monticello seeks to achieve through the implementation of the Land Use Plan and the supporting elements of the Comprehensive Plan. ► Focus Areas provide a more detailed discussion of characteristics, goals and policies for key areas of the community. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2014 Land Use 1 3-1 Future Growth In looking to the future, Monticello must not just consider the qualities of the future community, but also the nature of growth. Assumptions about the amount and pace of future growth are important parts of the foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has several important implications for the Comprehensive Plan: ► Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity of municipal utility systems. ► Growth projections are used to create and manage finance plans for capital improvements. ► The school system uses growth projections to forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and facilities. ► Market studies use growth projections to analyze the potential for locating or expanding businesses in Monticello. ► The characteristics of growth influence the amount of land needed to support this development. ► Growth adds trips to the local street system. ► Assumptions about growth influence the policies and actions needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. For these reasons, it is essential that the Comprehensive Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth. A challenge in forecasting future residential development is that the Comprehensive Plan influences, but does not control, the factors that determine where people live. These factors include: ► Quality of life. ► Access to employment. ► Availability of desired housing and neighborhood options. ► Affordability. ► Competition from other places in the region. Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan seeks a balance between optimism and prudence. For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly understate the growth potential of Monticello. The balancing force lies with the implications of assuming Figure 3-1: Growth Trends and Projections 300 256 250 2az 223 22 208 200 - 67 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 +Actual 150 - 130 t projected 110 100 - 90 77 70 +\ 50 50 \- 30" 0 000 ti1 00'L 000 00$ 0,�0 01'1, Oyb 010 0.�0 0.1,0 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure 3-1 shows the projection of future residential growth assumed in the Comprehensive Plan. The projections assumes that the rate of growth slowly rises over the next five years and continues at a level of 150 units per year from 2012 to 2020. This amount falls below the 229 units/year average for 2001 through 2005. This rate of growth is intended to reflect several factors. Monticello will remain a desirable place to live, attracting both builders and residents. Housing market conditions will improve from the weaknesses experienced in 2006 and 2007. A combination of market conditions, local policy objectives, and changing demographics may reduce the potential for achieving and sustaining higher rates of residential growth. Slower future growth reflects the belief that achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular seeking more move up housing, will result in less development than in previous years. Growth Policies 1. The City will consistently review recent development trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. 2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth will occur within the boundaries of the current municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation Area. 3. Future development should be guided to locations that utilize existing infrastructure and locations 3-2 1 Land Use City of Monticello that facilitate the construction of street and utility systems that meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to property immediately north of the Mississippi River. Development in this area will place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown area) and channel investment away from other parts of the City, especially the Downtown. Land Use Plan Map The Land Use Plan Map (shown in Figure 3-2) shows the desired land use for all property in Monticello and the Orderly Annexation Area The land use plan depicted in this map builds on the previous community planning in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan uses the Land Use Plan to define the broad land use patterns in Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks to: an effective land use management tool requires a definition of each land use. These definitions provide a common understanding of the basic characteristics of each category used in the Land Use Plan. The 1996 Plan relies on three basic categories of private land use: residential, commercial and industrial. Each of these categories is further divided into subcategories that distinguish between the character, type and intensity of development desired in different locations. The 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a different approach to achieve similar land use patterns. The Land Use Plan map depicts series of "places" for private development: Places to Live, Places to Shop, Places to Work, and Downtown. This approach is based on the following rationale: ► These broad categories more clearly illustrate the pattern of development and the plan for future growth. ► Although residential land uses vary by type and density, they share many public objectives. ► Organize the community in a sustainable ► This approach makes a more enduring manner. ► Make efficient use of municipal utility systems and facilitate the orderly and financially feasible expansion of these systems. ► Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired by the community. The Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land use plan for Monticello. The other parts of the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan work with this map to explain the intent and objectives for future land use. Further, this map lays the foundation for land use controls that are used by the City to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Categories The Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description of the land use categories shown in the Land Use Plan. The ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as comprehensive plan. The Plan can guide an area for the appropriate land use without the need to predict future community needs and market forces. ► The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations, performance standards and public actions to provide a more detailed guide for land use and development. This approach conveys more flexibility and control to the City Council and the Planning Commission. Role of Zoning Regulations Zoning regulations play a critical role in implementing land use plans in Monticello. State Law gives zoning regulations priority overthe Comprehensive Plan. If land uses are different, zoning regulations control the use of land. Zoning regulations are particularly important in the application of the land use categories in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The "places to" land use categories set forth a broad and flexible land use pattern for Monticello. Zoning regulations (and other land use controls) will be used to determine the appropriate location for each form of development and other regulations on the use of land, consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-3 Figure 32Land Use Pian Ma | )� cot, / # 10 E2 , � ■ )\ , V A _ a. ` { ] ! r ! f -o - }\ U) �k / ,ƒ } $\ \ �\ )27)!$_(k!{ JC, 00 LU(L! \�� }��/�❑��/Z�\ , 3-4 1 [and use City of Monticello � ■ ,ƒ } ---.w \ \ - \ \ ] (\ . { 3-4 1 [and use City of Monticello Figure 3-3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live w '. �. +�r Y The remainder of this section describes the categories used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure 3-3). This category designates areas where housing is the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is desirable or allowed in any location. • r � r r � � r � � � � j � Y IP-k� L... When someone says "house" the most common image is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one-to- one relationship between house and parcel of land - the housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is not physically attached to another housing unit. The housing is designed for occupancy by a single family unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made up exclusively of single family detached homes. The primary variables become the design of the subdivision, the size of the lot and the size and style of the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello (north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid street system. Over the past thirty years, development patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-5 pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with the use of cul-de-sacs. A variety of factors, including consumer preference and housing cost, have increased the construction of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin homes, quads and townhomes are common examples of this housing style. Although the specific form changes, there are several common characteristics. Each housing unit is designed for occupancy by a single family. The housing units are physically attached to each other in a horizontal orientation. Places to Live will include some neighborhoods designed to offer a mixture of housing types and densities. Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern that combines single-family detached housing with a mixture of attached housing types. Using good design and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods can achieve a higher density without compromising the overall integrity of the low-density residential pattern. This integration strengthens neighborhoods by increasing housing choice and affordability beyond what is possible by today's rules and regulations. It also avoids large and separate concentrations of attached housing. It enhances opportunities to organize development in a manner that preserves natural features. A complete housing stock includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi -family housing types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate expanding the existing supply of higher density housing. It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher density housing to: ► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population. ► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the community. ► Provide housing needed to attract the work force required to achieve economic development goals of the City. Higher density residential land uses should be located and designed to be compatible with nearby residential or mixed uses, on lots able to accommodate larger buildings and added traffic generation. In addition, siting factors for high density residential uses will prioritize access to services and amenities including public utilities, parks, trails and open space, and commercial and/or medical services. It will be important, when considering potential designation of high density housing development, that the parcels meet the specific standards of the zoning district, and such development can be accommodated in accordance with the policies in this Plan. While these comments and the comments in the zoning ordinance are intended to be instructive they are not necessarily the only factors that might come into play on specific properties. Policies - Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following objectives for residential land use in Monticello: 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person's life -cycle (see below). 2. Support development in areas that best matches the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire sustained investment. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of property and reinvestment into the existing housing stock. Changes in housing type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces. 5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. Achieving the objectives for quality housing and neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of growth. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up" housing as desired in the vision statement. These amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways. Some of the City's policy objectives require further explanation. 3-6 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply u l lul III IL-1 U, MIK I Life Cycle Housing Housing is not a simple "one size fits all" commodity. Monticello's housing stock varies by type, age, style and price. The Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of the housing stock based on the 2000 Census and recent building permit trends. The concept of life cycle housing recognizes that housing needs change over the course of a person's life (see Figure 3-4). Young adults may not have the income capacity to own the typical single family home. This segment of the population often seeks rental housing. Families move through different sizes, styles and prices of housing as family size and income changes over time. With aging, people may desire smaller homes with less maintenance. Eventually, the elderly transition to housing associated with options for direct care. As noted in the Vision Statement, Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. These factors will influence the housing needs of Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences and seeks to create a balanced housing supply that encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello. This balance may not be achieved solely by market forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the City may be needed to promote the creation of housing in underserved segments of the market. Neighborhood Design A priority for the community is diversification of the housing stock by providing more "move up" housing. In this context, the term "move up" housing refers to larger homes with more amenities in structure and setting. This type of housing may not be exclusively single-family detached or low density. Attached forms of housing with medium or high densities may meet the objectives for move up housing in the appropriate locations. In this way, the objectives for move up housing and life cycle housing are compatible and supportive. While every community wants a high quality housing stock, this issue has particular importance in Monticello. It is a key to retaining population. Without a broader 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-7 variety of housing options, families may encouraged to leave Monticello to meet their need for a larger home. It is a factor in economic development. One facet of attracting and retaining professional jobs is to provide desirable housing alternatives. It must be recognized that creating move up housing requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for achieving the desired results. The desired outcomes require private investment. This investment occurs when demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to attract investment. Part of attracting move up housing comes from creating great neighborhoods — places that will attract and sustain the housing options sought by the City. Neighborhoods are the building block of Places to Live in Monticello. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional neighborhoods. The following policies help to achieve this objective: Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain, drainageways, and other natural features provide character to neighborhoods. 2. Housing should be oriented to the local street, minimizing access and noise conflicts with collector streets. 3. The City will use public improvements to enhance the appearance and character of a neighborhood. Some examples of improvements that define an area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and storm water ponding. 4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the neighborhood to other parts of the community. 5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access to a public park as a place for residents to gather and play. All of these elements work together to create a desirable and sustainable place to live. Figure 3-5: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Parkway Figure 3-6: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Trail Corridor 9 T7 7i- I I -F Balancing the Built and Natural Environments The natural amenities of the growth areas (west and south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for residential development. The Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park offers the dual assets of natural features and recreational opportunities. Lakes, wetlands and other natural amenities exist throughout the orderly annexation area. Studies have shown that parks and open space have a positive economic effect on adjacent development. An article published by the National Park and Recreation Association states that "recent analyses suggest that open spaces may have substantial positive impacts on surrounding property values and hence, the 3-8 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-7. Example of Conservation Design Development • OPEN SPACE DESIGN Pastures Equestrian Facility }- Wetlands Enhancements ~ - Conservation Easements yt - Central Park w -- - 27 Acre Park South of Lake 4 NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES ' + - Central Park Northeast Neighborhood Green South Neighborhood Green Association Dock and Park ru property tax base, providing open space advocates with convincing arguments in favor of open space designation and preservation." Balancing the built and natural environments should provide a catalyst to the types of development desired by the City and in the expansion of the property tax base. In attempting to meet residential development objectives, the City should not lose sight of long-term public benefit from access to these same natural areas. The original development of Monticello provides an excellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront in Monticello is controlled by private property. Public access to the River comes at points provided by public parks. A well known example of balancing public use with private development is the Minneapolis chain of lakes and Minnehaha Creek. Public streets (parkways) and trails separate neighborhoods from the natural NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOI ' 4? Total Housing Units: 98 Semi -Custom, Single -Family Homes Lot Width: 82' Minimum Lot Size: 9,900 to 16,000 Sq. Ft. t 7 dL House Sq. Ft: 2,400 to 4,800 Sq. Ft. Price Point Packages: $450,000 to $650,000 3 %fNORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD Total Housing Units: 66 Custom, Luxury Twin Homes i Lot Width: 45'x 90' Twinhome 311114. Lot Size: 4,050 Sq. Ft. House Sq. Ff.: 2,800 to 3,800 Sq. Ft. Price Poinf Packages: $475,00010 _w$750,000 godT r �J features, preserving public use and access. These neighborhoods are some of the most desirable in the region, demonstrating that public use and private benefit are not mutually exclusive. The figures on the previous page show two options for integrating housing, natural features and public use. Figure 3-5 is the parkway concept. An attractive street forms the edge between the park (or natural area) and the housing. A multi -use trail follows the street while homes face the street and draw on the attractiveness of both the parkway and the natural amenities. The alternative is to use a trail corridor to provide public access to these areas (see Figure 3-6). The trail follows the edge of the natural area. Access to the trail between lots should come at reasonable intervals. There are a variety of real world examples of how Minnesota cities have used conservation design strategies to promote high quality development and 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-9 preserve the natural environment. The illustrations in Figure 3-7 shows elements of the Chevalle development in Chaska. Using open space design and rural residential cluster development techniques, HKGi's concept plan provides for a variety of housing options while preserving a majority of the area as permanent owner. This relationship may include a third party property manager retained by the owner to perform maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may act collectively through a homeowner's association. In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no direct responsibility for property maintenance. This open space, including public and common open discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended spaces. Amenities would include access to protected solely to highlight the differences. This understanding open spaces (lakeshore, woods, meadows, pastures, wetlands), walking/biking trails, equestrian trails and facilities, common outdoor structures and an environmental learning center. The experience of other cities and developments can guide future planning and decision making in Monticello. Attractive Places Attractive physical appearance is one of the most common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello. Attractiveness is a combination of design, construction and maintenance. These characteristics apply to buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both private and public property. Attractiveness reflects individual pride in property as well as an overall sense of community quality. The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to influence the potential for attractive neighborhoods: ► Building codes and additional regulations to promote quality construction. ► Subdivision regulations control the initial configuration of lots. ► Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship of structure size to lot area, and building height. ► Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and correct undesirable uses of property. ► Other City regulations control other ancillary uses of residential property. Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership) influences the responsibility for housing maintenance. The owner -occupant of a single family detached home is solely responsible for the maintenance of building and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance responsibilities are often shared between tenant and becomes relevant when public action is needed to address a failure of the private maintenance approach. Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City to address failures in private maintenance and use of property. Economics also influences property maintenance. The greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money available for maintenance activities. Maintenance can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked, this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative effects. Safe Places Safety is frequently identified as the most desired characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and city government influence safe neighborhoods. 1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods and develop new neighborhoods where people are involved in the community, interact with their neighbors and support each other. 2. The City will design, build and maintain a system of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods, allows movement within Monticello to jobs, shopping and other destinations and minimizes traffic that "cuts through" neighborhoods on local streets seeking other destinations. 3. The City will provide, directly or by contract, services needed to protect people and property. 4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a water supply that provides clean water at pressures needed to support fire suppression. 5. The City will protect the natural environment by requiring new development to connect to the sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating all municipal wastewater. 3-10 1 Land Use City of Monticello 0 0 Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work &W&aM # # I +0 025 0.5 , _� Miles ■; f —S——R,$Mrb.,County,W gh1 C .Iy, and WSB &Assooa , 0—b- The City will provide water that is safe to drink by protecting water supply sources. Places to Work This land use is primarily intended for industrial development. Places to Work seeks to provide locations for the retention, expansion and creation of businesses that provide jobs for Monticello residents and expansion and diversification of the property tax base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of the most challenging to locate because of its need for + A avL.A& J—'�N4�410. convenient transportation access and influence on surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of the community; what type of industrial development is sought; and what factors should be considered when locating an industrial land use. In planning for sustaining existing businesses and attracting new development, it is necessary to understand why Places to Work are important to Monticello. The objectives for this land use include: ► Expanding and diversifying the property tax base. ► Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-11 Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop -I + Nr .E 0 0.25 0.5 1 1040 —� Miles ■ �; ■ - a 131 * *.*+ f — D- S— M DNR, She b— Oowty, Wnght Cowry, and WSB &Assooates October 12, 2017 � \ °I ,i Palo [9(w . ► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes establishment of business campus settings that needed to purchase decent housing, support local provide a high level of amenities, including businesses and support local government services. architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of ► Take advantage of opportunities to attract natural features, storage enclosed within buildings, companies that have a synergy with existing and other features. The zoning ordinance, companies in the community, including suppliers, subdivision regulations and other land use controls customers and collaborative partners. will also be used to create and maintain the desired business campus settings. ► Encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses in Monticello. 3. Places to Work supports the City's desire to attract businesses that complement existing businesses Policies - Places to Work or benefit from the community's infrastructure, 1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to including power and telecommunications. designate and preserve a supply of land for Places 4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that to Work that meets current and future needs. Places to Work should provide locations for 2. Consistent with the vision for the future of other general industrial development in the areas Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the 3-12 1 Land Use City of Monticello of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribution and related businesses. S. Places to Work may include non -industrial businesses that provide necessary support to the underlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. Additional public objectives and strategies for Places to Work can be found in the Economic Development chapter. Places to Shop Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be developed with businesses involved with the sale of goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections of the Plan. between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses. that are both local and regional in nature. These policies help to create sustainable locations for Policies -Places to Shop Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello. In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Downtown Comprehensive Plan seeks to: 1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the opportunity for commercial development that serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel within Monticello. 3. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. 4. Places to Shop will be located on property with access to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. 5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it convenient to obtain the goods and services. 6. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edges and providing buffering or separation The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City Council resolution 2012-011 on January 9, 2012. The City embarked on an update to the Downtown Plan in 2017 and the Downtown Small Area Plan was adopted by City Council resolution 2017-070 on September 25, 2017 and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the Comprehensive Plan. Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however, no longer possible for Downtown to be Monticello's central business district. The mass of current and future commercial development south of Interstate 94 along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94 have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping districts. The future success of downtown requires it to be a place unlike any other in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the Vision, and Goals described in the Downtown Small Area Plan. Downtown is intended to be a mix of inter -related and mutually supportive land uses. Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services should be the focus of Downtown land use. Residential development facilitates reinvestment and places potential customers 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-13 in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw in people from across the community. During the planning process, the potential for allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of the Downtown along Broadway was discussed. The Comprehensive Plan consciously defines Cedar Street as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons: (1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable before new areas of competition are created; and (2) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods east of Downtown. More than any other land use category, Downtown has strong connections to other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City has adopted the Downtown Small Area Plan as its guiding planning document for the Downtown. The following parts of the Comprehensive Plan also address community desires and plans for the Downtown area: 10. 10. 10. The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus area on Downtown. The focus area contains a more detailed discussion of the issues facing the Downtown and potential public actions needed to address these issues. The operation of the street system is a critical factor for the future of Downtown. The Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Framework of the Downtown Small Area Plan influence the ability of residents to travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other Downtown streets. The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks & Open Space Framework of the Downtown Small Area Plan provide for parks in the Downtown and the trail systems that allow people to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle. The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Implementation chapter of the Downtown Small Area Plan lay the foundation for public actions and investments that will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes. Goals - Downtown ► Improve Pine Street for all users. ► Shift the center of Downtown to Broadway and Walnut Streets ► Encourage Small and Medium Scaled Investments ► Become a River Town Policies/Guiding Principles - Downtown 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Monticello. It merits particular attention in the Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve community plans and objectives. 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter -connected and supportive collection of land uses. Land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown. 3. The City will build on core assets of greater Downtown Monticello as identified in the Downtown Small Area Plan. These assets include the preponderance of civic activity, proximity to the river, a grid of streets and small blocks, and a varied building stock - both old and new. 4. A shared vision among property owners, business owners and the City is the foundation for effective team work and long term success. 5. A shared understanding of realistic market potential is the foundation for design and generation of a healthy mix of land uses. This includes both residential and non-residential land uses. Housing the core blocks is encouraged to be medium density (apartments or townhouses) and to face the perimeter of the blocks and be pedestrian friendly, either with street level commercial uses or doors, stoops, porches, plazas, or other features that face the sidewalk. 6. A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize personal customer service will differentiate Downtown from other shopping districts. 7. Property values can be enhanced if property owners and the City share a vision for Downtown and actively seek to cultivate a safe, appealing environment and attractive mix of inter -related uses. 3-14 1 Land Use City of Monticello 8. Housing in the Downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring potential customers directly into the area. Housing may be free- standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial uses. 9. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To the degree possible, unique public facilities (such as the Community Center, the Library and the Post Office) should be located in the Downtown area as a means to bring people into the Downtown. 10. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are accessible by the public. It is especially important to design Broadway so it is easy and safe to cross as a pedestrian or cyclist - with an emphasis on Walnut and Cedar Streets. 11. Downtown should be a pedestrian -oriented place in a manner that cannot be matched by other commercial districts. Pedestrian scale is achieved at the scale of both the block and the building. Blocks should reflect the historic fabric of the City and buildings should present a pedestrian friendly facade to the sidewalk. 12. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parking for customers distributed throughout the area. The Downtown should be well connected so customers are comfortable walking 1-2 blocks from their car to their destination. 13. The City and business community must work actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access to the Downtown. All of these policies work together to attract people to Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful Downtown environment. Mixed Use The Mixed Use is a transition area between the Downtown and the hospital campus. It has been created in recognition of the unique nature of this area. The area serves two functions. It is the edge between long-term residential neighborhoods and a major transportation corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a link between the Downtown, the hospital campus and the east interchange retail area. The primary goal of this land use is to preserve and enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any non-residential development should be designed to minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent neighborhoods. Policies - Mixed Use Development should not have direct access to Broadway street. Access should come from side street. 2. Non-residential development should be limited to small retail, service and office businesses. The scale, character and site design should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 3. All non-residential development will be oriented to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River Street. 4. Commercial development compatible with the Downtown should be encouraged to locate there. 5. More intense housing and commercial uses maybe allowed if directly related to the hospital. Places to Recreate Places to Recreate consist of public parks and private recreation facilities. The land uses are essential elements of the quality of life in Monticello. The Parks and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes the current park and trail system and the future plan to maintain and enhance this system. The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of managing the land use for public parks and private recreation facilities. The City's zoning regulations place these locations into a zoning district. Often, the purpose of the zoning district is to guide private development, such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning regulations "trump" the Land Use Plan and govern the use of land. With the potential for the redevelopment of golf courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan and other land use controls work in concert to achieve the desired outcomes. The City's plans and policies for parks, trails and open space can be found in the Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-15 Places for Community Places for Community consist of public and semi- public land uses. Public uses include all governmental facilities (city, county, state and federal) and schools. This category also applies to churches, cemeteries, hospitals, and other institutional uses. It is important to note that these land uses relate only to existing land uses. The Comprehensive Plan does not guide the location of new churches, schools, public buildings and other institutional land uses. Places for Community will be needed in the Northwest area as it develops. These uses are typically allowed in residential areas and governed by zoning regulations. These institutional uses (such as schools and churches) are important parts of the fabric of the community, but require guidance to ensure a proper fit with its residential surroundings. New institutional use should be allowed in residential areas under certain conditions. These conditions should address the aspects of the use that conflict with desired characteristics of residential neighborhood. Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential land use area include: 1. Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density residential areas should not be more than [to be determined] square feet in lot area. 2. Parking. Parking may spill on to neighborhood streets without adequate on-site facilities. The parking needs will vary with the use of the facility. Each facility should provide adequate on-site or reasonable off-site shared parking based on the use of the facility. 3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to designated collector or arterial streets. 4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage needs may resemble commercial uses. These site factors should be managed to fit the character of the surrounding residential development. Urban Reserve The Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly Annexation Area that it not shown for development in the near term in this Plan. The objective is to encourage rural and agricultural uses, preventing barriers to future development opportunities. It is anticipated that the City will grow into portions of the Urban Reserve as planned land use areas become fully developed and capacity for future growth in needed. The Urban Reserve is not simply a holding area for future development. Parts of the Urban Reserve are likely to be preserved as natural resource areas or for agricultural purposes. Future planning will consider the locations in the Urban Reserve best suited for development. Interchange Planning Area The Interchange Planning Area encompasses undeveloped land in the northwest part of Monticello around the site of a potential west interchange with Interstate 94. The purpose of this land use is to preserve the area for future development and prevent the creation of development barriers. If built, the area should be planned to support a mixture of commercial, employment and residential land uses. The interchange location and the routes of future connecting roads are solely for illustration. Future land use issues in this area are discussed in the Focus Area for Northwest Monticello. Private Infrastructure This category applies to Xcel Energy's power plant and railroad right-of-way. This category recognizes the unique role of the power plant in Monticello. Greenway The Land Use Plan Map shows a "potential greenway" ringing the western and southern edges of Monticello. The Greenway is intended to provide an environmental corridor that connects large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas and places to work. They serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as natural habitat, wetlands, tree canopy, and drainage ways. Land within this corridor could be comprised of a combination of public and private open space. Development would not be prohibited within the greenway but would be 3-16 1 Land Use City of Monticello reasonably restricted to ensure that development is carefully integrated with the natural environment. The Greenway is intended to shape development patterns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing environment and harmonious with the landscape. The Greenway creates opportunities for a continuous trail corridor connecting neighborhoods with large parks and open spaces. A trail within this corridor is intended to be fully accessible to the general public. The following are the City's goals for the Greenway: 1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green corridor connecting large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas, schools and places to work. 2. To connect people to significant places. 3. To protect the community's natural resources (trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc). 4. To create environmentally sensitive development and design. 5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife movement and ecological connections between natural areas. Focus Areas For certain parts of Monticello, the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be adequately described solely with the land use map and the related category descriptions. The following Focus Areas provide a more detailed examination of the plans and issues in key locations that will shape the future of Monticello. Northwest Monticello Figure 3-10: Land Use Plan -Northwest Monticello proximity to the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park should be reserved for move up housing. 3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner that creates more "head of household" jobs. 4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas, including the establishment of greenway corridors. S. Identify and preserve key street corridors. 6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places to Work around a future highway interchange, if such an interchange proves viable. The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will This focus area includes the entire northwest corner extend westward from existing development. The of the community. The land use objectives in this area initial high amenity residential development is expected include: 1. Encourage development in this part of the community to utilize infrastructure investments and to provide the capacity to develop in high amenity areas. 2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based on the natural features and the surrounding land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or to occur along the eastern perimeter of the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. No Places to Live are planned with the boundaries of this park. Future development will be influenced by the capacity of the street system, including plans for the construction of a highway interchange. 2008 Comprehensive Plan - Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-17 The remainder of this section describes the land use issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in greater detail. West Interchange A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical should not be limited to the property in the Interchange Planning Area land use category. An interchange and the supporting street system has future land use implications for a broader area. Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park variable in the future development of this area. While Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential for a future interchange, in 2008 it is only a concept. It is not part of the State's plans for future highway improvements for this district. This interchange could be a valuable part of the long- term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway 25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to provide access to this area and expand the development opportunities. The Land Use Plan assumes that the interchange is a future possibility. For this reason, property adjacent to the interstate has been placed into a combination of Places to Live, Work and Shop. The Plan seeks to prevent development from limiting the location of the interchange (or block it) and to preserve the area around the interchange for future commercial, industrial and residential development. Without the access provided by the interchange, commercial, industrial and residential development should not be anticipated in this area. Ideally, the City will pursue additional investigations following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. These investigations should be designed to resolve some of the unanswered questions related to the interchange. These questions include: Area is the former YMCA camp that is being converted into the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. The City and Wright County formed a partnership in 2005 to start purchasing portions of the 1,200 acre YMCA property. As of 2013, 495 acres have been purchased through state grants with another 300 planned for acquisition. The YMCA will lease land at the regional park to run their Camp Manitou Summer Camp. The area around this park is guided for future Places to Live. No residential development should be allowed within the park. The amenity of this land and the regional park provide an excellent setting (around the perimeter of the park) for some of the "upscale" neighborhoods and housing desired by the City. In planning for this park, it is important to look beyond the boundaries of the park and to its context in the broader community. The illustration in Figure 3-11 highlights several key community development opportunities: ► The City must create connections between the park and other sections of Monticello. ► Building streets in a "parkway" design emphasizes the desired qualities of a regional park and of the surrounding Places to Live and Work. ► The park is a critical piece in creating a "greenway" system that links to the Mississippi River and may, ► Where should the interchange be located? over time, ring the community. ► What is the potential for a new river bridge Industrial Growth connection? ► How would the interchange be funded and what are the financial and land use implications for the City? The Northwest area is a critical location for current and future industrial development. The Monticello Business Center, located south of Chelsea Road and west of 90th ► What time frame should be used in planning for Street, has already started to be developed as a high the improvements? amenity environment with protective covenants that The answers to these questions provide invaluable guidance to future land use and transportation in Monticello. The area included in future planning address building materials, loading docks, outdoor storage, and landscaping. In order to provide sufficient land for Business Campus uses over the next 25 years, 3-18 1 Land Use City of Monticello Existing Natural ,` ~ Land/," Pot( Grei rj Cori V S Figure 3-11: Community Connections to Regional Park :ial Parkways Jo Mississippi River Existing Green Corridor the Comprehensive Plan extends this land use south to of this roadway should be identified and preserved as the planned expansion of School Boulevard. development occurs. It is important to recognize that activity generated by business development can create conflicts with residential development. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create both high quality business parks and residential neighborhoods in this area. Careful site planning and development management will be needed to meet these objectives. School Boulevard Extension The Northwest Area serves as a good example of the need to coordination land use and transportation planning. An extension of School Boulevard is needed to provide access to the area and to connect development to the rest of the community. The route School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive Plan implications: ► This major collector street will influence the nature of adjacent land use. ► Streetscape improvements would help to define the high quality character desired by the City as a gateway to the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park and to new neighborhoods. ► The street is a means for bringing trail connections to the park. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-19 Golf Course In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a development proposal (Jefferson at Monticello) that would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and housing. The development did not proceed beyond the environmental review. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course. This designation does not preclude a future proposal and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential development. It is likely, however, that this scale of new development will require the access provided by a new highway interchange. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to fill in other development areas and make effective use of other infrastructure investments before extending utilities for redevelopment of the golf course. Downtown Focus Area Downtown Monticello needs special attention in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update, the community undertook a separate downtown planning process. This process resulted in the Embracing Downtown Plan. In 2017, recognizing the changes in the retail marketplace, and more specifically market changes and investments in the Downtown, the City engaged the community in a planning effort for the core blocks of the Downtown. On September 25, 2017, the City adopted a Downtown Small Area Plan, which provides guidance for the downtown, including the core blocks and extending to include the full Downtown Central Community District (CCD). The Plan emphasizes the importance that the community places on Downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update relies on the Downtown Small Area Plan as a guide for public and private actions in the Downtown area. Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown Monticello requires a collaborative effort of the City, businesses, property owners and other stakeholders. Planning for the future of the Downtown must recognize the practical realities facing commercial development in Downtown: ► The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway 25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct access from the Highway to adjacent properties. ► Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an impediment for people living south of I-94 coming to Downtown. ► There is no controlled intersection on Highway 25 between Broadway and 7th Street. The lack of a controlled intersection combined with traffic volumes make pedestrian connections between Downtown and residential areas to the east very difficult. ► "Big box" and retail development continue to occur in other parts of Monticello. These businesses directly compete with the Downtown and attract smaller businesses (that might otherwise consider a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels. Downtown Goals ► Improve Pine Street for all users. ► Shift the center of Downtown to Broadway and Walnut Streets ► Encourage Small and Medium Scaled Investments ► Become a River Town Land Use ► Create a Center to Downtown that is active throughout the day and into the evening — year- round. The Walnut / Broadway Intersection should become the heart of this area. ► Improve connections to the River by locating uses that benefit from open spaces and activities associated with the River. ► Improve the entry experience from the north. ► Maintain a shopfront District along Broadway, west of Pine Street comprised of traditional main street (mercantile) buildings that have retail/restaurant space on the ground floor and housing or offices above. ► Create a development pattern on Pine Street that benefits from high visibility and regional access. ► Infill Walnut Street and Cedar Street with mid - scale housing (2-4 stories) that creates an effective transition between the in -town neighborhoods and the Downtown. 3-20 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-12: Land Use and Development Framework from the Downtown Small Area Plan 7 i Enu kw-!rr Yv! ui. DV..i:y Ha W r,j Transportation ► Connect Walnut Street to River Street ► Maintain the River Street / Pine Street signal as the formal entrance to Downtown and an important pedestrian connection across Pine Street. ► Add a traffic signal at 4th and Pine to help balance the grid and turning movements at the Pine / Broadway Intersection. ► Modify Walnut / Broadway and Cedar / Walnut Broadway intersection to prioritize pedestrian crossings and access to the river. ► Narrow the travel lanes on Walnut Street, add parking where possible and ensure continuous safe and pleasant sidewalks. ► Add sidewalks at the perimeter of blocks where they are not currently present. ► Discourage direct property access to Pine Street; favoring the side streets wherever possible with through -block lanes or easements. ► Allow direct property access to Block 52 from Pine Street in order to reduce volumes at the Pine / Broadway intersection. ► Consider traffic calming at River Street and Locust (or Linn) to prevent excessive speeds - similar to River Street and Cedar Street as an example. Open Space and Parks ► Redesign East and West Bridge park to include an amphitheater, water feature, riverfront access, 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-21 picnicking, and additional space for passive park use. ► Improve Front Street Park to include improved boat landing and space for nature oriented programming. ► Connect the two Bridge Parks with Front Street Park with improved pathways and trails. Design all three parks as a single park with multiple uses. ► Provide access to the islands with a seasonal bridge ► Create small pocket parks mid -block on Broadway to offer plazas that connect to parking lots in the middle of the block. ► Redesign Walnut Street between River Street and Broadway as a special street that can be closed and used for festivals and events throughout the year. ► Consider all sidewalks for opportunities to enhance greenery and public art. Emphasize Walnut Street, River Street and Broadway as the main pedestrian corridors in Downtown. ► Use public art throughout the parks and corridors to distinguish Downtown as a place of cultural expression and celebration. ► Work closely with local businesses, residents (new and existing) to ensure local parks and open spaces are appropriately designed and programmed for their varied needs. ► Create north / south bike access to the river along Walnut and Cedar through a complete streets policy. Encourage bicycle crossing of Pine Street at 4th, River and 7th Street. Downtown Design and Image ► The Downtown Small Area Plan provides guidance for the core blocks of the Downtown. Where the Downtown Small Area Plan does not provide specific design guidance, the City's zoning ordinance will guide design and image. South Central Focus Area Continued residential growth to the south is an important element of the Comprehensive Plan. This growth achieves several objectives: ► It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building strong connections with the riverfront and the civic/retail district on the south end of Walnut Street The current end of Walnut Street is a barrier to improving connections between Downtown and the riverfront. needed to support future industrial growth area along Highway 25. ► These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern interchange with I-94 rather than Highway 25. ► These areas provide appropriate locations for continued growth in entry-level single family homes and medium density housing types. These Places to Live are important elements of maintaining an adequately diverse housing stock. 3-22 1 Land Use City of Monticello ► Orderly expansion to the south moves development towards area of higher natural amenity. Areas along the southern edge of the Orderly Annexation Area provide another location for potential "move up" housing. A key to development in this focus area is the construction of the Fallon Avenue bridge. The bridge leads to the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related expansion of municipal sanitary sewer and water systems. Future development will be limited without additional utility capacity. East Focus Area The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on growth to the west and south. Development should be directed to areas that most effectively achieve the objectives of this Plan. Several factors could cause the City to encourage future residential development in the East Focus Area: ► Increased overall housing demand that exceeds the capacity to support growth in other areas. ► Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases the need to channel use to the east interchange. ► The need to solve stormwater and drainage management issues (Ditch 33) in this area. Solving drainage issues allows eastward expansion along County Road 18. Future growth in the east should continue to fill in the development area within the Orderly Annexation Area on the east side of Monticello. The natural features in these areas allow for higher amenity neighborhoods. This growth can occur with new collector/arterial street corridors. Figure 3-13: Land Use Plan - South Central Figure 3-14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area 2008 Comprehensive Plan – Updated 2017 Land Use 1 3-23 CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (I) R-4: Medium -High Density Residence District Section 3.4 (I) R-4 Medium -High Density Residence District The purpose of the "R-4", medium-high density residential district is to provide for medium to high density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per building, and at densities of between 10 and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to establish higher density residential opportunities in areas appropriate for such housing, to be determined by the City on a case by case basis. The City of Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when, in its sole discretion, all aspects of the property support the potential uses of the R-4 district, including location, private and public services, and compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area. In making a determination as to the suitability of a site for R-4 rezoning, the City will prioritize the following site and area factors: Replacement Land Uses. R-4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and circumstances: • Land already zoned for R-3 • Land currently zoned for commercial uses, but which would not be considered "prime" commercial (the City would like to protect "prime" commercial areas that show the most promise for that use in the future). Proximity to Other Residential Neighborhoods. • R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high density residential areas, however the nature and concentration of existing multi -family structures shall be carefully considered to avoid an over concentration of these uses. • R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to lower residential uses, if it is determined that the high density site can address the site and area factors provided here. Architectural Compatibility and Building Massing • In the vicinity of lower density residential areas, R-4 District buildings need to be lower profile with regards to size and mass, or need to be screened or buffered by distance and natural features. Requirement for Adequate Public Facilities. High density residential development shall be located to provide for the following essential services and amenities: • Access to public parks, pathways, and open space, without overburdening them. R-4 development may be required to provide additional facilities to meet the City's open space planning policies. • Connection to public utilities. • Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic generation that would utilize local streets in lower density residential areas. • Proximity to commercial and/or medical services. This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family housing as defined in this ordinance, as opposed to lower density housing types such as townhouses, two-family homes, or single family homes. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 105 CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (1) R-4: Medium -High Density Residence District Minimum and Maximum Density: 10 — 25 dwelling units per acre Maximum Base Density: 1,750 sq. ft. per unit (25 units per acre) Maximum Density through Planned Unit Development: 1,750 sq. ft. per unit (25 units per acre) Base Lot Area • Minimum = 30,000 square feet Base Lot size Gross Density Max Density w/o PUD Net lot area per du Front setback Corner side setback Interior side setback Rear setback to building Clear open space setback from ROW Clear open space setback from Property Line Buffer Req. to Single Family Common open space per du Landscaping Parking requirements Architecture Roofs Unit square feet Garages Garage Setback Garage Doors R-4 District Multi -Family (13+ units / building) 30,000 sf 10-25 du/acre NA Max 1,750 sf/du 100 feet 40 feet 30 feet 40 feet 60 feet 40 feet — no more than 50% of any yard facing a street covered with parking/drive aisles C buffer 500 sf/du 2 ACl/ 2,500 sf open space + 4 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter 2.25 spaces/du, with max 1.1 space/du uncovered 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials, horizontal siding of steel or cement -board only (no vinyl or aluminum) 5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min. 900 sf finished floor area per unit, minimum Attached or Underground Detached accessory garages allowed only after base requirements are met May not access street directly — must be served by interior driveway Must include glass and decorative panels if visible from public street or adjoining residentially zoned property Page 106 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance PUD Options for Multi -Family Buildings Landscaping Open Space Parking Building Materials Architecture Site Work Housing for Seniors restricted to 55 years of age or more CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (I) R-4: Medium -High Density Residence District Multi -Family (6 — 12 units / building) Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes beyond code minimums; Special landscape features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc. Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or more All required garage parking underground Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 107 R-4 ZONING STUDY Analyzing Suitable Sites for Multi-familv Develonment Major Arterial Roadway Exposure Major Collector Roadway Frontage/Access Local Community Amenities (Parks, Pathways, Etc.) Compatible Land Uses Nearby (Commercial, Institutional, Etc.) Lack of Incompatible Land Uses Nearby (Single Family Residential) Others? SITE ANALYSIS SITE 1 Pros: Freeway exposure County Highway Frontage/Access Current R-3 Zoning Some higher density in area Exposure to lower density rear -yard only Cons: Adjacent to single family No close freeway access No nearby commercial SITE ANALYSIS SITE 2 Pros: Freeway exposure Collector Road Frontage Much higher density in area No exposure to lower density Nearby commercial Cons: Significant higher density in area No close freeway access SITEMbinan ANALYSIS SITE 3 Pros: Freeway exposure/access Compatible area land uses No exposure to lower density Nearby commercial Cons: Consumes otherwise prime commercial Access from local street serving SF SITE ANALYSIS SITE 4A, 4B Pros: Compatible area land uses No exposure to lower density Nearby commercial Cons: Consumes valuable commercial No exposure to arterial roads Exposure toi industrial areas SITE ANALYSIS SITE 5 Pros: No nearby development No exposure to lower density Commercial in area Cons: Detached from community No exposure to arterial roads No nearby amenities CITY OF Monticello Updated: 7/2019 PID Owner Size (Acres) 2018 Taxes 1........155-125-000040 ..............................Ocello LLC................................................................................................5.65..............................................$6 447 ..74 ............. 2.........155.-.125-,000070 .............................. Ocello, LLC.................................................................................................12.96..........................................$7.,050..... 3.........155-500-,142210 .............................. City,.o f .Monticello...........................................................................4.1.1..............................................$0................... 4,........155-.151-00301................................. radley.&. Sharon. Larson.....................................................1.78 .......................... ....................$2.,.734..... 5 1.55 157..001010 .............................Steve. &.Deborah Muth..........................................................1.55..............................................$8,290..... 6..........155. -.1.74-.0.0.1.02.1 .............................. Airlake..D.evelopanent..Inc..................................................... L.16 ............................................. $6.,.7.86..... ,7...........15.5.-.1.74-.0.0.1.0.10...............................Steve..&. D.eborah.Muth............................................................ 0..90 ............................................. $.3,.9.62..... 8..........155. -.15.1-.0.0.4.0.10 ............................... Ohana..Prop.erties..Tamil...LP........................................... 0..57 ............................................. $.2.,230..... .9 .......... 1.55.-.193-00.1.020 ............................... Highland..Rank.................................................................................... 7..02 ............................................. $7,2.34..... 10......155.-.1.64-.0.0.0.030 .............................. City, of Monticello............................................................................ .20 ... .......................................... .$..0................... 1.1......1.5.5.-.1.64-.0.0.0.0.50 ............................... City..of.M.ontxcello........................................................................... .2.,.1.4 ............................................. $.0................... 12......155.-.1.64-.0.0.0.040 ............................... City ..of.Monticeho............................................................................ 6...14 ............................................. $0................... .13......1.55.-.1.76-.002.0.1.1 . ............................... City. ..of.Monticel,lo............................................................................ 1..29 ............................................. $0................... 14......155.-.1.76-.0.0.1.020 ...............................City.. of.Monticello........................................................................... 2..70 ............................................. $.0................... .15......155.-.1.64-.0.0.0.020 ............................... City. ..of..Monticello........................................................................... 2..83 ............................................. $.0................... .16.....1.55.-221.-.000010 ..............................Quad.Dev..elopment.LLC......................................................3,80.............................................$6.,.474..... 17.....155.-227-.0.0.0.0.10 .............................. 0cello..LLC.................................................................................................4.1.1..............................................$.2.6.,.060. .18......1.55.-.5.00-.1.42.4.00 .............................. .john..&..Mary.Lundsten............................................................ 3.8.8.7 ......................................... $.1,.72.1..... ...............................a .of.Monticello............................................................................ 3.,07 ............................................. $.0................... 20......155.-.5..00-.1..4.2.3.00 ...............................Cit.. of.Monticello............................................................................ 3..20 ............................................. $0................... 2.1 ...... 155.-.5..00-1.4.2.1.04 ............................... Premier.Bank. Minnesota..................................................... 1.8.3.1 .......................................... $.2.9.,960. 22.155-079-001010 .... .. ,, ............... .y ti RPatel j .. , .............................................................................................. 0.79 .............................................$1,947..... 23 ...... 1.5.5.-.0.18.00.1.020 ...............................City. of.Monticello............................................................................ 5..1.1 .............................................. $0.................. 24,...1.5.5.-06..8..-.00.101.0 ..............................R v...erwood.Bank...............................................................................19,.35..........................................$25.,.120. 25......1.55.-.029-.002.050 ............................... Kenneth -Maus ....................................................................................... 5..40 ............................................. $.4,.0.7..0..... 26......155.-.050-.0.0.0.020 .............................. Bluff...s... in..Monticello.. LLC.......................................................3...13 ............................................. $.1,0.13..... 27.....1.55.-029-002.130 .............................. Maass.. Automotive.. Group.. LLC....................................4...18. ............................................. $3.,.641...... 28.....1.55.-029-.002.120 .............................. Maass Automotive LLC...................................2..03.............................................$2., 376..... 29......155.-.029-.0.02.1.10 .............................. Maass.. Automotive.. Group.. LLC...................................2...1.1..............................................$.1,.8.38..... 30......155.-.029-.002.1.00 .............................. Maass.. Automotive.. Group.. LLC...................................2..20.............................................$.1..,.9...16..... 3.1.....1.55.-029-.002090 .............................. Maass..Automotive..Group.. LLC...................................2,28..............................................$.1,.986..... 32.....1.55.-212-.00.1010 ...............Ry Comp...anies.Us..INC.....................................................1.54.............................................$.17,802. 33.....1.55.-241.-,002010 .............................. Mills. Fleet..Farm................................................................................2.39.............................................$7.,742..... 34.....155-241-001020 ..............................Mills Fleet Farm ................................................................................. 35 ...155 241...000010 .............................Mills. Fleet Farm ................................................................................. 36.....1.55.-011-...0....0..0.111 ...............................Montcello..Industr.a..1.. Park. Inc....................................40.83..........................................$36,.148.. 37.....155 0.3.7-00.1.0.10...............................ean of Monticello Inc ............................................................. l.....9.2 .$4,532 38......155.2.05-.00.1.020 .............................. AX.TC..Retail. Land. Lp.............................................................0.93..............................................$.1.1,096. 39......155-2.14-0.0.1.020 .............................. PRC..&quisitions. VI..LLC..................................................3.39.............................................$5.250..... 40.....155-117-00.1030 .............................. Kwik Trip..Inc........................................................................................2.24.............................................$4.,.674..... Zoning 0