Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 07-23-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL July 23, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held July 9, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Public Hearings —4. Public Hearing - Request to Redesignate Zoning in Par West Prior to Plat Recording. LLS. Public Hearing - Adoption of Tax Increment Finance Plan #5 for Key Tool 6 Plastics. Ordinance Amendments C fi6. Consideration of an Amendment to City Code of Ordinances, \_ Title 7, Chapter 2. Liz. Consideration of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Boarding Houses as a Conditional Use in a B-4 Zone. Old Business ,/8. Consideration and Review of Bids for the Improvement of County Road 75, Hart Boulevard, and Coder Street. ✓9. Consideration of a Resolution Declaring Coat to be Aososaod and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessment. '10. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a clearing on the Proposed Asnossmont. -'11. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Solo of Bonds - hart 6 Codar. L,12. Consideration of Granting a Rodeoignation From R-1 to R-2 for Portions of Par West. Now Business v13. Consideration of Resolutions Adopting Tax Increment District 05 and Requesting Certification by County Auditor. Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council July 23, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Page 2 X14. Consideration of Resolutions Authorizing the Sale of Tax Increment G.O. Bonds. X15. Consideration of a Conditional Use for a Boarding House in a B-4 Zone, Applicant - Tom Hammer. —16. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use to Allow More than 12 Units in a Multiple Dwelling, Applicant - Construction 5, Inc. —17. Consideration of a Request for a Simple Subdivision, Applicant - Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. 18. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Uae to Allow an Ambulance Garage in an R-1 Zone, Applicant - Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. 19. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase of an Air Dryer for wastewater Treatment Plant. 20. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase of a Snowplow from STP. 21. Consideration of Issuing a Request for Proposals for Architectural Services for New Fire Hall. 22. Quarterly Department Head Reports. 23. Consideration of Bills for the Month of July. 24. Adjournment. b M11IT REGULAR MEETING - MONOYTI IC CELLO CITY COUNCIL July 9, 1934 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arvo A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Fran Fair. Members Absent: Dan lllonigen, Ken Maus. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 25, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints. Us persons wore present to make comment. 4. Consideration of the Environmental Asseasment Worksheet for Meadow Oak. Mayor Grimsmo initiated the discussion by providing information with respect to ditch actions taken in McLeod County. lie acknowledged that Ditch #33 in Wright County was a subject of major concern during this Environmental Review process. Ile noted that the Environmental Review showed that ponding is an acceptable alternative for storm water run-off and snow malt but that an outlot may be required before completion of the project. He noted that if Wright County complied with Statute with respect to maintenance of ditches, there may be a time in the distant future when the ditch could adequately handle an outlet lino. Ila stressed, however, that neither the City nor the developer wore proposing such an outlet for the proposal. F.idam relayed the findings of Darr Engineering, the independent consultant engaged to review the hydrology statistics and reported that thoir conclusion was that the ponding proposal will be able to hold all surface rater run-off oven at full development. He noted that Darr's concern had to do with long term coaling of the pond that would eventually diminish the seepage capacity of the ponds. Fair raised the question as to whether or not anything could be done to provent that scaling. Public Works Director, Stmole, said that dredging can be done occasionally to keep pond bottoms open. Eidam noted that dredging had always boon an alternative, but that the concern had to do with who would Incur the expense of dredging at the time it wore needed. Eldem pointed out that, as the findings of the Environmental Review indicate, the developer I should be responsible for providing an outlot aomotima before 1 completion of the project. Thus, in the diatom future, if Council Minutes - 7/9/84 the pond should seal itself, there would be no demand on tax dollars to rectify the pond since the developers will have already been required to provide the outlet. Eidem also stressed that the findings by the Council with respect to the Environmental Assessment worksheet was a statement that the Worksheet was adequate in addressing environmental needs, it was not a statement saying that there were no environmental issues. Motion by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to find the Meadow Oak Environmental Assessment Worksheet to be adequate, and to declare that an Environmental Impact Statement shall not be required. 5. Consideration of Bids for City Seal Coating. Public Works Director, John Simola, reported that two bids had bean received for the proposed seal coating project, those being from Buffalo Bituminous and Batzer Construction. Simola indicated that Batzer was low bidder at a 58.90 per square yard figure. He noted that Buffalo's bid reflected 60.391 per square yard. Simola also stated that these bids included the sweeping, but if the City elected to do the sweeping, the bids would be reduced approximate) by � y 56 per square yard. The final bid tallies I were as follows: �J Batzer $15,871.19 Buffalo Bituminous $16,272.69 These bids were for the seal coating of the following streets: Keeps Circle from County Road 39 to and, including cul do sac; 7th Street, Lauring Lane, and Washington Street from Highway 25 to Burlington Northern Railroad; Ramsey Street from Lauring Lana to Burlington Northern Railroad; Wright Street from Lauring Lane to and, including cul de sac; Cedar Street from Lauring Lane to I-94; Riverside Circle from River Street to end, including Circle: Walnut Street Parking Lot and Alley area from alley area to River Street, and Walnut Street to Northwest Community Clinic. Simolo also noted that the seal coat was the granite chip which we are experimenting with for the first time. Motion by pair, seconded by Maxwell, and Carried unanimously to award the 1984 City Seal Coat Contract to betssl: Construction for $ty,87t.19. Manion carried unanimously. -2- v Council Minutes - 7/9/84 6. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment Altering the Titles. Lj Eidem explained that an Ordinance adopted in May of 1983 was incorrectly assigned its Title number and, consequently, there were two Ordinances on the book with the same number. He noted that an Ordinance Amendment would be required to assign a new number to one of the Titles. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously, to adopt the following Ordinance Amendment and order its publication. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 137 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA, DO HEREBY ORDAIN: The Ordinance coda for the City of Monticello is hereby amended to eliminate a duplication in the numbering of Titles of the Code. That Ordinance Amendment adopted the 9th day of May, 1983, numbered as Ordinance No. 125 for City files, and titled "Property and Equipment Control" was labeled Title 10 of the City Coda. Said Ordinance Amendmant No. 125 is hereby amended to become Title 14 in the Coda of City Ordinances. This amendment shall take full affect upon the date of publication. 7. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for Kay Tool & Plastics Tax Increment Financing Plan. Eidem presented a copy of a resolution from the Housing and Radevolopment Authority adopting a Tax Increment Finance Plan for the proposed development of a manufacturing plant owned by Key Tool & Plastics Company. Eidem explained that Key Tool is presently located in Big Lake, and they desire to open a second facility in Monticello along Lauring Lane. He noted that the Kay Tool projuct is one for which a resolution of preliminary aliprovel for Industrial Revenua Bonds had been adopted last December. Ile also pointed out that prior to adoption and approval of such a District, a public hearing would be required. Motion by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to adopt a resolution titled "Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Regarding the Establishment of a Tax Increment Financing District Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78 Inclusive, the Tax Increment Financing Act." gas Resolution 1984 028 . - 3 - 0 Council Minutes - 7/9/84 8. Consideration of Finance Alternatives for the Construction of Broadway. Eidem raised the question with respect to financing the City portion of the construction of Broadway. He noted that if we wish to issue Public Improvement Bonds for our share of the work, the City would be required to hold a public improvement hearing, including mailed notice to the affected property owners. Eidem pointed out that since the project is not being assessed to the property owners, there might be some difficulty in arriving at the 20i minimum assessment as required, although he indicated that the portion of the project relating to Hart and Cedar that will be assessed may be adequate to meet the 201 minimum. Eidem did state that, after discussion with the Finance Director, Rick Wolfateller, it was concluded that the City has adequate funds in the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund and perhaps other surplus monies, that the City portion of the Broadway project could be paid for without bonding. Fran Fair raised the question relating to that portion of Broadway that was resurfaced a few years ago. Simola informed the Council that that project was done exclusively with County maintenance monies and that the City neither contributed nor assessed any of that project. The consensus was that the City simply proceed along the Uiven lines, that bonding would not be eauential to the success of the project, and, consequently, no motion was made to not a " public hearing on public improvements. 9. Consideration of Establishing a Data for a Work Session on the Revision of the Comprehensive Plan and to Discuss the 1985 Budget and Goals and Objectives. Eidam explained that prior to July 27 it would be desirable to hold a spacial meeting to accomplish two tasks, to wit, 1) review the revised Comprehensive Plan and 2) discuss goals and objectives for the preparation of the 1985 budget. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously, to ■et a special meeting to discuss the Comprehensive Plan and the 1985 budget goals for 6:15 P.M., Monday, July 23, 1984, in the City Council Chambers. This special meeting will be held immediately preceding the regularly scheduled meeting of July 27. 10. Although a non -agenda item, the Mayor recognized Wayne Mayer and Marshall Jacobson, who arrived at the meeting at this time. They expressed their concern over the washout that had occurred early in the evening due to the extremely heavy rainfall. There was a brief discussion with the Public Mocks Director, who said they 0 Council Minutes - 7/9/84 There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned. will be immediately addressing the problem and that one likely L solution would be a drainage swale or ditch that will separate the residential property from the Par West Park development. Simola stated that they would give their immediate attention to this problem. Mr. Mayer also raised a question with respect to the installation of playground equipment in the Par West Park. He stated that according to Hoglund Bus Company, their neighborhood had the highest concentration of children as anywhere in the City and that the children were required to cross County Road 75 to roach playground equipment. He thus requested that the Council delay installation of the Vita Course and instead install playground equipment so the children have a place to play without crossing County Road 75. Mayer stated that with the NSP Plant outage in effect, the traffic flow on 75 was substantially higher than usual, thus making crossing more dangerous for children. Eidem indicated that such a playground was not scheduled for development, but considering the circumstances, he and other staff members would investigate the creation of a temporary park in the Par West Park land. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned. K - 5 DI Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator K - 5 DI Council Agenda - 7/23/84 4. Public Hearing - Request to Redesignate Zoning in Par West Prior to Plat Recording. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Back in the early stages of the development of Par West, John Sandberg had proposed some mixed zones that would allow multiple family development in two of the corners. Even though it was planned development, Dahlgren still identified those lots as forma of spot zoning, thus those original zone requests were prohibited. In the process of working with John, we discussed the matter of making the entire plat an R-2 Zone allowing one and two family homes and 4-plexes and B -unit townhouses as Conditional Uses. Because Par West is bound on all sides by some kind of physical barrier, staff concluded that the zone, as 1004 R-2 development, would be adequate. We checked this out with Dahlgren S Associates, and they concurred. Thus, we recommended that John submit his plat as an R-2 plat. We did note during our conversations, however, that the City may wish to stipulate a maximum number of duplexes in ratio to single family homes to avoid a development that has no single family homes. We did not may that this would be absolutely required; we simply told John that it's something we may be considering before recording. John acknowledged that and went ahead with the completion of the plat, but on approval had designated a large section of R-1 lots so that he would not have to gat into the difficulty of regulating duplexes or singles. He chose to request more restrictive zoning than staff had originally recommended for the plat. We indicated at that time if he was comfortable with the zoning request then we certainly could be comfortable with that. From that point, we went through the stages of final approval, but we withheld our signatures and recording at the Courthouse until such time as the physical improvements were complete. John, in looking at the development possibilities and the configuration and limitations of certain lots, asked if he could expand the R-2 Zone to accommodate some of these lots so that 4's could be developed. We indicated that it would be more appropriate to simply change the designation to comply with staff's original recommendation, namely, all R-2 zoning. John said that he was agreeable to that. The reason the public hearing is coming before the Council rather than the Planning Commission is that the construction phase In Par West 1s nearing completion, and the plat will be ready for recording; and from a City perspective, I see no reason why we should hold up recording. This matter was taken before SIC Council Agenda - 7/23/84 the Planning Commission, but simply could not make the public notice deadline. The Planning Commission discussed the matter at length and passed a motion recommending that the zoning change be granted by the Council and further, passed the public hearing through to the City Council. This, of course, is somewhat of an irregularity, and the Planning Commission certainly has no intent of making a regular practice of this. Staff felt it was essential to hold a public hearing because this ie essentially a zoning change, even though the formal zones have not been put in place legally. The public hearings that ware held with respect to the development of the plat all indicated R-1 and R-2 Zones and, consequently, that is what the adjacent property owners believe the plat will be zoned. Since the Council had taken formal action to grant the plat with the specific zone, staff feels it is essential to treat it much as a rezone request; however, we have tried to distinguish that it is a ro-designation of a final plat prior to recording. Addressing our concern about establishing a ratio of development for duplexes to single family homes, we have concluded that such a ratio will not be necessary. The southern most portion of the plat is, in fact, developing in a townhouse fashion. Some of the larger lots on the wast and northwest very likely may hold 4-plexe■ and duplexes. We do think, however, that the majority of development will not be in the duplex, tri-plax, or 4-plox manner. A large portion of the existing City zones Is R-2, yet development has, in fact, been single family homes. It strikes us that it is appropriate to create an entirely contained zone that will accommodate a mixture of dwelling sizes. While the hearing may generate some comment based on traffic flows much as we heard in the original review, we have indicated that substantial concessions were made from the original review and that we did exercise care in determining that an R-2 zone would be acceptable. I wish to emphasize that in the early discuaaions, it was both staff and Consulting Planner that concurred that an R-2 Zone would be desirable in this location, but it was the developer who chose to make it more restrictive when he originally filed the plat. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Since this is a public hearing, there are no alternative actions. All actions will be in the following agenda item. - 2 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 5. Public Hearing - Adoption of Tax Increment Finance Plan 05 for Key Tool 6 Plastics. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: It is required by Minnesota Statute that, after adoption of a Tax Increment Plan by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, it be submitted to the City Council with a request to hold a public hearing. On July 9, the Council adopted a resolution setting a public hearing for July 23. This hearing is intended, as have all the ones in the past been, to allow persons to speak to the merits of the project and to the proposed budget as submitted in the Plan. No action is taken during the public hearing. For an in-depth discussion of the Key Tool 6 Plastics project, I refer you to Agenda Item 013. Also, as in the past. I do not anticipate anyone from the public being present. - 3 - C Council Agenda - 7/23/84 6. Consideration of an Amendment to City Code of Ordinances, Title 7. Chapter 2. W .S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: There are two changes that the City staff wishes to make in the Ordinance regulating water and sever. The first change is in the area of sewer services required for such buildings as duplexes built on a zero lot line basis in which each building will be sold to a different party. We currently require through our Ordinances and the Uniform Building Code that separate water shut -offs be provided for each separately owned building or part thereof. It has been the City's policy to require separate sever services as well as separate water services for each separately owned unit. we do not, however, specifically state in the Ordinance that the separate sever services are required, and we wish to add this to the ordinance. A second change involves the minimum size of water lines serving individual properties. The City of Monticello requires a 1 -inch line to be installed from the water main*to the property line as a minimum. In the past, moot contractors have continued the 1 -inch size from the property line to the house so that the future owner of that property will have an adequate water supply. The Uniform Building Code, however, only requires a minimum of 3/4 -inch size from the property line to the home. There have been instances where coma contractors, in order to save money, will reduce the size of the City service installed for that property to 3/4 -inch and continue this to the home, thereby reducing the overall capability of the water service to that building. How much is the contractor saving? The cost differential between 3/4 -inch copper and 1 -inch copper is currently 21e par foot. Saying that we have an average setback of 30 foot from the property line to the home front building lino, this would mean an additional cost of $6.30. Additionally, to inotall a 3/4 -inch water service, the builder must first purchase an adaptor from the City's 1 -inch service to the 3/4 -inch, which can coot at least $3.00. Consequently, contractor, by lnotalling o 3/4 -inch water service, would typically nava $3.00. If the property owner, however, in the future daterminen that the 3/4 -inch water service did not allow adequate water for the appliances in the home and watering grace or underground aprinklor system, he could havo the sorvico replaced from the house to the street easily for $400 or $500. Both of the abovo recommended chongoo will benefit the future property owners. Thorn to nothing worse than finding out that after building a beautiful hams that you have an inadequate water supply or that you share a sower service with an inconaidarato - 4 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 neighbor. As public Works Director, I have encountered numerous problems in the past which have resulted from shared sewer and/or water services. Normally, the decision to share a sewer or water service in the past was based upon saving a few dollars. When the problems begin to crop up years later and the individual property owners are at odds with each other as to who is going to pay for the repairs and/or replacements, the City gets called. The first question always asked is why did the City allow the shared services? Why did not the City provide separate services for each building that has a separate owner? The change involving the requirement for separate sewer services should have been made in late 1981. With the construction of The Meadows project on the west end of town, we had difficulty in enforcing our policy requiring separate sewer services. At that time, we made an agreement with Mel Wolters which allowed him to split 18 sewer services under certain conditions. This compromise was reached and was necessary only because the City did not have enough teeth in the Ordinance to enforce the separate sewer services. A memorandum of The Meadows agreement and/or special conditions is enclosed for your review. We would propose to make these changes involving any now construction. We would also propose that if significant problems arise with a shared sower service in the future so that it needs replacement and/or major repairs that we require individual sower services to be put in at that time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Thio alternative would be to add the requirement for all individually owned buildings or part thereof that the sower services as wall as water services be totally separate. In addition, there would be a replacement requirement for those buildings already in existence when significant problems aro encountered. This alternative would also include changing the minimum water size to 1 inch and would affect those properties to which 1 -inch water is installed to the property lino. 2. Alternative 02 would be to make no changes to the Ordinance and continue to oporato as we have. 3. Alternative 13 would be to make only one of the above changes to the Ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we make the additions or changes to the Ordinance as outlined in Alternative 01. Such - 5 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 change or addition is included for your review D. SUPPORTING DATA: Memorandum concerning The Meadows sewer and water; Proposed changes to the Ordinance. - 6 - MEMORANDUM T0: Wry @Heber, Ralph Munsterteiger, Mal Wolters, Bob Larson, Greg Beeth, toren Klein. FROM: John Simola, Public {corks Director. DATE: August 28, 1981. SUBJECT: Sewer and water Services in the Meadows for Duplexes. A meeting was held at City Hall the afternoon of August 27, 1981. The above mentioned parties were precent. The meeting was called duo to the fact that 13 of 18 proposed double duplex sewer and water services along Marvin Elwood Coad had been installed as single cervico units. The primary reason for tho overnight appeared to be lack of communication between all parties involved. At present, the uniform buildinj code requires separate water shut offs for each separately owned building or part of. In addition, it has been the city's policy to requiro separate sewer services as well as separate water services for each separately owned unit. Because of additional work involved, the contractor, laTour Construction, re- quested extras above the unit prices of $161 each to cut in the 18 four inch (4") sewer saddles and $160 each for four (4) south water services which required tunneling. After much discussion and comments frown all parties a compromise was reached and it is as follows: I. Double water services are to be installed at all 10 lots along Marvin rlwood Road which are zoned for duplexes. These services aro to be 20 feat apart with the sewer in between. In addition to the normal unit prices, IaTour Construction will charge an additional $640.00 total for the four (4) south water services. This cost will be spread through out the service cost. 2. The city will allow "This time only" that the single sower services for thace 18 lots only, may be split or wyed to servo both unite on a single lot. The following conditions must be mat with the city being notified that they have been met. A. A separate sewer clean-out with removable cap shall be provided 3t the exterior of tho house for each separately owned unit. Thin would be two exterior clean -outs per lot if a duplex was built on the let. A. That starnlard hook-up and rerviea charges will apply to each separately owned unit. Two per lot if a duplex is built on the lot. C. That a covenant be placed on the propertias which receive 'duplexes to hold the city harmlews for any damages resulting from sewer service problems. This covenant shall also explain the ratifi- cations of a single sewer service in plain English so that pro- spective buyers will fully understand their liability. J Sewer and Water Services in the Meadows for Duplexes Page 2 August 28, 1981 in addition, it was brought out that the city engineer will develop a service location release form to be signed by property Owners prior to service installation. if any disagreements with the contents of this memo exist, please notify me immediately. Jbhn Simola, Public Works Director JS/lg cc: John Badalich, OSM Meadows File 81-1 Ea J J EXISTING APPLICABLE SECTION 7-2-9 CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS 7-2-9: CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS: There shall be installed in every connection to the City water system one stop and waste valve which shall be installed at a point between the curb atop and the meter so that the water may be turned off and the meter and house plumbing entirely drained. There shall be installed another atop and waste cock and check valve in the pipe on the house side of the meter. There shall be installed a motor yoke of the type approved by the City for convenient installation or removal of the meter. All service pipes connected to the system shall be of a Type K copper, a minimum three-quartere inch (3/4"), inside diameter or its approval equal and shall be laid at a depth not less than six and five tenths (6.5) feet below the established grade, or as low an the street mains. The recommended new wording for thio section is as follows: 7-2-9: CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS: Each now building, or part thereof, conalructed in the City which in required by code to have newer and water and whose ownership can be legally transferred separately within the City shall have its own individual sewer and water connections to the City mains. Any shared existing services for adjacent units of separate ownership which fail and require replacement or substantial repairs shall at that time be separated. Thera shall be installed in every connection to the City water Maine one curb atop located on the City right-of-way and one atop and wants valve which shall be installed at a point between the curb stop and the motor as that the water may be turned oft and the motor and house plumbing entirely drained. There shall be installed another atop and waste cock and check valve in the pipe on the house side of the motor. There shall be installed a motor yoke of the typo approved by the City for convenient installation and removal of the metor. All water service pipes connected to the motor valvas and the City mains shall be of Typo K copper and a minimum 1 -inch (I") inside diameter or its approved equal and shall be laid at a depth of not loan than 6.5 foot below the established grade or as low as the street mains. 6) C Council Agenda 7/23/84 7. Consideration of an Amendment to the Zoninci Ordinance to Allow Boarding Houses as a Conditional Use in a B-4 Zone. (T.E.I A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This amendment is a specific amendment designed to address a project that is being developed. The action is similar to that of the legislature when they draft a bill to specifically address one city or county, etc. Tom Hammer, the developer, bought the Friends Cafe building many months ago when our previous Building Inspector was still in office. At the time,we were investigating this building as a likely site for tax increment financing in order to demolish a deteriorating structure and hopefully replace with something new. Mr. Hammer did not request tax increment financing but rather proposed substantial rehabilitation of the existing building. He was formulating his plans for development during the time that we were in transition between Building Inspectors. When Mr. Hammer applied for his permit, one of our interim Building Officials okayed the plane that he had proposed, to wit, rehabilitate the existing ten apartments on the upper level and create five now apartments in the back of the lower level. Ito also intended to rehabilitate the restaurant. Mr. Hammer received his permit to go to work and immediately rehabilitated the upstairs apartments. These apartments, according to the Zoning Ordinance, are non -conforming uses since we do not allow apartments in the B-4 Zone. This is a matter we wish to address in the Zoning Ordinance review. It is, in fact, beneficial to have soma living quarters off of the main floor level in the downtown zone. However, the Ordinance as is allows these apartments to exist only as non -conforming uses. Hero, then, is whore the problem enters with respect to the five now apartments on grade level. The Ordinance very specifically states that a non -conforming use cannot be enlarged. Thus, the five apartments on grade level for which Mr. Hammer had already been issued a building permit really were not allowed under the Ordinance. We were required to atop Mr. Hammer's work at that time. Because staff thought that Mr. Hammer's efforts were desirable, we attempted to find a way by which we could allow hie development to occur, but still not make apartment dwellings in a D-4 District a permitted use. We mot with Mr. Hammers attorney to discuss the various options and provided him a copy of our Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hammer's attorney stressed that while it was non -conforming, it did meat the provisions of the highest and beat use of the land under rehabilitation. Ito stated that the building was originally a residential structure (army barrackal, was on the very fringes of the B-4 Zone, was near the Senior Cantor, and was undesirable for office rental space. They inquired as to - 7 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 l._ rezoning, and that clearly was an unacceptable alternative. I met with City Attorney Pringle and discussed the matter with John Uban of Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates. We reviewed the possibility of designating the area a hotel, but our Ordinance states that a hotel provides accommodations on a temporary basis. Further, without a lobby and registration type desk, it does not really meet the generally accepted idea of what a hotel is. We finally arrived, through discussion, at the concept of allowing a boarding house in a,B-4 Zone. In order to allow such a land use in the downtown, we felt it was essential to put in certain restrictions that would make it nearly impossible for other buildings to convert. We were concerned that any building downtown, if the business involved should fail, would try to convert to boarding house; and that, we felt, was undesirable. Consequently, we arrived at restrictions that relate to A full service restaurant in addition to the restaurant serving food to the boarders. We included provisions that would require substantial rehabilitation of the building. We added seating provisions for the restaurant. we put the number of allowable units up at a high enough level to discourage the conversion of a building into two or three or four apartments. We also put the maximum number of units at a specific level to discourage a major multiple housing development. Under the provisions that we have drafted, a now building or now addition will not be eligible to become a boarding house. A building that is simply being remodeled and has not boon found to be blighted or substandard will not be eligible for conversion. We think that Mr. Hammer's proposal has morit and should be allowed to occur. Thus, the amendment has boon prepared to allow his development. We sea the substantial rehabilitation of that particular building as being an asset to the community, and thus standing on the formality of the Ordinance in this case could be detrimental. I suppose that one thing that could be considered, although it might be oubject to criticism were a person to investigate it, would be to make the Ordinance Amendment to allow the development to occur at this time, and than delete the provision at the time of the Zoning Ordinance revision. By making the deletion at a later data, the boarding house will then become a non -conforming use again. I'm not sura that such a measure would be required, since based on our inventory there aro no other buildings that can qualify under the provisions we have proscribed. The Planning Commission hold a rather lengthy discussion over thio particular move. Mr. Cochran raisod a question concerning the long-range plan and whether or not thin is a provision we actually wish to include in our long-range planning efforts. -B- Council Agenda - 7/23/84 Upon lengthy discussion, it was agreed that this Amendment was proposed to address this specific development project, and at that time Mr. Cochran and the rest of the Commission felt more comfortable with the Amendment. The Planning Commission did vote to recommend the adoption of the Ordinance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the Ordinance Amendment - this will open the door for the following agenda item, which is Mr. Hammer's application for a Conditional Use for a boarding house. It will allow him to, complete the rehabilitation of the structure on the corner of Cedar and Broadway. It will provide new and improved living accommodations in the downtown area and a new renovated restaurant. 2. Do not adopt the Amendment - this will essentially stop the five apartments on the .grade level. Mr. Hammer would then have two options. First, he could investigate conversion to office spaco and attempt to rent that out. He also could seek recourse against the City since he had been granted a permit to do the project by an interim Building Official. In either case, the ton remodeled units upstairs and the remodeled ca Eo are acceptable under the existing Ordinance. 3. Table any action and rofer back to staff for additional research - this would simply delay tho project. We asked Mr. Hammer iP he could wait until we did our Zoning Ordinance review and rovision; and he indicated that would create a financial crunch since his money had been allocated based on the award of his permit. Thera may be less of an objection to sending it back to staff if we were directed to have it on the first meeting in August. Such an action might be prompted by the desire to put in more stringent conditions and other oepects that have not yet been considered. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If tilers aro opocific conditions you wish to havo added to the Amendment, than staff recommondo they be insartod immediately at the mooting and the adoption occur as ochadulad; or if the added provisions aro more complex, they be referred back to staff until the next regularly scheduled Council mooting. If there aro no apparent additions to be made to tho Amendment, then staff rocoamando the adoption of the Amendment am that Mr. Hammer may proceed with the completion of his project. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Planning Commioolon Minutes; Copy of the Amendment for Adoption, Site map. -g- Planning Commisnion Minutes - 7/10/84 4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow as a Conditional Use a Boarding House in a 0-4 Zone, Applicant - City of Monticello. Zoning Administrator Andr,rnon opened the public hearing with background information on the Ordinance Amendment, with the basic intent of the Ordinance Amendment stemming from a request to have a boarding house in a 0-4 'Lone. Our Ordinance, under B-4 Zoning, clearly docs not address boarding houses. Therefore, an amendment was drafted to accommodate boarding houses within a B-4 Zone. However, had the request not been submitted, there would have been no need to draft this Ordinance Amendment. But City staff feels that this would be a very worthwhile, allowable use in a B-4 Zone, noting that there is a need for some type of housing within the downtown business district. They.felt this would be appropriate in B-4 Zoning with a number of conditions attached to the Ordinance Amendment. The conditions to the Conditional Use aspect of the Ordinance Amendment were addressed briefly, and are as follows: The building or structure has to be found to be substandard in condition; that upon extensive rehabilitation, not just basic remodeling, the building would be in need of substantial upgrading; that there be no less than 10 units, nor more than 10 units, and that they be of of£iciency apartment design; at least one unit on the ground floor must be fully accessible to the handicapped; that at least 50% of the ground floor area be developed as a complete restaurant facility �T( with a minimum of two seats per dwelling but no lona than 25 1� seats; the restaurant will not be eligible for on or of['-oalo liquor lieanso; the restaurant oliall be so equipped to provide food ourviea to the dwelling units if required; architectural appearance be similar to other existing buildings and not cause impairment to property values. All conditions are subject to change by City Council. Commission member Don Cochran naked for input from the applicant, the City of Monticello. City Administrator, Tom Eidem, eluded to soma additional background In regard to the proposed adoption of the Ordinance Amendmont. Mr. Eidam indicated the basic intent of the Ordinance really stemmed from a request to be allowed to have a boarding house in a D-4 Zone. Ile further eluded to had the request not been submitted, the Ordinance Amendment before you tonight would riot have been brought up before you. Mr. Eidem indicated he had talked with Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgran 6 Associates, Consulting Planner, John Uban, in regard to the proposed Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Uban indicated that It approval of such an Ordinance Amendment to allow a boarding house in a U-4 Zone had conditiano attached, and as part of thoso conditions attached that It is part of the overall development plan of the City that coma typo of residential houaing bo in a business district, ho would go nlong with that idea also. Mr. Eldom indicated tho current trand in tho downtown buoinoas district of business development extending south along Walnut Street, Planning Commission Minutes - 7/10/84 `E, and there could be possibly at some time their area of the proposed Ordinance Amendment not being in the Central Business District. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated looking at the proposed site of the Ordinance Amendment to allow boarding houses, the businesses around the proposed site are of the business like nature of eating, dining, and entertainment businesses, quite unlike the businesses vest of the stoplights, where there are more retail businesses in that portion of the B-4 Business District. Mr. Chuck Carmichael, Attorney for Thomas Hammer, eluded to his client's background as to the Ordinance Amendment, citing that his client would be totally in favor of the Ordinance Amendment to allow a boarding house as a Conditional Use in a B-4 Zone. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffer, and carried unanimously, to approve the Ordinance Amendment to allow as a Conditional Use a boarding house in a B-4 Zone. ('27) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 138 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DO HEREBY ORDAIN: Title 10, Chapter 14, Subdivision 4 be amended by adding Paragraph (G), to wit: (G) Boarding House, provided that: 1) The building/structure is found to be substandard and/or blighted or constributing to blight, and in need of substantial rehabilitation. a) The applicant must provide an overall development concept plan. b) The applicant must demonstrate that said rehabilitation is the most feasible use alternative, and that said rehabilitation is not remodeling or simple structural alterations to accommodate a change in use. 2) There shell be no less than ten (10) units nor more than 10 unite, and that each unit shall be of a design considered to bd an efficiency apartment. 3) At least one unit shall be on ground floor fully accessible to handicapped persons. 4) At least 501 of the floor area on the ground floor shall be developed as complete restaurant facilities with a minimum seating capacity of two seats per dwelling unit but in no case less than 25 seats. a) Restaurant shall not be eligible for licenses regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors, non -intoxicating malt liquors, vino, or the display and consumption of liquors. b) The restaurant shall be so equipped to provide food service to the dwelling units if required. 5) The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area a■ to cause impairment in property value• or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. O Ordinance Amendment No. 138 J 6) All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation to relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. J LWA - 2 - rf.QT PLnv DORE$5__ISYG)t/�U �J PERMIT NJMDCR TAL ;CRIPTION LOT Jn + LD / OLOCK ROOtTIflNt�Rl9/1tI�.%�� iO, fl, Or SITE ARCA s0, ri. Or ARCA OCCWI ED BY WILDING N60 L..J It:STRtyCT10,:S TO APPLICANT s1tS FORM NLLO I.OT ¢C VSI. MEM FLO' PLAMS ..A.N TO SC •LC aRE rtLZD -1x11 TriC nCMMtT ARPLiCAT 1011. -nn NL. OUI LUI NC 9, PaOV IDC TIIC rOLl0�1 NG INfoaMl•TIOMI LOC rT IDN Or pROPOSCO COIISTROC r10N AMD CAIOT Ir:G MP ROV CrCNT S. SMO. OV i LOlilfi OtTE AMD SCTOAC• pIMC N910N3. 51101 [AS»[NTO, FIM1511 C00T0VR9 OR U�f.11nn0C, 11131 FLOOR CLCVAIICMS, sTRCCT CLLVAITOM —0 SC�CR CLr—TlO . ISMO. LOCATIOM Or —CM, SCvCN. Gas. ',,,D CLI.CTRIC.L SERV ICC LAIC S. SMO. LOCAT10113 Or 51111[1 FINS. SPCCI- TMC U5E Or CaCM OVILOI Mf. CACj\MN"}J\x'04 PCRI t0 TMCA., `../ INDICAT L r.oR rN IN CIRCLE. EACH GRAPH S'UAJi[ EOUALS .SI -0" BY -5'-O" _App yl. ear•—..— . _ _ _P_ w __-�— L—.' 1-.— �.;_ lot Ir Raani_ —� —I—II — IJWr 1rr Illy Ihrl Ih. O�Vp1srW conlli-iUn «MI cOnl Dlm 1b Ihr Aim.nMOn. Mr1 ,ilm .n,�wn .bar. rid Ihrl M chrry,�rl«III b• m.Or «ilhORt IM rt abtsininp ryyl OrAl. —..— � {{TIflTO WRQ O.- -...... .. ...._, R11CT41TDR'uL'►Tf{TiCifi'iTtYi d.................................... Q (f0. CITY UiC Olyy„T} t•ttl'0 F.1- �� APPROVED DY DATE Council Agenda - 7/23/84 t8. Consideration and Review of Bids for the Improvement of County Road 75, Hart Boulevard, and Cedar Street. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The bid opening for this project will take place on Friday, July 20, at 11:00 A.M. The bids will be discussed at the Monday evening meeting, and we should have the cost data from the apparent low bidder at that time. This will enable us to determine whether or not the costa of the projects are going to be near those estimated. There need be no further action taken on the project at this time, as it is scheduled for review at the August 13 regularly scheduled meeting. There is no supporting data for this item. - 10 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 �,. 9. Consideration of a Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessment. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Because the property owners affected by the improvements on Hart and Cedar Boulevard have come before the Council to express their concern about being assessed 100% of the project and because there is some question concerning amount of benefit derived vs. value of assessment, we have elected to conduct the assessment hearing prior to the ordering of the project and the granting of the contract. The practice of holding the assessment hearing prior to the authorizing of the job has become more common and is a protective measure used by cities. Briefly, State law allows for a property owner to file an objection to an assessment at the assessment hearing, which can then lead to a challenge of that assessment. Recently, most challenges to assessments have been successful, thus leaving the City with expenditures having already been made but no revenue generated through the challenged assessments. Consequently, cities have begun to hold the hearings prior to doing the project, thereby knowing the extent of the challenges and knowing whether or not there will be sufficient revenue. State law provides that any challenge or objection to an assessment must occur at the hearing. Therefore, if wehave no challenges at the hearing, we know that the assessment roll as proposed will stand and can be certified in order to retire the debt for the project. The sequence of events is as follows: On Friday, July 20, 1984, the day ,that these supplements oro distributed, we will be opening and receiving the bids for the construction. Using the actual bid figures, we will prepare an assessment roll. On Monday, the 23rd, with the adoption of ,each of the resolutions, City staff will prepare the public notice and mail notice to the affected property owners of their proposed assessment. On August 13, we will hold the assessment hearing whereat any affected property owner may then issue their challenge. If there are substantial challenges to the proposed assessments, the Council must determine that it will either adjust the assessment or abort the project. If there Ora no formal objections filed at the assessment hearing, than the assessment roll will be adopted by resolution. Immodiatoly following that action, the Council will award the contract to the successful bidder. And in yet a third distinct action, the Council will authorize the sale of bonds for the project. Essentially then, we aro taking this course to give tho City the aeeuranco that they will, in fact, recover a certain amount of dollars for the project through acoosomonto and that those dollars aro the Demo as we originally anticipato. This process CI Council Agenda - 7/23/84 is here to avoid surprises by having assessments reduced after we have committed ourselves to a particular debt retirement schedule. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution - this alternative, if you wish to sell bonds to sell the project, is the only realistic alternative. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - by not declaring the cost to be assessed, the City is unable to issue Public Improvement Bonds under Chapter 429, and thus the project must be dropped. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Clearly, we recommend adoption of the resolution. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution. ( - 12 - RESOLUTION 1984 p RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, bids have been requested for the improvement of Hart Boulevard between the Monticello -Big lake Hospital and East County Road 39 and Cedar Street between Lauring lane and the Burlington Northern Railroad by constructing new road surfaces, curb and gutter, and other appurtenant work, and the Engineer's estimated cost for such improvement is $ , and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement are estimated to be $ so that the total cost of the improvement is estimated to be S NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELIA, MINNESOTA: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City in hereby estimated to be $ and the hortiun of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is estimated to be S / 2. The City Administrator, with the assistance of the Consulting City 1 Engineer, shall forthwith Calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land wiLhln the District affected, without regard to cash valuation, no provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. Adopted by the Council this 23rd day of July, 1984. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator CI Arve A. Grimcmo, Mayor O Council Agenda - 7/23/64 10. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Hearing on the Proposed Assessment. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Having adopted the previous resolution, it is essential to hold the public hearing on the assessment roll. The resolution setting that hearing is attached. While this information may have been able to be included in the earlier resolution, as I indicated in an earlier agenda supplement, I wish to keep this resolution separate in order to establish a clear paper trail of all required documentation for bond sale. Having acted in the affirmative on the earlier resolution, there really are no alternative actions. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution. R 13 RESOLUTION 1994 #_ RESOLUTION SETTING A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on July 23, 1984, the City Administrator was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of improving Hart Boulevard between the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital and East County Road 39 and for Cedar Street between Lauring Lane and the Burlington Northern Railroad by constructing now street surfacing, curb and gutter, and other appurtenant work, and WHEREAS, the City Administrator has notified the Council that such proposed assessment shall be complete and filed in his office for public inspection no later than July 26, 1984, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of August, 1904, in the City Holl at 7:30 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessment, and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be gtven an opportunity / to be heard with reference to such oaceasment. 2. The City Administrator is heroby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total coat of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not lase than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the Council this 23rd day of July, 1904. Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Administrator m N Council Agenda - 7/23/84 }t. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing Sale of Bonds - Hart and Cedar. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Because we have elected to not assess any of Broadway, that project cannot be bonded. However, because we are assessing for a portion of the improvements to Hart and Cedar, we will issue bonds for that project. Jerry Shannon of Springsted will be present Monday night with recommendations that apply to the negotiation and placement of the bonds, a maturity schedule, and what we should seek. The resolution in question is the resolution authorizing Springsted to go to work on the placement of those bonds. Based on the feasibility study, we have estimated the actual construction and related fees for Hart and Cedar to total approximately $/50,000.00. Because we always build in capitalized interest and other associated bonding costs, I suspect that the bond issue will be near the $200,000.00 mark. By Monday night we will have exact figures, but as of this writing, the bids reflecting actual construction costa have not boon opened, so we do not have the advantage of knowing the exact construction cost. Consequently, we are operating Strictly on the feasibility study estimates at this point. Presuming that we will go ahead with the improvements and the assessments, Jerry Shannon will negotiate the Salo or placement of the bonds between this meeting and the August 13 meeting. It is conceivable then that the actual Salo and award of bids will occur on August 13. In a conversation just today with Jerry, he indicated that it may be conceivable, depending on the approval of both bond issues (Tax Increment Financing and public Improvement) that the placement could occur as a single issue. we will save some foes by doing it in that manner. This, of course, procumes that both issues have boon approved and authorized. I have provided in your agenda two separate resolutions, but should you approve both issues, then Mr. Shannon will present a single appropriate resolution addressing both projects. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: ). Adopt the raoolution authorizing Springated to pursue the placement of bonds - this, of course, aaeumas that basad on the bids, tho project will be going forth. Council Agenda - 7/23/84 2. Do not adopt the resolution - this essentially will stop the project or force us to find revenue somewhere else to pay for the project. I do not believe that we would want to use any more surplus revenue than we have already committed to the reconstruction of Broadway. 3. Adopt a combined resolution authorizing the issuance of both the Tax Increment Bonds and the Public Improvement Bonds. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation here is contingent upon the action you pursue after reviewing the bids. If the project is going to happen, then we must sell the bonds to pay for it. Also, if you have elected to pursue the Tax Increment Finance District, I recommend we adopt a single resolution authorizing the placement of both amounts. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for this project only. A RESOLUTION 1994 tl RESOLUTION RELATING TO S GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1984, DETERMINING THE EXPEDIENCY OF ISSUING THE BONDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE SOLICITATION OF BIDS THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the ••City") as follows: 1. Authorization. It is hereby found, determined and declared that iC is necessary and expedient for the City, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, forthwith to borrow money by the issuance of its general obligation bondi3 in the principal amount not to exceed S , which amount is within the limitations specified in Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes, for the purpose of financing public improvement coats of a public improvement project undertaken by the City of Monticello, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chaptcar 429. C2. Solu Terms. In order to expedite the sale of said bonds, the City Administrator of the City, in consultation with Springated Incorporated, bond consultant to the City, is authorized to prepare and circulate to one or more prospective bidders information relating to the terma and conditions of the bonds and relating to the financial condition of the City and to solicit bids from said prospective bidders for the purchaser of the bonds. This Council shall moot on ouch data as it may doom expedient to consider bids for the purchase of the bonds and take ouch action thereon as is doomod appropriate. Adopted this 23rd day of July, 1984. Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Administrofor Council Agenda - 7/23/84 `l 12. Consideration of Granting a Re -designation From R-1 to R-2 for Portions of Par West. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: I believe I have given you a full explanation in the public hearing agenda item. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Grant the change in zone designation so that the plat may be recorded entirely as an R-2 Zone - this alternative will increase the number of lots where a duplex becomes a permitted use. These lots also will become open for dovelopment as 3-plexes and 4-plexes and as townhouses up to 8 unite. Any builder, of course, would otill have to meet all other zoning requirements with respect to square footage, setbacks, etc. 2. Deny the zoning ro-designation - This would allow recording of the plat as it was originally approved and keep Blocks 1 and 2 as R-1 Zone. I don't believe the denial would cause a substantial hardship with the exception of perhaps one lot that Mr. Sandberg has expressed concern about, that being Lot 1 in Block 1. Denial of the request may also genera to lengthy discussion from the applicant in an effort to convince you. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff really proposes no formal recommendation with this request. Staff originally recommended to the developer that the entire plat be zoned R-2, on the grounds that the R-2 designation would be adequate for his development proposal of townhouses and other multiple typo dwellings, but would also be compatible with the City's Plan. The mixture of R-1 and R-2 Zoning is also compatible with the City Plan. We have not boon able to identify a specific benefit to the City for either granting or denying the zoning request. The developer will derive benefit from tho zoning change, but the benefit he does derive will not nacossarily be disadvantageous or detrimental to City growth. Because the request does not generate particular problems, I coo no reason not to grant his request. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Maps of the plat indicating currant zone designation and proposed zone designation: copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission. C IJ A polo "skit RO Z"7 . ....... 1040 A-0 \ ./ �� ��',yyy,`. ` .t� ,�:\; ,•::S\9" �tj'2,`�,/ o''`°l �`\ '�t:i`•�'/•�'/yro`��•'. `,r�`^• `• \ IV C_ • �•a:.,l;Y e.,,` •\,,; ���;��' ��teS•fy4•�•� yo ` •' v \ \'•• uq 1 , `, :', t,+y `S • _{�r; s \\\ YJ {.e °9..• .,,�••,'�,i. 11 l ,1G r•1 Ou" '� , may../ i,tri , ' .— Isa 'ear, .,got 44 '10 iT _ _ _ .:.I I 17 f •,\.' •�•, , I ^ +�.i \ • ........ .,..�.......... ........... .. -,;' '- I I �'•' s•�• ti � � �/ •0� •\ fh) � ill �c.p . / • \ \ ' CEJ \ z '_ '`!;�• <j°F°o �•�^ C. D ' 1 \�I9 I �..1 , ''lam :�e i `blr., `b✓ � % •4iir '�\ � \ 111= ``� :�. ,J/1 °°w� •'°�/ //� '°� \ \ i "e �i— l'•� li•.t•.r.s�p•. � (,rt s �/;� \ e� is >,� \t \ - ... _., I +', tI � - "+1i � °� '\.;, c'w /`17 �:f 1 '�I,7 11•� ''o R �_ •'' ', �1r. Fi, •'it ^I • 17 ' 1 � �. i�-rv...pl a to fi � • '' �c+;`••l+'`�°•t (. '. •��� I +.� \ �3 r i �. * 4'. _: •L ee°]Leo I �_! ?'�-1 L:.°1'�,1-Fi!$�t;h° Im '11 ��-:o' • ° � ° ,` �;i ._L161: nr _ ... _ _ �.on v •a °•'~,• ,ji\ \� I� � -_,` .i..�� :1 %i. 'b4•� r' •+!. w /� I�1 ����PY, ,c° 1 i{M. q,�%ill' uY Ili ._C.i.ix'�A Mq °J ,;O �'CM•� ll q• 1 J �''_w OUTLOT �� _� f L .,,,OR i ,,,.Qr l L_ i•I.4 S. ..... . n Y.C. Minutes ,71,10104 i9. Praiiminary'ReQUeat to Rezone a Proposed Preliminary Plnt Approved Subdivision, APPlicant'-.John Sandbarg, Mr. Sandberg was preapni before Planning G:O=jpsion membors to,axpress his interest in rezoning the entLro parcel .Lo R-2 2onln9.� Single and,Two Family Dwellings„ with three or 'four unit apartment building Anil an 0 -unit tavrshou3e.bµilding only allowed as Conditional Uses in an R-"2 `Lona. Currently, Mr., Sandberg•s final plat was approved fpr R-1 housing'on,Block I and Block 2, and R-2 Zoning on Blocks 3, 4, an& 5. Mr'.Sandherg's' indication as he vas going through the plat in its developing stages now indicates that he would like to have the currently zoned R-1 Blocks, Blocks 1; and 2, be rezoned to R-2. In doinsl so, we would give the developer, Mr. Sandberg, control over the•numbar of and the placement of multiple housing unite on In his subdivision. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, indicated to Planning Commission members that it was the original etaff48 recommendation that the entire parcel be zoned R-2 from the start, and indicated that Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlyren' 6 Associates, through Consultant John Uban, had suggested the entire parcel be zoned R-2, that the entire subdivision is basically located with buffer zones around It on ail aides, those being; the golf, course, the railroad tracks, and the=power lines -which run by the subdivision,,, But, Pt.that!.time'„'Mr.-Sandberg didn't want to tie tied to the number pf;multiple units heAdould.'be, 'allowed to'put:in'. 'Mr. Sandberg: indicated the :possible,percentage numbers oi•R-1 'housing, vs., R=2 housing,units:couid possibly be SOV .and could' go the pthar way. 40%'ras1d*ntisl.= 40% residantiol, os 40e R-.2''and 60• R-2. But .those; figures aren't iknown,at, this time: it- bastcaliy depends upon .the:mpcomiag, tiousiaq,trends. Mr. Sandberg indicated, co ['ianning. co -mission members that ;the', design of .the multiple units ba of 'srieh'ta Mend' in with.thw extating R-1 housing to be built, out-tthare.. Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconde0',by, JoycwDoiling, to waive iho- public huaring by the Monticello Planning Cominiu +ion and''' -masa on to City Council their raCoaendstian.ta hold' the , public: 44443 at their, next -July 23, 1994, City Council, meeting. Motion by Joyce tlowl'ing, seconded by Ed SchACfar;,and unanisously.appr+vO to recommend approval to Monticsllo;City Council ;the' razoninj, of the'.antiro, approved but not racotdid rival saridivi_sion µlet .of 4ohn.Sandberg to R-2 toning. Council Agenda - 7/23/84 13. Consideration of Resolutions Adopting Tax Increment District #5 and Requesting Certification by County Auditor. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Last December, the Council passed a resolution of preliminary approval for Key Tool 0 Platsics to issue $650,000.00 in Industrial Revenue Bonds. Because of the pending legislation at the federal level, no action was taken on that proposal until recently. Mr. Eull and Mr. Lund have both begunto put their project together now that the issuance of IRS's has been approved at the federal level. Part of the overall financing package is a Tax Increment Finance proposal to write down the cost of the land. Briefly, what will occur is this: The City will issue $100,000.00 in Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds. The City will acquire the land for $90,500.00 and, in turn, sell the land for $20,700.00, making a not reduction for the developer of $69,800.00. The $69,800.00 plus capitalized interest, bond costs, legal and contingency costs will be retired through the annual recovery of tax increment equaling $18,000.00 per year. The term of the District will be 9-95 years, but we will collect the increment for a full 8 years. In Phase I, Key Tool is proposing to build a 24,000 square foot manufacturing plant that will employ 80 persons. Approximately 3-4 years later, Phase II will begin, which consists of the construction of a 40,000 square foot building and 70 now jobs. Total Jobe equals 150. The Tax Increment Plan has boon constructed to be self sufficient based exclusively on Phase 1. When Phase II occurs, that means excess increment will be generated that can be used for other redevelopment projects. Kay Tool is currently proposing the issuance of 5650,000.00 in IRB'e and is attempting to negotiate a reasonable settlement. The actual hard coat of the project totals alightly over $630,000.00, with the remaining $20,000.00 being used for legal, administrative, and contingent expense. Tax Increment District 05 has already boon approved by the School District and the County. It hoe boon adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and has received approval from the Planning Commission. The action before you after the close of the public hearing is to adopt the resolution approving Tax Increment District M5. Once adopted, it is necessary to further adopt the resolution requesting cortification at the County Auditor. The following agenda item rolatoe to the issuance of the C.O. Tax Increment Bonds and will be addressed at slighter length under that item. - 17 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Plan and request certification - this will allow, upon the entering of a Developers Agreement with Key Tool, the certification of the District to the County Auditor and notification to the Department of Energy and Economic Development. The HRA and the developer have made a finding that the project would not occur "but for" the assistance given through tax increment financing. It will generate the creation of at least 60 jobs. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - this may, in effect, cancel the entire project since there is a "but for" finding. Tax increment at this time does provide a little stronger incentive than it did previously since Industrial Revenue Bonds are not as attractive as they once were since federal legislation. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that both resolutions be adopted so that the project may proceed and get underway in September. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of the resolutions to be adopted; Copy of the minutes of the Housing and Rodevo lopment Authority; Copy of the HRA resolution adopting the plan; Copy of the Planning Commission resolution approving the plan; Copios of the letters from the School and County waiving their right to the 30 -day objection poriod. - 18 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #5 PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273.71 to 273.78 INCLUSIVE, AND ADOPTING A FINANCE PLAN FOR SAID TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota has determined that it is necessary to create a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, within the existing redevelopment project modification 01 created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et sem., the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota finds that the tax increment district to be established is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section'273.73, Subdivision 12 and that the project will provide additionaljots, �inerease the tax base and prevent commerce and ind:xtry from leaving the State; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission tuts received a copy of the proposed tax increment financing plan and has been given the opportunity to review and comment upon said tax increment financing plan and the tax increment financing district; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has informed the members of the Local School Hoard of the Independent School District and the Board of Commissioners of Wright County of the fiscal and economic Implication; of the proposed tax Increment financing district and Invited said School Board members and County Commissioners to the public hearing. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 23, 1984 at 7,3o P.M., before the City Council in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in Monticello, Minnesota, notice of which has been published once in the official newspaper for the City, not less than ten, nor more than thirty days prior to April 23, 1984; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing all persons and parties were given full opportunity to present written or oral testimony, comments, objections, suggestions, and other matters, all of which were duly considered by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, that it dors hereby establish tax increment economic development district 45, adopts a finance plan for this economic development district and finds pursuant to Section P of the document Identified to the tax increment financing plan for the economic development district 0: (I) That the tax Increment district to be established is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 12 and will result In Increased employment in the ertty and in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City. 0/3 (2) That the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. �J (3) That the Planning Commission has reviewed the tax increment financing plan and it conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. (4) That the proposed economic development involves a substantial commitment of private investment and in conjunction with tax increments as identified in the tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the City for the economic development of the project by private enterprise. The City Council of the City of Monticello, :Minnesota does hereby approve the tax increment financing plan and the creation of a tax increment financing district as described in said tax increment financing plan. Adopted by the City Council thisyh day of July, 1984. ATTEST: City Clerk !Mayor LOW J A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO CERTIFY THE ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE MONTiCELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORFrY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 45. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has determined that it is necessary and desirable and in the public Interest to designate, establish, develop, and administer a tax increment financing economic development district pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive; NOW, THEREFORE, BE rT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA that the Wright County Auditor is hereby requested to certify the assessed value of all real property within the boundaries of the tax increment economic development district R5 as described In the attached tax increment financing plan as of the date of the last equalized assessment, and each year hereafter to certify the amount by which the assessed value has increased or decreased from the original assessed value and also to certify the proportion which any increase or decrease bears to the total assessed value for the real property in said tax increment financing district for that year, excluding the capture of assessed value payable In 1985, which shell be "passed through" to the taxing jurisdictions and also to remit to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority, beginning in July. 1988, that proportfon of ell tax® paid that Year on real property in the district which the captured assessed value beers to the total current assessed value. all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.78, Subdivision 1 and 2. f Adopted Ihis�i day of July, 1984. ATTES'r: City Clerk Mayor W HRA Minutes - 7/5/86 Acting Chairman Wieber asked staff what would happen if there would be soma adverse comments regarding the sale of lands. Staff responded by citing an example of negative comments that were accepted and presented to the Council for their information. Staff further stated that should someone object to the sale of the land, there is no legal recourse for an opponent. Generally, the hearing In held first and then the Option Agreement is given. This public hearing is to put the public on notice that the body is considering making a parcel of property available for sale. There being no further discussion and/or comment from the public regarding the intent to sell the aforementioned property, Acting Chairman Wieber asked that the public hearing be closed. Allen Pelvit introduced Glenn Lund, Vice President of Key Tool 8 Plastics, Inc., and turned the floor over to Mr. Lund. Mr. Lund began to explain the five Wes of Kay Tool i Plastics. They presently occupy a 13,000 sq. ft. building located in Big Lake and currently employ approximately 50 people. They are producing at maximum capacity, which is 16-17 people per shift (three 8 -hour shifts), six days per week. Business has become good since the recession. They are six months behind schedule on their orders. Their intent is to construct a 24,000 sq. ft. building, including approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of office space. Mr. Lund stated that they are not moving out of Big Lake but expanding into Monticello. There are numerous reasons for this, one being the rate structure for current electricity. Approximately $2,800.00 to 83,000.00 per month can be saved by expending portions of their business to Monticello. Key Tool is a power intensive business, which is in the custom plastics injection moulding industry. They make custom, short run parts for companies like Kroy, 3M, and Honeywell, etc. Plano are to employ approximately 80 people in three shifts. IRB's will be utilited in the amount of $650,000.00 for the a.notruction of the building and equipment, with the remaining monies being applied for through the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. Over the next 3-4 years, Phase II would include adding another 40,000 sq. ft. building and perhaps creating an additional 80 jobs. They currently utilise "CETA" and the programs they have available as well as the MEED Program. Bud asked for an update on the IRS legislation and why Key Tool needs IRD's. Mr. Lund stated that Mary Bull and himself have only been at the helm of Key Tool for two years. The business was not run properly in the past and after two years is again C0 N HRA Minutes - 7/5/84 making good progress. Recent financial statements show significant improvements but would not warrant Key Tool doing this on their own, thus the IRB'o are an attractive medium to help this project develop. Tom Eidem explained the IRB legislation has passed with its per capita limits. However, Key Tool was acted on by the City Council adopting a resolution giving proliminary approval prior to June 19, and was exempted from now limits and could be executed under the old rules. Key Tool's approval came in December of 1983, thus they can proceed directly in the document preparation. Fulfillment Systems, Inc., and Key Tool 6 Plastics are both packaging their financial arrangements at this time. Allen brought up the corporate structure, Key Properties, that Key Tool 6 Plastics has initiated. All legalities will be through Key Properties said can then be filtered down through Key Tool & Plastics. Acting Chairman Wieber asked if the application fee of $1,700.00 was to cover expenses of preparing documents for the Tax Increment Plan. Allen stated that it was. Wieber then asked if the $16,500.00 was the amount needed up front from Key Properties to make the Tax Increment Plan work. Again, Allen stated that he was correct. Bud Schrupp inquired where Mr. Eull and Mr. Lund resided. Mr. Lund stated that Mr. Eull was living in St. Michael and he lived in Excelsior. Mr. Lund went on to say that a majority of their management and production workers aro from the local area with 263 and 295 telephone numboro. Gary Wiabor asked Mr. Lund if it were not for IRB'e and Tax Increment Financing could they move ahead with this project. Mr. Lund stated that they need all the help they can gat to enable them to construct the building, complete the vast amount of electrical work needed for their machinery, and obtain the equipment. The investment in a 2,000 AMP, 480 volt service alone coats approximately $100,000.00. With the difference in electrical rates, Monticollo'o plant to intended to be the energy intensive plant with the larger machines and have Big Lake utilize the smaller machines. The coot savings alone could amount to $36,000.00 par year. Bud asked how our Labor Survey helped them in their piano to expand. Mr. Lund stated that they looked at our survey but used Key Tool's existing labor data for any comparisons they needed. Ila indicated there was nothing wrong with our survey: but because they hired locally, they used existing figures. 110 oleo indicated that there aro no problems attracting both the skilled and unskilled workura. HRA RESOLUTION 1984 05 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 85 PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273.71 TO 273.78 u4t,l,UJIYG An11 A rrnANCE PLAN FOR SAiD TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "Authority') is carrying out the Monticello Redevelopment Project Modification i11 (the "Project") and Redevelopment Plan Modification /1 (the "Plan"); and WIIEREAS, the Authority has determined that it is necessary to create a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, within the existing project, created and modified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et sM„ the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the project be undertaken as rapidly as possible and be financed with local funds Including tax Increment financing as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 through 273.78; and WHEREAS, there was presented to this meeting of the governing body of the Authority for Its consideration and approval, a copy of a tax increment plan for the project area described in said plan dated July 1, 1884 which plan is entitled Economic Development District 95; and WHEREAS, the Authority has submitted the tax Increment financing plan to the City Planning Commission of the City of Monticello (the "Planning Comm6bion") for its review and opinion; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the Horning and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello: (1) That the tax Increment district to be established is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 12 and will result In incrcasdJ employment in the tarty and In the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City. (2) That the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax Increment financing Is deemed necessary. (3) That the Planning Commission hes reviewed the tax increment financing plan and it conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. (4) That the proposed economic development Involves a substantial commitment of private Investment and in conjunction with tax Increments as Identified In the tax Increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the City for the economic development of the project by private enterprise. 0/3 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello, Minnesota does hereby approve the tax increment financing plan and the creation of a tax increment financing district as described in said tax increment financing plan and does hereby transmit to the City Council the plan for their adoption. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority this -411 day of July, 1984. ATTEST: J Chairman J RESOLUTION 1984 B 29 RESOLUTION APPROVING TAX INCREMENT F1NA21C1NG PLAN 85 WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority has adopted a resolution approving Tax Increment Financing Plan M5 pursuant to M.S. Sections 273.71, at seq., and WHEREAS, said Tax Increment Finance Plan has been submitted to the Planning Commission as required by M.S. 462, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING CONNissrou FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, THAT: 11 Tax Increment Financing Plan 15 is found to carry out the purpose and policy of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, and is hereby in all respects approved. 22 Copies of this resolution be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Monticello. Adopts(' thi:) 10th day of July, 1984. chair ATTEST: m INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 882 Sheldon D. Johnson, Superintendent BOARD OF EDUCATION Telephone 2955184 ADMINfSTRATION Bernard Kescht Cnekman MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55392 'on Doran, Clark Michael Bonddatto Asst. SuplAnstruction, 295.5184 .amda Harbal, Traasuar Richard Waists Jay Morrell, Director Business Manager, 295.5184 William Bauch, Duetta Lyndon Sonar Jim Maus, Daocla Senior High Principal, 295.2913 Robert VoeCks Junior High Principal, 295-5191 Itermrl Bentsen Elementary Principal, 2952934 Kay Douglass Elementary Principal, 2955164 Richard Frio July 6, 1984Paul Director. 295.2913 Ze Special Education Director, 2955185 Duane Gates Community Education Director, 2052915 Candace Banat Assl Commucity Educ Director. 2952915 Mr. Thorns A Eidem City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Eidem: Thank you for explaining the Tax Increment Finance Plan - District 05 for Key Properties. We have reviewed the plan and have no objection to you certifying this District to ow new economic development. q re J nsonintende SDJ/a s O. J. ARLIEN '�,"• aWright County Auditor 9 i Wright County Courthouse - Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 r t Phone: (612) 682.3900 Metro: 339.6881 LLL July 17, 1984 Mr. Thomas Eidem, Administrator City of Monticello Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Door Mr. Eidem: The Wright County Board Extends their appreciation for your presentation of the Monticello Tax Incre- ment Financing Plan. Wright County hes no objections to this plan. Sincerely, Wright County Auditor 11 L 9 Council Agenda - 7/23/86 14. Consideration of Resolutions Authorizing the Sale of Tax Increment G.O. Bonds. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Because the bond issue involved in the Key Tool & Plastics Tax Increment project is less than $300,000.00, Minnesota Statute permits the City to seek a private placement of that bond. Jerry Shannon, who will be present to discuss the bond issuance fnr Hart and Cedar, will also be able to discuss this particular matter. The total bond issue equals $100,000.00. Of that amount, $69,800.00 is applied to land acquisition; $22,200.00 is app:ied to capitalized interest, discount, and bond cost; 58,000.00 is applied to legal, administrative, and contingency expense. The resolution presented for adoption does nothing more than authorize the City Administrator and Springsted to secure bond quotes for the private placement of those bonds. This is the identical action that we executed in the sale of bonds for the Fulfillment Systems project. During the three week period between this meeting and the August 13 meeting, the quotes will be secured, and on August 13 the sale and award resolution will be presented. Again, based on the assessment agreement that will be entered with Key Tool & Plastics, the entire bond will be retired from tax increment collected. Also, as has boon done in the past, at the August 13 meeting you will be requested to enter a Pledge � Agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority no that they can retire the City debt upon receiving the annual tax increment. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Depending on the action of the previous agenda item, the alternatives are limited. If you have approved the Plan, then it is mandatory that this resolution be adopted so that we have revenue to commence the project. If you have not adopted the previous resolution, there is no need to sell bonds since there will be no project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution presuming the Council did adopt the Plan. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. 19 RESOLUTION 1984 Y RESOLUTION RELATING TO $100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1984, DETERMINING THE EXPEDIENCY OF ISSUING THE BONDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE SOLICITATION OF BIDS THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: i. Authorization. It is hereby found, determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient for the City, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 through 273.70, forthwith to borrow money by the issuance of its general obligation tax increment bonds in the principal amountnot to exceed 5100,000, which amount is within the limitations specified in Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes, for the purpose of financing public redevelopment costs of a redevelopment project undertaken by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. 2. Sale Terms. In order to expedite the sale of said bonds, the City Administrator of the City, in consultation with Springsted Incorporated, bond consultant to the City, is authorized to prepare and circulate to one or more prospective bidders information relating to the terms and conditions of the bonds and relating to the financial condition of the City and to aolicit bids from said prospuCtivo bidders foi the purchaser of the bonds. Thin Council shall meat on ouch date as it may doom expedient to consider bido for the purchase of the bonds and take ouch action thereon as is doomed appropriate. Adopted this 23rd day of July, 1984. Arva A. Grimace, Mayor Thomas A. Eldem City Administrator ON RESOLUTION RELATING TO $100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1984, AND $ GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1984, DETERMINING THE EXPEDIENCY OF ISSUING THE 13ONDS AND PROVIDING FOR TIIE SOLICITATION OF BIDS THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: 1. Authorization. It is hereby found, determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient for the City, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 through 273.78, forthwith to borrow money by the Issuance of its general obligation tax increment bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $100,000, which amount is within the limitations specified in Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes, for the purpose of financing public redevelopment costs of a redevelopment project undertaken by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. It is hereby further found, determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient for the City, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, forthwith to borrow money by the issuance of its general obligation improvement bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $ , which amount Is within the limitations specified In Minnesota Statutes, Section 475, for the purpose of financing certain improvements undertaken by the City. 2. Sale Terms. In order to expedite the sale of sold bonds, the City Administrator of the City, In consultation with Springsted Incorporated, bond consultant to the City, is authorized to prepare and circulate to one or more prospective bidders information relating to the terms and conditions of the bonds and relating to the financial condition of the City and to solicit bids from said prospective bidders for the purchase of the bonds. This Council shall meet on such date as It may deem expedient to consider bide for the purchase of the bonds and lake such action thereon as is deemed appropriate. Attest: Secretary Mayor Council Agenda - 7/23/84 15. Consideration of a Conditional Use for a Boarding House in a B-4 Zone, Applicant - Tom Hammer. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The previous agenda item provided most of the background information on how this application came to be. Mr. Hammer has renovated the ten apartments on the second level and wishes to create five apartments on the lover level. If the Ordinance Amendment has been adopted, then Mr. Hammer masts all other conditions of the boarding house request. The building was considered to be substandard and in need of substantial rehabilitation. Fifty percent (501) of the main floor will be a general restaurant. Mr. Hammer has concurred that arrangements will be made so that the room renters can got their meals in the restaurant. His proposed numbers of units do tall within the parameters outlined by the amendment. He will be providing a fully accessible for handicapped persons unit. In addition, there will be some changes in sidewalk and landscaping and exterior finish. There is somewhat of a parking availability problem, but that problem would exist regardless of the proposed use. We have made Mr. Hammer aware that when the Zoning Ordinance and parking regulations have been revised, there very likely will be an assessment against his property for the public spaces that he will require. While some of the parking shortage is caused by the apartments upstairs, this, again, is a non -conforming use that is allowed to exist. Thu:, the parking spaces that portain to the now units in the downstairs are the only problem. Ono additional note: A Conditional Use is not a discretionary use. A Conditional Use, under the terms of our Ordinance, is a permitted use, but a use which has conditions attached. If the developer moots all of the condition: as stipulated, the permit must be granted. Mr. Hammer does meet all of the conditions as stipulated in the Ordinance Amendment. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Alternative actions aro based on Council action from the previous agenda item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Our recommendation Is also tied to any action that you took on the previous agenda item. if the amendment is adopted, and, :ince Mr. Hammer moots the conditions as stipulated, we recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit. If the amendment has not boon adopted, the status of the Ordinance will legislate whatever action should be taken. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Minutes of the Planning Commission. - 20 - P.C. Minutes 7/10/84 5. Public Bearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow a Hoarding House in a 8-4 Zone, Applicant - Thomas Hammer. Zoning Administrator Anderson ope,aed the public hearing with background information on Mr. Hammar's boarding house request. The property in question was formerly an old army barracks, which was converted later on into apartmentii on the upper level, with the rear portion of the main lower levr:l being used as a bowling alley, with the front -iortion being used as a small restaurant area. As the years went by, further duterioration of the building occurred with very little upkeep or maintenance to the building, and the building went through extensive deterioration and coming to the point of possibly being condemned. Mr. Thomas Hammer inquired into purchasing of the building and came forth before the previous Building Inspector with his plana to entirely renovate the structure. In doing so, Mr. Hammer started with the upper level of the building, completely stripping the interior wall, coiling, and floor covering and started from scratch with his interior renovation, bringing the upstairs portion up to the 1982 Uniform Building Cods., the 1979 Uniform Plumbing Code, and the 1984 National Electrical Code. In doing so, Mr. Hammer created 10 efficiency apartment units in the upper level of this building. Mr. Hammer also saw a need for a small family type restaurant and completely gutted the interior of the front portion of the Sower main level of the building. With the interior renovation of the front portion of the building, the current restaurant portion has been brought up to the State Health Code, the 1902 Uniform Building Code, the 1979 Plumbing Code, and the 1984 National Electrical Code. The rear half of the .lower main level is currently what Mr. Hammer has barn working on. That portion of the building previously had two AV apartment units in it. Tho. -;n alh7rtmcnL units wart: allFwPfl to exist as non -conforming use in a n-4 ,".ono. Mr. H.immer's lntontions were to crania and convert t:hu reir +rt,.;t pxlrtion of thn httil:iin•1 into a handicapped apartment un.t, wft; thu iutantlr,rs of h-r'in�l one additional apartment unit. Mr. Homer, in tryin,l •u fiq::ru out an additicnal use of the+ existing :ndditios;il t:':.t r, C:r.. Hammer then contacted Building Innprctra, (:Cary An:lercon, i te;.tie:uit, l him as to whether he could convert. the additinnal t.pa^e into throo additional apartments, or throw additittnal rental otfit.0 spaces. The rental office spaces would ba parnittc-,i, but not the additional rental apartment. units. Therefore, we cams aktut to fila original request here to be allowed a boarding house in a 0-4 Zone as a Conditional Use. me. Chuck Cataichool. Mr. Thomas Hammor's Attorney, indicated Zoning Administrator Andervo»'a comments were very true and very to the pwint.that he had no iutthes: additional comments to make other than that they would like the Planning Commission tmembers to arprove Mr. Hatmove•s Conditional Use Raquest to be allowed a boarding housa in a A-4 Zone. Motion by 9d Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling, and approved unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Request to allow as a Conditional Use a boarding house its a 8-4 Zone. 0 Council Agenda - 7/23/84 16. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use to Allow More than 12 Unite in a Multiple Dwelling, Applicant - Construction 5, Inc. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Construction 5 is proposing to build another 24 -unit apartment building in between the existing 12 -unit apartment building built last fall and the current 24 -unit apartment building under construction. The site area of the property is 68,059 square feet. Construction 5 is proposing to build 18 two-bedroom and 6 one -bedroom unite, therefore, needing 63,000 square feet of land area. Therefore, they will have an excess of site area of 5,059 square feet. There will be 16 garage spaces with 32 open off-street parking spaces, with two of those open parking spaces for handicapped parking. The proposed 24 -unit apartment building and the parking lot and the proposed 16 -stall garage will meet or exceed the setback requirements in an R-3 Zone. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building in an R-3 Zone. 2. Deny the Conditional Use Request to allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building in an R-3 Zone. C. STAFF RECOM14ENDATI0ZI: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Uso Request to allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building, in this case a 24 -unit apartment building with 18 two-bedroom unite and 6 ono-bodroom unite with a 16 -stall garage and 32 off-street parking spaces, with two of thesis parking spaces for the handicapped. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed location of the 24 -unit apartment building; Copy of the sito plan; Copy of the consulting onginooring firm. OSM, comments on the site plan. 21 - k j vli f % h +rt:, it l.:.t ,,�» i }'r• .' rr I ( '�`�``•..� - tl :stir,; •rt.� ! 1 •j{1f [ ,�"^_•<:''°}j �'.'�.t,', a7�E•4t >✓ rr»Y;,fr''•ra ,-..,,,..� <�'. "y^v'' '``'<.. O! i 't '+ % ' • j y �t j », �a : } �' ...�.,�, +...; yy fit ''t'.1r f t!"'rf a �� 7 y •! `• "`»•,,,•. V'w.. - c `..,�'\ ,t;���r'-, eFi;;'•t f .(it„•� 1, Y..t••r „ � , s.., :fid —..,� ” 7 . r„'')jJ7/*7�� :::::Jllllll �•;(f5�, ��:.;��. +• �':r+; ,+r _ '�, ty, �r' •�., t1i � r ��� y���M1 J j �r•�..�. E„"•�oSF�.� r rf "'`-uv�;, ` rr r` r�tp .tt•ur !�=3�+"`••..�`jyy".jr a j}�- �p;/"",.d1s.i,�i P fi• •� ,�r7���+} .•�'•' t•u "v'�„! .„».?�=Ft�;,�.. - f �+-...�,�t (""�.^}rrr 'r r•-.._� "•==.'.,.�(i�� 1{'A�1•?7()' G 4L1},•�.�i, %t .'{� j• Gyl4�:..%..(�'"°'ar •• r`r..�wF,,,,ya •^ '•:a`hv_�. •�r'�`��,.,,i))1�/1;•,,'�,.r .,••i.tr y:�.r- ^•.•.+.Y.:,�,9.r.it,p.�'^tp/•M! w.,_�� ri/�CL�'� '�lJ: r�l•�d.'rf 3;�t. � + pp\\ :.,,J`,ej .}J�'-jJ.'.}, '' r. �� 41,•t +��t ,"•a.'',,..`,'�,�', l.'.i• �f'"'..{.j"'r'/,.T, �rl"`^`=.j a ! 1 •,r+"7� j� / r� , x��'i ••...r � „"'a•o;�f'ti lL,yij� •.i•I •x D�;.'��;v ,, .1,8, V�r fV•r .�Q•Q.r �, • j~j`:r "�'� �, �• f j ,.../ .,� tr•�-� �..�i�°., �;aF?1 rj1 f e •r ;. ,�..... ;,,; �<` � . l Y •Y, ` •, �A• ��'` I'�a l 4..�^•..L t � ��? C. ; / �•• `ate i" 1` HIGHWAY � .'y^L, NO, 94 t ' •� .. , `' v,`,d� • fir. ` � �'.'':t:. ! !y ..,•,�.. _",•�• �, + � � �+ �a �''� t' �` �yy_ �..�� �- ..�,''� ' Gt+at UN �otGt° PDct�s°'�-•"`...,.,,,.1 t'. er �,.•,,, 1�«; I- �, , •---; 7 � •, ,,. •, '�_t'�)� OpGdltl a �i u ' •, "^+�.,. \\ •41� .21r:y,_t s 1 ' �' \ �' �: �-r `:�;_,.--..'- � t � apc ®�hA� yono • `�- uc ion CO . •. � � — _ - - - . __ / - \'� 943\ \1 9 1 VoJ I - I Concrete Curb ' Ln `�- _ P '�� I I i- ' I ' u)co l IT R ITm o- }-�- I LJ I Q1 LSI rp OII HANDICAPIRAMP DETAIL— ° 9 1._ �9 •o \ °9 -- - Ft.l(ior.crete SlGewa'k I 9 11 Proposed 2'1 Unit— " > 1 I i 1 I Q i l,p.trtmeut Building - Q I st Flow Cl. HC 'd �'I)ICAP RAMP DETAIL r !/ HCS �q}t° Orli II 20 9 -- `r+ -4h � �I � �� neo•=;�fi i� jj SIXTH "'`°"" STREET hot- Ib'I c.M.r>. ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. ConsuNing Engineers Land Surveyors June 20, 1984 Mr. Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MM 55362 Re: Site Plan, Construction 5, Inc. Monticello, Minnesota Dear Gary: The site plan for the Construction 5, Inc. second building addition recently sent to me and dated 6/4/84, has been reviewed by our office, and 1 offer the following comments regarding the drainage layout. The parking area drainage seems to be in order, and positive drainage from the site should be accomplished. I do, however, have a couple of recommendations that the developer and his engineer should consider. 1 did not note this before, but the concrete curb is a straight V6 type design which has a tendency to settle in filled areas and also is susceptible to turning over if hit hard by an auto tire. I would recommend that 8618 curb and gutter be used in lieu of the V6 curb design. The additional cost of the curb and gutter compared to the possibility of replacement of the V6 curb due to placement on fill (in some cases 5') and the possibility of overturning may offset the additional cost required for curb and gutter. Another recommendation is that the easterly proposed garage floor elevation be at 948.3 instead of elevation 948.0. This will act as a safeguard against parking area runoff entering the proposed garage. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suito 238 • Minnoapolis, Minnosoto 55413 • 6121331-8660 Page Two Mr. Gary Anderson June 20, 1984 Other than the comments above, 1 foresee no problems with drainage if the site is graded according to plan and therefore recommend approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON R ASSOCIATES, INC. /John P. Badalich, P.E. (City Engineer JPB:nlb Enclosure cc: Rob Rohlin, Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. C Council Agenda — 7/23/84 17. Consideration of a Request for a Simple Subdivision, Applicant Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital has purchased the former E.M. Wulf property with plans to demolish the existing house, which has already been done, and to level the site, which has also been done, and make ready the site for a proposed new ambulance garage. In doing so, the former owners of the property would like to have deeded off to them a 10 -foot strip along the westerly side of Lot 2 for driveway access purposes to the rear portion of their lot. In doing so, it would require a simple subdivision. In doing the simple subdivision with the westerly 10 feet subdivided off for driveway purposes, the lot would meet the current minimum lot size required in an R-1 Zone, 12,000 square feet, but would be approximately 84/100 of a front foot short of the minimum required in an R-1 Zone, which is 80 feet. They are proposing 79.16 front feet. with the now ambulance garage proposed to be built, it would meet Che setbacks in an H-1 'Lone, 30 feet front and rear yard setbacks, 10 -foot sidoyard setback. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Simple Subdivision Request to allow the wastorly 10 -foot portion of the property to be subdivided off for driveway access purposes to the rear of the property. 2. Deny the Simple Subdivision Request to subdivide tho westerly 10 -foot portion of the property for driveway access to tho roar of the property. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommonde approval of the simple subdivision request allowing the westerly 10 foot to be subdivided off for driveway access purposes to the roar of the property. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed subdivided lot existing; Copy of the proposed subdivided lot onto subdivided; Copy of the terms of the purchase of the property. - 22 - ki i ; 2� i Flo dta.rtaca i��tadu�aars.cr... C.wt� �,o� roc `/ �......................._.._ ..._......_ : — .x}0- ..............-...... Opti �ee ,' t t Z$o Jtiti'go� 4osr tre v�L iy9 <�se�re pOtot� 4 a°oe et r r3 t ;mow o �- i h+ V S N �V i 'Ctet�t'C�G �pttifi'GY 1O O 64! ,i *6 s e i 1 ot�sw ��sscoe c+d' i t Ch��+ 6tt.•t l,r6 <aidtvi6A� �, �{IGt.rt:a .yisrrvlf�Y4 w�U+tair.t Dhl.s it jyt rc.L Lit LarrEC. lflsatt�E �t.0 02&CPA 0 GpKt.e.bi I 0 T;,e £ollouin3 tcr..0 and conditions ore heresy agreed to by the !:richt County State yank as seller, and the nonticello-Big Lake Cornmunity Hospital District as purchaser of the following dcscribcd real estate: That part of Lots 1 and ,2, Block 24, Lover Noncicello, according to cite plat thereof of record and on file in the office of the County Recorder, Vri;ht County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwesterly corner of said Lot 1, thence southeasterly along the southerly line of said Lot I. a distance of 42.84 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence continuing along said southerly line of Lot i and the southerly line of said Lot 2, a dis- tance of 89.16 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 2; thence northeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 166.61 feet to the north- easterly corner of said Lot 2; thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said Lots I and 2, a dis- tance of 86.19 feet; thence southwesterly, a distance of 167.64 feet to the point of beginning. 1. The seller vil/ pay all real estate rages due and payable in the year 1984. 2. The purchaser will assume any special assessments against the abavc-desc rthed property due and payable in 1935 or thereafter. 9. The purcimser agrees to allow former owner, E. M. Pulf to remove any property frcn the dwelling, whether attached or not, at any tine until full payment is tenderel. 4, The purch-tser agrees to remove existin;; building from property an soon as yonnible. S. The purchaser allreas to approach the City of Honticello to request a simple subdivision of the above-described property in order to deed back to former owner, E. 11. and 11clen W. Wulf, the westerly ten feet of the property more precisely described as: That part of Lot I, Block 24, Lowerilontieallo, according to the plat thereof of record and on file in the office of the County Recorder, Wright County. Ilinnasota, des- cribed as follows: Commencing at the southwesterly corner of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly along the southerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 42.84 fact to the actual point of beginning thence northeasterly to a point on the norther- ly line of said Lot 1, distant 86.19 feat northwesterly from the northeasterly corner of Lot 2. of said block 24; thence southeasterly along the northerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 10.03 feet; thence southwesterly to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 1, a distant 10.00 feat south- easterly of the point of beginning; thence northwastarly along the southerly line of Lot 1, a distance of 10.00 (set to the point of beginning. / /7 6. The purchaser agrees that if the City of aonticello rejects the simple subdividion of property deeded by the seller, they will execute a permanent easement for ingress and egress over the westerly 10 feet described above to the said C. M. Ilulf and llelen W. gulf. 7. The seller agrees to provide a registered survey of the Westerly 10 feet in question and stake the corners. Monticello -Big Lake Comunity Hospital District W ht County State Bank 0/ Council Agenda - 7/23/84 18. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use to Allow an Ambulance Garage in an R-1 Zone, Applicant - Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital is proposing to build an ambulance garage on the newly purchased residential lot next to the Monticello Dental Clinic, just west of the existing Monticello Dental Clinic building. The current lot does meet the minimum lot size requirement, 12,000 square feet, but would be 84/100 of a foot short of the minimum 80 -foot front footage needed for an R-1 lot. What they would have is 79.16 front feet. The ambulance garage to be built would conform with the setbacks required in an R-1 Zone, those being 30 -foot front yard, 30 -Foot rear yard, and a 10 -foot sideyard setback. The architectural design of the new ambulance garage would blend in with the existing design of the existing housesin the area, that being a wood -framed structure with wood siding and an asphalt shingled roof, with the garage doors facing the Monticello Dental Clinic building. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow an ambulance garage to be built in an R-1 Zone. 2. Deny the Conditional Use Request to allow an ambulance garage to be built in an R-1 Zono. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Request to allow an ambulance garage to be built in an R-1 Zone, with the now ambulance garage meeting the required setbacks and being of an architectural design to blond in with the existing buildings and that the now proposed ambulance garage moot the four conditions of the Conditional Use. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of tho proposed location of the proposed now ambulance garago; Copy of the ambulanco garage site plan; Copy of the Conditional Use to allow an ambulance garage in an R-1 Zona; Copy of Section 10-3-2 (G) and 10-22-1 (E). C - 23 - ..✓ �. Lt�'(^� +sy f� r ` '^�u:.,�y j •`. � �/( � -'tip T '7•a. d� •w, 'j.,•,�+.�'j�rr.;����'f��'. �Odj•j�f•J.�r '.��t, r.. `' ' `•. .. `.n. fOY % _ �. .( �i,4 Jty ti r� 'LLr'.yiY r' rr r • , c Pq�•��} a f +Y- r��'K �7 ,�`�• iM `r �ryr �� � f,�' p ,1 :`\ •< " r •r i' .f'-`� 4 .,ti.� j'%'vo ��^,+, r l -,,' � sr �+. O p`y� , :,,,,.�:. k,e:y -.J tN, •r`tir ri' L}'v. { :l•`�.- +�.�t.'(�. e F r ��1.V: ~ r�t r,~ 1 .,i � ,�l }�`+��•p+.,. � �;.y� � � � ��r�•p�. / ti.�� +.lir i ` fh !J' Ir :`t ,{��•�.,,,_ r ��rr }r f�V 1���� �' +� (j/ •`�.�y'-+...�. 16r'I_.,,'�``v.; t;'.' t't l'rt7�r,� J�(;•t�``•.:,`r�h.t'i.;\t^��,,(• r\ 'h�T` r"`--r� t j �i f. rjt�f w /• y1�r rr� ,'.`<'�--���``'�.'�ltil �%'+- ,Ni r+i♦ ` f y � �,�M� r.?,``' � f• % •� -�1.;' f b`�i��Y��'c.: ��,+ ,,-"'�' �'•a,...�ir� tt � "`"'�� (�J'4t� ���.,t ""`.fir N0. . 9 �' � !�.yi� nixuS '6' �. � +� ,Q• �}trr' �"""�;aR*� '"-.J...T `.;,.,r t ,i usa '.� conditional nd cs.a 9 al Co an{t �ty r. 1, "`i%+».`y� °..--� . � � • on 'orb a �' �onm • LA �omatyri ksBig- I c� poo 3 �, n M,� t:) r• 40ntio 110 .s 1 00-10 I 0- l�k� I[ S.'c1�• ICr 44, tF^C abk> r ~, 4 n ' i � _• I 1 1 1 I I 1 I n jj .: r .. � — 1 •'ti.;�fN -K ._7.4. F _ifs, 1 N • �� .. tw[w� !/ G' - �� � I .. /1•._ .r. _ !111.1... t- t - Y. , 7.. _ ff 1 I 1 i 44, tF^C abk> r ~, 4 n ' i � _• I 1 1 1 I I 1 I n jj 10-6-3 10-6-4 �- vehicles and/or non-commercial vehicles, trailers, or equip- ment if sufficient off-street parking in full compliance with this Ordinance is provided elsewhere on the property. Such gar- age shall not be used for the storage of more than one (1) com- mercial vehicle awned or Dperated by a resident per dwelling unit. (B) Recreational vehicles and equipment. (C) Home occupations. (D) ;Jon -commercial greenhouses and conservatories. (G) Swimming pool, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the resi- dents of the principal use and their guests. (F) Tool houses, sheds, .and similar buildings for storage of domestic supplies and non-commercial recreational equipment. (G) Boarding or renting of rooms to not more than one (1) person. LO -6-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in nn "R-1" District. (Requires conditional use permit based upon procedures sot forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this Ordinance.) (A) Publicor cemi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers; public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools; and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues provided that; 1. Side yards shall be double that required for the dis- trict, but no greater than thirty (30) foot. 2. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance. 3. Adequate off-stroai parking and accesa is provided on the site or on Iota directly abutting directly across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance and that such parking in adequately screened and landscaperi from surrounding and abutting residential uson in com- pliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of thin Ordinance. 4. Adequate off-stroot loading and service entrances aro considered and Satisfactorily met. (U) Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary of for the health, snfety and yenural wolfare of the community pro-vided that, I. CanfOmnity with tho surrounding neighborhood Is maintained and required setbacks and side yard roquirem,:nts aro mat. 10-6-4 10-6-4 2. Fquipment is completely enclosed in a permanent J,structure with no outside storage. 3. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance. 4. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (F) of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (C) Residential planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this Ordinance. J: J� 0 10-3-2 10-3-2 C. The City Council may waive any portion of the provisions of items D and C if the developer can demonstrate justification for exemption and the planning commission has reviewed the request. (January 24, 1977 027) 4. Both sides of any fence must be maintained in a respectable condition by the owner of the fence. (G) REQUIRED FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: The fencing and screening required by this Ordinance shall be subject to section 10-3-2, (F) and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt P strip. A grecn belt pinntiny strip shall consist of evergreen ground cover and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an vffective ucreen. This planting strip shall contain no structures or other use. Such planting strips shall not be less than eight (0) feet in height. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall not be used to achieve more than three (3) feet of the required screen. The planting plan and type of shrub shall require the Iapproval of the Planning Commission based upon a recommendation of the City Engineer and Building Inspector. 2. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight (0) feat in height or be less than six (6) feet in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the .approval of the Planning Commission based upon a recommondation by the City Engineer and Building Inspector. (11) GL1RE: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign or other structure, shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential none or from the public streets. Direct or oky-reflected glare, where from flood -lights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall he hooded or controlled in some manner no as not to light adjacent property. Baro incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way. Any light or eom- binntion of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one (1) foot canllu (motor rending) as measured from the center line of said street. Any light or combination of lights which east light on rasidenLial property shall not exceed 0.4 foot candlen (motor roading) no meacured from said property. 10-22-. 10-22-1 3. tahether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The character of tho surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. (E) The Planning Commission and City staff have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning oper- ational factors, said information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this Ordinance. (F) The city Staff shall sot a date for a public hearing. Notice of such hearing shall be published in conformance with the State Law and individual notices, if it is a district change or conditional use permit request, shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hear- ing to all owners of property according to the Wright County assessment records; within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the parcel included in the request. (G) Failure of a property owner to receive said notice shall not fi invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Or- dinanco. (11) The Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and re- commend such actions or conditions relating to the request as they doom necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Such recommendation shall ba in writing and accom- panied by the report and recommendation of the City staff. (1) The City Council shall not grant a conditional use permit un- til they have received a report and recommendation from the Planning Commisnion and the City staff or until sixty (60) days after the first regular planning Commission meeting at which the request wan considered. (J) Upon receiving tho report and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the City staff, the city Council shall place the report and recommendation on the agenda for the next regular meeting. Such reporLa and recommendations shall be entered in and mute part of the permanent written record of the City Coun- cil mooting. (K) Upon receiving t.ho report and racommandation of the Planning Comminute,, slid the City stnff, the City Council shall have thn option to not and hold a public hearing if deemed necessary and shall make a recorded finding of fact and shall impono any con- dition it considere nocossary to protect the public health, safo- ty and wolfaru. 1� Council Agenda - 7/23/84 Vi 19. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase of an Air Dryer for Wastewater Treatment Plant. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In September of 1982, the City staff realized that there were significant moisture problems in the compressed air lines at the WWTP. This moisture was creating problems with the air operated diaphragm pumps, the odor control system, and other miscellaneous equipment at the Treatment Plant. OSM issued a field modification #I11, which included the installation of a refrigerated compressed air dryer with a capacity of 75 cubic feet per minute at 38 degrees Fahrenheit pressure due point. The dryer was sized for the current expected use at the WWTP, as these dryers are more efficient if used near their rated capacity. Change Order No. 61 was issued, and the installation was completed and started operation in January of 1983. The air dryer was installed near the air compressors in the basement of the digester building between the two digesters. The air dryer continued to operate properly until mid-June. At this time, a routine inspection showed that the motor cooling the unit had ceased to operate, and the compressor unit itself was seized. Tho Paul A. Laurenco Company had purchased the air dryer from Minnesota Induatrial Tools, so we contacted them for cervica. Their service representative came out to the site and disassembled the air dryer and found that the most likely cause of failure was corrosion of the copper in the open-drivo motor. We have experienced in this basement pump room corrosion of exposed, unpainted, or unprotected copper. I contacted Minnesota Industrial Tools, Sales Division, for a quoto on a now air dryer. In addition, I contacted Sullair North Central for a quota on an air dryer. I discussed the problem with both companies. They indicated that the air dryer should have totally enclosed motors because of the atmosphere in which they must work. The sales representative from Minnesota InduotrialTools indicated that we should at this time consider the installation of the 150 CFM air dryer, rather than the 75 CFM unit, as we aro approaching the capacity of that unit and may exceed its rated capacity in the next few years. The quotas aro as follows: Minnesota Industrial Tools $2,700.00 150 CFM Air Dryer with long 270.00 Trade totally anclonad motor. 52,430.00 Dolivary: 4 weeks - 24 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 Sullair North Central $2,200.00 150 CFM Air Dryer with totally enclosed motor. (No Trade-in) Delivery: 3 weeks Either one of the two air dryers should solve our problem, as they have totally enclosed motors and should be able to operate in the atmosphere in the basement. It appears that the main problem is very minute quantities of methane gas and moisture may be causing the problem. We are looking into possible problems with the ventilation system at the WWTP. In addition, to help alleviate some of this problem, we have core drilled one of the main basement walle and added fresh air into the basement. We have also core drilled the wall to provide an outside air intake for the new air compressor at the WWTP. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: At this point in time, we feel that there is really not an alternative to purchasing a new air dryer for the WWTP. We have discussed the possibility of retrofitting the old air dryor with a new compressor and totally enclosed motor, and this coat would almost equal the cost of a new 75 CFM air dryor. It appears that the �1 only alternatIva is to replace the air dryer with a now unit 1 and one with slightly moro capacity. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It in the staff recommandation that we purchase the Sullair Air Dryer from Sullair North Central at a cost of $2,200.00. The old air dryor can bo scavenged for some of tho parte and used elsewhere In the WWTP for miscellaneous fittings, etc. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Quotas from Sullair North Central and Minnoor,ta Induatrial Toole. - 25 - Sullair Sales 8 SaMce, Inc. 9250 © WnneapmC AvenUON55 SOUK PMna,eapa,s. MN SSa?0 SULLAIR Phone29 •2990 ralae. z9o8z1 July 18. 1984 City of Monticello Route 4 Box 83A Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Attn: John Simola Dear John: Per our conversation on July 17, 1984, below is the proposal you req&.=sled on a replacement dryer for your plant. The price includes a totally enclosed fan motor for the condensing unit. (1) PDC -150 Pure Aire air dryer $2,200.00 Capacity: 170 CFM ! 350 dewpoint 200 CFM ! 500 dewpotnt Delivery: Approximately 3 weeks from receipt of order. If you have any questions regarding this proposal please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Doug Maleche Service Department DM:b [1 MINNESOTA INDUSTRIAL 9815 WEST 74th STREET r EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553" y TOOLS, I NC. 617/941.9150 DISTRIBUTORS OF MACHINE TOOLS. AIR SYSTEMS EOUIPMENT, 6 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES TO. City of Monticello Waste Water Treatment Plant 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 ATTN: John Simola QUOTATION DATE 7-13-84 QUOTATION NO. 130784A CUSTOMER INQUIRY NO. 6 DATF SUBJECT DESCRIPTION We submit for your consideration the following proposal and quotation. Replacement Pneumatech refrigerated air dryer Model AD150 with the following characteristics. CHARACTERISTICS 150 SCFM capacity at 380F pressure dew point 180 SCFIJ capacity at 500F pressure dew point 1-1/2" NPT female air connections 32" x 23" x 32" dimcnsi.ons 1/60/230V NFIIA 4 el-octrics C PRICE: FOD: Kenosha, WI $2,700.00 TERMS: Not 30 days FOD: Kenosha, WI DELIVERY: 4 weeks Trade in allowance of current AD75 - $270.00 We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance and ask that you feel free to contact this office if you should have any questions. Sincerely, MINN SOYA DUST lAL TOOLS, INC. Ita LoGro S vico Manager Air Syntemn Divinion ca: Jim Timm(,rcmnn i9 THE CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OP THIS PAGE GOVERN THIS QUOTATION Council Agenda - 7/23/84 20. Consideration of Authorizing the Purchase of a Snowplow from STP. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may recall, the City of Monticello has been in contact with a company in Norway which manufactures truck equipment. This company is located in Oslo, Norway, and is a conglomerate of three smaller companies which manufacture snowplows, truck bodies, and tires chains. This company is interested in locating a manufacturing plant in the State of Minnesota. As a prelude to this, this company has sent representatives to Minnesota, as the State is centrally located and has a climate similar to Norway. These representatives contacted the State of Minnesota in 1983 and provided six snowplows for the State of Minnesota to test. These plows were tested in six different districts throughout the State of Minnesota. The testing over the winter of 1983-84 was favorable, and the State purchased the six snowplows from this Scandinavian company. In addition, the Scandinavian company was allowed to bid on additional snowplows for the State of Minnesota and has recently received a contract for additional plows. We have been in touch with this company in hopes to attract them to the City of Monticello. On Friday, the 22nd of Juno, Allan Polvit and myself attended a presentation on the products of this company in St. Cloud. The company, in addition to their presentation, had one State vehicle equipped with the now snowplow available for us to look at. In addition, the MN/DOT employee who drove the truck over the winter and plowed snow on Highway No. 7 and all the intersections and interchanges was there to answer any questions we might have had. This employee worked out of the Golden Valloy District Office and was extremely satisfied with the plow, its shock absorbing characteristics and its low noise level compared to other State plows. This plow differs from the plows which the City currently has in that it has a trippablo cutting edge rather than the entire plow. When an object is struck with the bottom cutting edge of our current Honks plows, the entire plow shifts forward and lifts up to clear the obstruction. This often happens when removing heavy snow and ico. The STP plow, as we will call it, has the trippablo cutting edge, and only tho cutting edge folds back to allow for the object to be cleared and immediately snaps forward back to its original position. Often the plow itself never moves, lifts, or jumps. In addition, the STP plow has an automatic leveling device which keeps the plow level as it is raised. The Hanks plows have no ouch leveling device, and you will often coo one edge of the plow bouncing off the roadway as we drive down the street with the plow anglod and raised. In addition - 26- Council Agenda - 7/23/84 �d to these features, the STP plow has an additional shock absorbing capability in the hydraulic system. If an object such as a parked car or curb is struck hard on one of the edges, the hydraulic system automatically transmits that load to the opposite side, and the plow immediately turns and clears the path for the object. One additional difference is that the STP plow appears to have slightly more curvature than the Henke plows and may throw the snow alightly better than the existing plows we now use. The STP Corporation is attempting to get as many of its snowplows out and being used in Minnesota as possible prior to locating a manufacturing firm here. They feel that this plow will sell well in this country once it is proven by our various municipalities, townships, cities, counties and state agencies. They have contracted with a firm in Hutchinson, Minnesota, to assist in assembling the plows to be sold this year. At the same time, they are looking for a site. They have reduced the cost of their plow to baro minimum in order to get enough units out so that it may be proven a durable product. They have given us a quote for an 1'1 -foot, 2 -way power reversible snowplow of $2,675.00. This plow will be adjusted to fit the Henke hitches, which we currently have on three of our snowplow trucks. The plow could be tooted with either one of the three trucks or all three of them. In order to determine whether this cost is realistic, we contacted the MacQueen Equipment company and discuseed with them the prices on the Prink Trip Edge Reversible Snowplows. As for as we know, thin is the only other snowplow with a trippable edge marketed in our area. The coat of the steel Prink Snowplow in the 11 -foot in $4,589.00, and it dean not coma equipped with the Henke hook-up. We would have to modify it to fit. Booed upon thin information, the price of the STP Plow is certainly very competitive. You may ask yourself why aro we bringing thio plow up at thio time. There aro several reasons for it. First, of course, in the back of ovoryonelo mind is the possible enticement to locate thio firm -a manufacturing company in Monticello. The possibility of this to there, as Monticello has a groat deal to offer this company. However, thio to not the only conoidaration for purchasing a plow from this company. The City of Monticello is not at all happy with the Henke puchor plows we have on our three dump trucks. Wo fool that it is time to movo on and move forward and to experiment with other typos of onowplowa which can do the job easier, quicker, and got the snow out further, faster, with loan problems, we aro in the process of determining the 1985 budget. we aro expecting to replace our older standby truck with a now unit in 1985. Wo would like to havo the opportunity to toot a now typo of plow prior to ordering that vehicle. This w] .11 givo no that opportunity. - 27 - / H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: �l i Council Agenda - 7/23/84 1. Alternative ql would be to purchase the plow from STP for a cost of $2,675.00 and test it this winter on our three snowplow trucks prior to replacing our fourth unit. 2. Alternative #2 would be to hold off on the purchase of this snowplow and purchase this plow or some other plow with our new truck in 1985. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we purchase this plow as outlined in Alternative #1 for testing during the winter of 1984-85. D. SUPPORTING DATA: The quotation from STP; Copies of the snowplow brochures. - 28 - AIS STP SCANDINAVIAN TRANSPORT PRODUCTS Vali-I a� Ler L. 1 , 191-4 PRICE LIST "NORWA!" REVERSIBLE SNOWPLOW PRODUCT: Model no. 3300, 11 fep-t, 2 -way power reversible snow plow, equipped with special chock absorbing and safety devices, and blade, without hitch, but adjuotcd to your pr--;,cnt hltcho-n. PRICES: 1 - 2 units: $ 2675,- 3 - 5 $ 2579 ,- G -10 $ 2475, - Any applicable tareu not �ncluJucl, TERMS or DELIVERY: F.O.D. Hutchin.^,on, Minn. 55350 TERMS OF PAYMENT: it 10 days - not 30 days TIME OF DELIVERY: To be agreed upon. SERVICE: Service and sp,ireparto available from our local warehouse and serving organization., OTHER: For further detailo oa to the above Modal 3300 pleas+o cce encloaod liternt:urc. Modem, nVecification u, .,Ad hric1r; ape, to witl+out o6vanco nut,tce.. 3 MAY POWER REVERSIBLE SNOW PLOD! EOUIPPED WITH SPECIAL SHOCK ABSORBING AND SAC I�Y �Y °�':r,E ���• n /ry�iti� .z "� � 1� ._; 6. ��.`�. ,� .r �i�t vim\ SPECIAL FEATURES: I SHOCK ABSORCING., SIT(,TIOtJIZED N: ,()E BY BOBBER WV FEH S1AC:K;S FOR'13t.,,-, .i TRIV 'J, A [JALAN(:E .L WPADLF ;)FV1lt MANI'tt- THE PtOVI A:)T(".NIA TICAI_LY ADJU; T r0107-Rotit s Jtil ;..'C' 3 I.OtVER NOISF I_!-Vf.L TfittU, fil!',Alif NPI.-, POINTS. •I CROSSOVER VALVE (Nd t'M%1L it FaF-V?RSJBI E ATVY.i4.l't(. DFVI{ IN ORDER '10 AVOID PWw'. 1),:`'i�(.;C`: 1%HD MAK, 14M.001HEw PI;OI:r1NG, 5, INCREASED SAFFI'r i! MI 1011 0L !.ROCK AflS0,Hiilha(i L)Y;ilClvi t G. HYC)RAULIC; APJ61_ItJC DEVIUC T1) SiviOC)I I:ILY AL)JUST !a,Lt'1V:� FRU�A CHP C:A13 f- I'i HER 10 1_FF1. RIC;H1.(lR; ,CRF.IOtiT AHFAN 7. RUBBER SNO1V' ,HIELD PI AC:LD OF: IHL UPPER ED..F Of- THE ROW i'0 AVOID SNOW DU!;'T 10 LAE' GASI AC,AINSI 1"t VAND• SHIELD BY THE. Ali -IST Rt AM Nowyou-can cfioose'polyplow' or.steelrsnowplows worm gea' or ram reverse - to meet your worst wlnti w , COndltiOns: e�?�ak1.:lMl ,► L, i1 y r � ;% L �4 1 1 1 J) �t ���.� �?1wi+S��� .l.!W�1��1N i Council Agenda - 7/23/84 21. Consideration of Issuing a Request for Proposals for Architectural Services for New Fire Hall. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Several months ago, members of the Fire Department came before the.Council to discuss the addition to the pump house and the possibility of a new Fire Hall site. From that point forward, staff did an intensive site review and narrowed a potential 20 plus sites down to four. Of those four, one has been purchased, and the owner of the other has made it clear that the land is not available. In addition, the Fire Department Building Committee made it fairly clear that they were dissatisfied with both of those sites anyway. The remaining two sites identified as suitable are the property the City owns along Highway 25 immediately north of the cemetery and the half block situated immediately behind the City Liquor Store. The Highway 25 site would require the buy out of some land from Wilbur Eck and obviously would require substantial money to fill it to become a buildable site. The site behind the Liquor Store will also require buy out from another party and will require some fill. We are attempting to contact the owner to find out his position for that particular piece of land. I wish to also note that the Fire Department finds the parcel behind the Liquor Store to be fully acceptable to them. After that meeting at the Council when it became clear that there was a certain breach in communication channels, I met with Doug Pitt to encourage the Building Committee to meet with me directly so as to keep all channels open. As review progressed, we became aware that there woo still min -information floating around, so I requested Doug Pitt to have the Piro Department Building Committee appoint one individual as their official delegate to moot with me exclusively. We agreed that between myself and their delegate we can keep the min -information at a minimum and provide airact channels to City staff and Fire Department of all agreed upon matters. Doug himself was appointed as that liaison parson, and we have discussed the steps required to pursue construction. Because construction will raquira the issuance of a bond referendum, it is essential to provide an much detailed information to the citizenry prior to the holding of that referendum. In an attempt to hold costs to a minimum, it in my desire to hold the referendum In conjunction with the General Election on November 6. Thio would eliminate the preparation of all separate balloto and bringing in all now judges for a ono-issuo election. It Is my opinion that if we ars to succoeofully *'sell" the bond issue and the need for a now Fire Hall, information provided to the general public must be as thorough and complete as possible. -2g- Council Agenda - 7/23/84 CA proposed design should be selected and be made available for the public to review. Hopefully, the paper would also cover the concept development. If you agree to issue the enclosed Request for Proposals (RFP), I envision the following sequence of events. I will mail out the Request for Proposals immediately following the Council meeting. I will accept the proposals and open them on Friday, August 3. The proposals will be given a cursory review by staff and a preliminary ranking. They will then be submitted to members of the City Council for their review. During that week of review, if the Council members will notify me of their top two or three choices, we will invite those firms to an interview on August 13. Upon the completion of the interview, we can select the firm we wish to have design the Fire Hall. We then can determine and request that the preliminary designs be back at a specified date, preferably early September. After selecting an alternative design, we can begin the publicity and dissemination of information. If it is certain that the Council wishes to pursue this referendum, thus putting the question to the citizens, we will prepare all of the necessary referendum material in order for the question to appear on the November 6 ballot. If, after the referendum, the issue has been defeated, the matter will be closed for a minimum of six months. If the matter is approved, then we will proceed through the winter months in arranging for the issuance (/ of the bonds and the development of detailed plane and epee's and acquisition of land. The Request for Proposals has boon prepared and submitted to you because we do not have a consulting architect. In our two moat recent building projects, the City Hall and the Library, we have used two different firms, both of whom have not satisfied us entirely. Since we do not have a consulting architect, we do not have an established track record by which we may judge a firm. Thus, I am rococmlonding that the Request for Proposals be issued no that we may acroon a number of applicants to render oorvicoo. John Dadalich, at a mooting of the City Council, was accompanied by an architectural firm who works in affiliation with OSM. They certainly will be included on the list that the RFP is submitted to, but I do not think it is wino to just select them automatically because of a working relationship with OSM. I think it is in the beat interest of all concerned to make a number of architectural firma bid against one another and establish sound credentials. I realize that since tho Fire Hall discussion has not boon at the forefront of earlier Council discussions, this item may be coming an somewhat of a ourprieo. It has been progrosaing steadily in house and between Doug and 1. If, in fact, we hope to accomplish the holding of a referendum In conjunction with the General Election, wo must begin now. I should elan nota - 30 - Council Agenda - 7/23/84 �. that the issuance of a Request for Proposals is of minimal expense to the City, that being postage and stationary. It is only after we award a contract for services that we are committing ourselves to fees. It may be beneficial to simply request proposals to find out what type of fees for architectural services we are looking at. If at that time you find that it's financially unacceptable to proceed, we simply do not award, the contract for Phase I. Lastly, I wish to note that I think it is time to bring a professional architect on board if we are going to pursue the Fire Hall construction. Staff members simply are not qualified to go beyond the level of analysis and design that we have already achieved. Members of the Fire Department did draft a floor plan that they found desirable, but admitted they knew nothing of design and that it was not really a building they would be proud of. Consequently. I think this is the appropriate time to begin a search for a professional. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Authorize the issuance of an RFP for Fire Hall services - this will do nothing more than start a rather lengthy process, and will secure proposals (bide) for just the architectural services involved. 2. Do not authorize the issuance of the RFP - this essentially will atop the investigation of Fire Hall construction. As I noted, staff has gone about as far as it can, with our only other alternative to be asking other cities to send us copies of their Fire Hall plane. Even at that, we would require the signature of a registered architect and/or engineer. The difficulty with this particular notion as expressed by the Fire Department is an inability to decide which of all the buildings they might go look at they like. Doug Pitt indicated that in looking at various Fire Halle, they identify some things in one building, name things in another building, and it would require a molding of various sets of plana and spot's. This would more than likely require the cervices of an architect. 3. Do not authorize the issuance of the RPP, but engage the services of OSM'a affiliate architect - this mainly would be the hiring of an architect based on the recommendation of our Consulting Engineer. This is perfectly legal to do. �` - 31 ./I C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I Council Agenda - 7/23/84 Staff recommends that the RFP's be issued to a number of architectural firms according to the time line outlined above. I genuinely hope to hold the bond referendum, if we get that far, in accordance with the General Election in order to hold election expense at a minimum. If we are to hold it at that time, we must begin immediately. I think an order to issue the RFP would also show that we have heard the concerns of the Fire Department and do not take them lightly. Lastly, lookiny at thu cramped quarters in the Fire Hall, I think it is essential,to provide quality fire service, that we look at a better facility. I think that now is the time for that. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A copy of the Request for Proposals (RFP). 32 - II city of Monticello 01f.— of tnn Phone. 10121 295.2 71 1 City Anmmrina:or Metro 1012) 333.5739 Dear Prospective Architectural Firm: The City of Monticello currently operates 'its 25 plus member volunteer Fire Department out of a 100 x 32 foot concrete block building. The building has two 12 -foot truck bays. On the south side of the building there is an 16 x 50 foot office addition. The building was originally constructed to accommodate both City Administrative Offices and Fire Hall services. In 1970, the City Administrative Offices relocated to an all now City !fall and, oubacquently, turned the entire area over to the uuu of the Fire Department. Since the original construction, the City of Monticello has experienced a tremendous amount of growth, thus causing the demand for City services to increase at a very rapid pace. Decauso of the substantial increase in housing and commercial development, the demand for modern fire equipment has also substantially increased. The increase in better, larger and more modern equipment has created substantially cramped conditions in the existing Piro Hall. Because of thO fact that the existing conditions in the Fire Hall are cramped, and that oven more expansion is imminent, the time has now coma to consider construction of a now Piro 11011. The City of Monticello is seeking an architectural firm to provide considerable assistance in the design and construction of the new Monticello Fire Hall. During the investigative phase, City staff did oubetantial research to investigate available cites. For various and sundry reasons, only five of 23 potential oitoo were considered suitable. Of those five Diton, throe were ruled out by the current owners of the property or the mombors of the Piro Department. Of the two remaining aitoo, one is still In private ownership but is considered preferable over the other hocauso of the anticipated coat of filling in low areas. While a site selection procoduro will not be required of the selected architectural firm, the City dean request that an analyalo of the proponad site be done and, if found to be unfeasible, a cursory analysis be done based upon the City's earlier. research. The City of Monticello In requesting that the soloetod firm prepare at least three renderings in order to provide options in building saloction. The firm will be required to discuss 250 East Bfoadway • R1, d, Box 63A 9 Monticello. MN 55362 0--1/ projected growth so that designs will be sufficient to accommodate the acquisition of new equipment. It should also be noted that the City of Monticello in its most recent construction projects have demonstrated a commitment to excellence in design and construction. The City of Monticello is seeking architectural services for potentially two phases of a Fire Hall construction. Since it 1s intended that the new Fire Hall will be financed through a bond referendum, the City of Monticello will need assistance preparing a preliminary design and budget cost so that the public may be fully informed and will understand completely the City's Fire Hall proposal. The bond referendum is planned to be hold concurrently with the General Election of November 6, 1984. Phase II will take place if and only if the bond referendum is passed. This phase will consist of all architectural services normally associated with the construction of any municipal building. Enclosed is a description of the services which the City of Monticello will expect the selected firm to provide during the process of constructing the new Monticello Fire Hall. The City of Monticello will more clearly define the expected services with the architectural firm which is finally selected. The City of Monticello is requesting from your firm an estimated cost of providing the services as outlined in the following document for both Phase I and Phase II. The cost for Phase I should be specified in a lump sum. The coat for Phase 11 should be specified as a lump sum or as a percentage. Please present your cost proposal in a separate scaled envelope marked "Proposal for Fire Hall Architectural Services" along with your firm'o experience and other information which you feel might be helpful in the City's review of proposals, prior to 10:00 A.M., Friday, August 1, 1964. The proponala will be reviewed, firms will be acroonod, and interviews will be hold before the City Council for the final candidates during the month of August. Pinson do not hesitate to call me if you require additional information. Sincerely, Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator TAE/kad Enclosure J CSERVICES REQUIRED FOR ARCHITECTURAL FIRM FOR THE MONTICELLO FIRE HALL 1984 PHASE I The City of Monticello anticipates funding the construction of a now Fire flail through a bond referendum, which the City desires to hold in accordance with the General Election on november 6, 1984. In order that the City of Monticello can determine the extent of need with respect to the proposed Fire hall, and so that the public can be informed and made fully aware of the City's Fire flail plan prior to the bond referendum, the selected architectural firm shall provide the following services: 1. o:cet with all appropriate Department Heads to conduct a needs assessment of the various items required in the Piro Hall. 2. Provide not Icon than three (3) preliminary designs, including architectural renderings and floor plans of a now Fire flail. 3. Provide a site analysis of a pro-saleeted site; in the event that the site analysis reveals the pro-oolected site to be unfeasible for the development of the Fire Hall, present a cursory review of other atoo that would be appropriate for ouch development. 4. Provide an estimate of what each of the proposed Fire Hall designs would coat to construct. 5. Assist the City of Monticello with all necessary documents, graphics, needs, and procedures for the bond referendum. 6. Other services common to similar proposals or as may be required by the City. The main objective of Phnoo I is to gather all necessary information on the Fire Hall alternatives prior to the bond referendum. If the refocandum for the now Fire flail fails, the City of Monticello will pay the architectural firm for all services that have boon provided. However, if tho referendum is approved, additional services from an architectural firm will be required. Mora than likely, the architectural firm which provided services during Phase I will be retained to provide furthor services during Phase II. However, all interested architectural firms should be aware that the City of Monticello reserves the full and unrestricted right to hire a different firm for services to be rendered in Phase II. 9 PHASE II The services the City of Monticello will require from the selected architectural firm during Phase II will be considerably more intensive than was required in Phase I. These services shall include: 1. Follow-up meetings with all Department Heads to further review the needs assessment of the various items and construction restrictions for the efficient operation of the Fire Hall. 2. Attend all necessary meetings with the City Council and Fire Department to be sure they are well informed on the progress of the new Fire Hall. 3. Prepare all documents and drawings to fix and describe the size and character of the now Fire Hall. These documents and drawings must include floor plans, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, materials, interior decoration, signage, landscaping, parking lot and other essentials an may be appropriate or unique to fire hails. 4. Submit a statement of estimated cunstruction costo. J 5. Prepare documents setting forth in detail the requiremento for construction of the new Fire Hall, including the necessary bidding information. The architect shall anoint J in the preparation of the necessary bidding forms, conditions of the contract, and the form of agreement between the City of Monticello and all construction contractors and subcontractors. G. The architect shall be required to anoint t.ho City of Monticello, in awarding all construction contracts. 7. The architect will continuo to work for the City of Monticollo during and throughout the Construction phone and anoint on any and all matters required by the City of Monticello. Thio shall include periodic vivito to the Piro Hall construction site as construction proceeds, providing construction supervision and Inspection. ©. The architect will issue certificates of payment to contractors an construction progresses to a point indicated that to the boat of the architects knowledge is in accordance with all contract documents. 9. The architect shall be required to carve as a witness in connection with any public hearing, arbitration, or legal proccoding. 2 1- 10. Provide .any other services usually associated with architectural projects of this nature. 11. Other services as requires by the City. 3 001/ MONTICELLO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT . Monticello, Minnesota 55362 February 9, 1984 To the city council, The Monticello Fire Department would like to dispose of the 1946 Pumper so the money derived from the sale could be used by the department for the purchase of other needed equipment. Sincerely, Willard Farnick Lc�eTl.unneII ^� Paul Klein Garhardt Decker Ric wollsteu/er/ Date accepted: By: 40 CACH DISBURSEMENTS GENERAL FUND JULY 1984 AMOUNT CHECK NO. Office Stores - Typewriter for Senior Citizens (To be reimbused) 599.00 19077 Thomas Eidem - Expenses 195.70 19078 -A to 2 Upholstering - Repair work - Fire Department 25.00 19079 Monticello Rotary Club - 1984 Dues for Tom Eidem 134.75 19080 Equitable Life Insurance - Insurance for K. Hansen 6 M. Thiesen 40.00 19081 Transport Clearings - Freight Charges for Air Compressor 98.78 19082 Surplus Property Fund - Supplies 299.40 19083 Olson 6 Sons Electiic - Repair Civil'Defense sirens and well 52.68 19084 NuTech Chemical Corp. - Supplies - WWPP 134.42 19085 Void - 0 - 19086 John Henry Foster Company - Air Compressor parts - WWPP 891.82 19087 Gwen Bateman - Partial Payment - June Animal Control Contract 50.00 19088 Hawkins Chemical, Inc. - Chlorine - WWTP 37G.70 19009 MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts 94.00 19090 MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Raccipts 23.00 19091 Corrow Sanitation - June Garbage Contract 4,546.50 19092 State Capital Credit Union - withholdings 125.04 190^3 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services at Library 137.50 19094 Commissioner of Revenue - State Withholdings 2,327.00 19095 Wright County State Bank - Federal Withholdinga 4,143.80 19096 Department of Employee Relations - FICA Withholdings 2,394.17 19097 State Treasurer - PERA withholdings - 1,513.05 19098 James Prousse - Cleaning City Hall 275.00 19099 YMCA of M.pls. - Monthly contract payment 312.50 19100 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor Salary 175.OD 19101 Dan Blonigan - Council Salary 125.00 19102 1 Fran Fair - Council Salary 125.00 19103 ,den Maus - Council Salary 125.00 19104 Jack Maxwell - Council Salary 125.00 19105 Gwen Bateman - Animal Control Contract G14.00 19106 Arve Grimamo - Mileage reimbursement to Duluth 01.00 19107 Janette Leerseen - Information Salary 78.78 19108 Lucy Andrews - Information Salary 135.00 19109 Wright County State Bank - Purchase C.D. Investment 200,000.00 19110 Wright County State Bank - Purchase C.D. at lat Mple. Bank 200,000.00 19111 MN. State Treasurer - Watercraft Receipts 185.00 19112 Mt1. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receipts 95.00 19113 Crummy 6 Briner - Roof in west Bridge Park 3,196.76 19114 State Treasurer - Building Permit Surcharge Fee 1,440.70 19115 Government Training Service - Seminar Reg. Pee@ 180.00 19116 Iloglund Bus Company - Refund of sales tax, to be reimbursed by Stag 105.00 19117 Jim Schlelf Const. - Partial Payment on Pumphouse 15,952..00 19116 United Parcel - Postage on filet return 5.58 19119 MN. State Treasurer - watercraft Rscaipt@ 107.00 1912.0 MN. State Treasurer - Snowmobile Receil'ts 29.CJ 191" Richard Knutson, Inc. - Payment 48 - 82-2 Draject 11,132.00 19122 Northern states Power Company - Electricity - .7une 1984 4,392.52 1913 North Central Public Servica - Natural Gas 571.11 19124 AME Ready Mix - West nridgs Park 1,315.67 191-15 Beata Capitol Credit Union - Withholdings 125.04 19126 Jerry Hermes - Janitorial Services at Library 137.50 19127 Thomas A. Eider - Car Allowance 300.00 19128 I.S. Po@tataster -.10 rolls of stamps 200.00 19129 Honticallo Mira 0 partsent - wages thru 7/17/84 701.00 19130 Lucy Andrews - Information Center Salary 130.SU 19131 Janette Learseen - Information Cantor Salary 90.00 19132 CASH DISBURSEMENTS GENERAL FUND JULY 1984 AMOUNT Department of -Employee Relations - FICA Withholdings 2,432.82 MN. State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 1,403.68 Internal Revenue Service - Levy Proceeds - Sean Hancock 384.68 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll Ded. (To be reimbursed) 176.00 Commissioner of Revenue - Water Sales Tax - 2nd quarter 1984 222.27 Hamele Sales, Inc. - Picnic Shelter 5,033.00 Brenteson Const. - 4th St. Sewer and Water Installation 5,600.00 Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Assoc. Inc. - Eng. Fees for May 1,147.85 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone Bill 931.32 Copy Duplicating Products, Inc. - Panasonic 708 Typewriter 1,390.35 Aubol T.V. & Appliance - Air Conditioner for Info Center 410.00 Howard Dahlgren Assoc. inc. - Professional Services 22.38 McEnary, Kraft, Birch & Kilgore, Inc. - 26 Prints of Library 31.20 Gruys, Johnson & Assoc. - Computer Service 6 Year End Audit 10,135.00 Int. Union Of Operating Eng. - Union Ducs 126.00 Chapin Publishing Co. - Ad. for Bids - Street Project 124.74 Barr Engineering Company - Professional Services - Meadow Oak 292.00 Central Eyowear - Glasses 55.90 Bergstrom's Lawn & Equipment - 4 Belts 55.00 Banker's Life Ins. - Group Health Ins. 3,887.78 Earl F. Andersen 6 Assoc, Inc. - Park Benches & Vita Course 4,993.49 American Scientific Products - Parts - WWTP 1,066.13 Leaf Brothers Inc. - Uniforms 161.25 Goodin Company - Pipes & fittings 261.92 Sullair Sales & Service, Inc. - Air Compressor & Parts 7,543.14 Gordon C. Stephens - 200 report covers - WWfP 40.00 Fylo's Backhoe & Sewer Service - Digging - WWTP 60.00 MN. Valley Testing Lab, Inc. - Tasting at WWfP 466.64 Mason -Cutters - Drillings - WWTP 600.00 Void - 0 - Fair's Garden Cantor - Tres Replacements 283.27 Olson & Sons Electric, Inc. - Repair of Water Tower 1,832.93 Harold E. Jones - Professional Fees for Park Shelter 200.00 North Star Waterworks - Cast Coupling, gripper 105.98 Water Products Co. - Motors 1,360.44 Rodin's - Replace Concrete curb 890.00 Indupondent Lumber Co. - Lumber & Supplies 190.82 Wright County Sheriff's Depart. - Police Contract 9,494.38 Harry's Auto Supply - Parts & Supplies 148.25 The Plumbory - Supplies for Dog Pound 1.07 RGK Enterprise - Probe for WWII 75.00 Safety-Kisen Corp - Repairs 28.117 Monticello Office Products - Office Sul plies 245.26 Phillips Petroleum - Gas 59.33 Maus Foods - Parts & Supplies 154.21 Northwestern Bell Telwphono - Firs Phone Charges 18.97 Seitz Our Own Hardware - Parts & Supplies G05.63 Davi• Electronic Service - Fire Department Repairs 51.50 Audio Communications Co. - Repairs for Fire Depart. 60.30 Coast to Coast - Parts & Supplies 19G.98 Uordy Link - Gas - Street Department 1,923.25 Moon Motor Sales - Parts 25.30 Farwell Oamun, Kirk & Co. - 2 gate valves 23.45 Automatic Garage Door Company - Maintenance Depart. - Door Repair 66.87 Bryan Rock Products, Inc. - Lime Rock - Parwest 945.17 Northern Power Products, Inc. - Engine & Tach motor 4,206.00 Midwest Computer Service - Tr, lashooting c Testin, WWTP 64.50 O CASH DISBURSEMENTS GENERAL FUND JULY 1984 AMOLINT National Bushing & Parts Co - Parts & Supplies - Oil Filters G5.92 N. Maintenance Co. - Shampoo - City Hall 111.60 Centra Sota Coop. - Pails - Park Depart. 6.50 Hayden Murphy Equip. Co. - Parts - Street Depart. 95.33 The Shop - 3 cement blades 30.00 Geyer Rental Service - Rental of Power Trowel & saw blades 84.50 Eull Concrete Products, Inc. - Concrete Post Pads 9.90 Liefert Trucking - Freight Charges 30.00 Barco Products, Inc. - Beam Light 89.30 Central McGowan, Inc. - Cyclinder Rental 2.48 Big Lake Hardware - Par West Park - Valve & Nipple 32.52 Barton Sand 6 Gravel Co. - Pump House 36.80 First Bank Mpla - Public Fund Charge 4.00 AT & T Information - Phone Charges 3.59 Marco Products - Dispersant for copy machine 28.49 Maus Tire Service - Tubo - WWPP 4.30 City of Brainerd - Zoning Ordinance 3.50 Monticello Printing - Sewer and Water Cards 198.10 Mid -Central Fire Inc. - Safety Equipment - Fire Department 330.00 Orkin Past Control - July Contract Payment - WWTP 106.00 City of Princeton - Zoning Ordinances 3.80 City of Willmar - Copy of Zoning Ordinances 5.75 Monticello OK Hardware - Supplies 53.02 Tri -County Lumber - G Cone Pads - Park Depart. 13.80 Monticello Times - Publishing for June 1984 518.38 National Life Ins. Co - Life Insurance for Tom Eidem 100.00 irat Bank Mpls. - 1975 and 1983 G.O. improvement BunQe 58,760.30 First Bank St. Paul - 1978 G.O. Bonds 18,003.75 Norwast Bank Mpls - 197G, 1979, 1981, 1977 G.O. Candij 149,822.90 Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. - 1971 G.O. Bonds 1,656.71 Trueman -Welters, Inc. - Maintenance of Equipment 76.47 void 0 MN. Industrial Tools - Repair at WWTP 192.00 Nott Company - Parts & Supplies 856.15 Thomas A. Eidam - Mileage and Meals 42.60 Patty Cash - Reimburse Patty Cash Fund 50.03 Minnesota Planning Assoc. - 1984 - 1985 Membership 50.00 Century Lab. Inc. - Grange & Stripeze - Street Depart. 29.89 Mobil Oil Credit Corp. - Gas - Firs & Sewer Collec. Depart 53.03 Allen Pelvit - Mileage 42.55 Monticello School Dist. 0687 - Community Ed Sumner Rec. Program 13,500.00 Gary Anderson - Mileage 03.55 St. Cloud Fire Equip. - Servicing fire extinguishers 115.25 770,332.94 PAYROLL. FOR JUNE 26,495.98 TOTAI. CASH DISBURSEMENTS FOR JULY $004,028.92 Ong LIQUOR FUND CASH DISBURSEMENT - JULY 1984 SUNT CHECK NO. Twin City Wine - Wine Purchase 895.24 11285 Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor Purchase 4,338.29 11286 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co., Inc. - Liquor Purchase 1,709.33 112B7 State Capitol Credit Union - Withholdings 20.00 11288 Commissioner of Revenue -State Tax Withholdings 220.00 11269 Wright County State Bank - Federal Tax Withholdings 404.90 11290 Department of Employee Relations - FICA Withholdings 258.50 11291 State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 179.21 11292 Twin City Wine Company - wine Purchase 2,190.GS 11293 Griggs, Cooper s Co., Inc. - Liquor Purchase 3,123.18 11294 Ed Phillips : Sons - Liquor Purchase 3,597.2U 11295 North Central Public Service - Natural Gas 9.72 11296 Northern States Power Company - Electricity 618.80 11297 State Capitol Credit Union - Withholdings 20.00 11298 Department of Employee Relations - FICA Withholdings 273.12 11299 State Treasurer - PERA Withholdings 175.06 11300 Twin City Wine Company - Wine Purchase 1,138.48 11301 Ed Phillips 6 Sons Co. - Liquor Purchase 4,945.32 11302 Eagle Wine Company - wins Purchase 884.67 11303 Griggs, Cooper 6 Co, Inc - Liquor Purchase 4,064.80 11304 Banker's Life Ins. - Insurance for June 361.2G 11305 Monticello Office Products, Inc. - Office Supplies 21.92 11306 Day Distributing Co - Boer Purchase Grossloin Beverages, Inc. - Boor Purchase 1,271.75 10,208.21 11307 11308 Dick Beverage Co - Bear Purchase 3,450.50 11309 Yonak Sanitation - Garbage Service 82.50 11310 Thorpe Distributing - Doer Purchases 51501.55 11311 Schabel Beverage Company - Beer Purchases 3,308.95 11312 Dahlhuimar Dist. Co., - Beer Purchases 17,551.71 11313 MN. Municipal Liquor Stores, Inc. - 1984 - 1985 Membership Dues 125.00 11314 Slifka Sales - Misc. Supplies 137.65 11315 Bernick's Pepsi-Cola - Misc. Supplies 531.70 11316 Viking Coca-Cola Bottling Company - Misc. Purchases 404.25 11317 Sovon-Up Bottling Company - Misc. Purchases 307.00 11318 Judo Candy 6 Tobacco - Supplies 590.31 11319 Old Uutch Foods, Inc. - Misc. supplies 225.23 11320 Maus Foods - Supplies 31.GU 11321 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 8111 47.17 1,1322 Monticello Times - Advertising 114.00 11373 Liefeet Trucking - Freight Charges 233.57 11324 Coast to Coast - sprinkler 17.99 11325 First Bank Minneapolis - 1976 Liquor Bonds 2,155.00 11326 75,753.52 PAYROLL FOR MONTH OP JUNG 3,501.21 TOTAL CASH DISPURSMMGNTS 79,254.73 �3 INDIVIDUAL PEP.MIT ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF June j 1984 ERMIT DESCRIPTION- ?� NAME/LOCATION IVALUATION I�PERMIT HUMBER _ $ .. SURCHARGE PLUMBINGSURCHARGE 84-640 Detached Garage RG William Pair/1029 W. River Street $ 3,500.00 S 41.50 S 1.75 84-641 Exterior Door Replacement AC City of Monticello/107 Cedar St. 11000.00 14.25 .75 84-642 Single Family Dwelling SF Jim Lawrence/117 Mississippi Drive 67,500.00 335.50 33.75 S 24.00 S .50 84-643 Detached Garage RG Norbert Kelly/301 Front Street 6,500.00 59.50 3.25 ' 84-644 Truck Service Island C James Refrigeration/160 Oakwood Drive 20,000.00 140.50 10.00 ' 84-645 Basement Remodel AD Michael Keegan/2900 Red Oak Circle 6,300.00 58.30 3.15 84-646 Park Shelter Roof AC City of Monticello/113 W. River St. 3,200.00 39.70 1.60 t -84-647 New Park Shelter PBI City of Monticello/119 W. River St. 61000.00 56.50 3.00 X84-648 Single Family Dwelling SF. Nike Bregenzer/Jerry Liefert Drive 46,700.00 268.15 23.35 1 24.00 .50 84-649 Industrial Building 11 Bondhus Corporation/1400 E. Broadway 315,000.00 972.50 157.90 30.00 .50 i 84-650 Reroof House Roof �Di warren Danger/601 w. Sixth Street I 1,400.00 j 14.30 .70 84-651 Single Family Dwelling PFultra Homes, Inc./1005 Meadow Oak Or. 38,800.00 232.60 19.40 24.00 :50 84-652 Reside House 6 Garage I�� Charles Fish/701 W. River St. 5,978.00 56.37 2.99 84-653 Remodel Garage AD Jack Wipper/309 E. Third St. = 3,000.00( 38.50 1.50 11.00 .50 84-554 1Basement window 6 Earl Smith/1605 W. River St. 1,430.00 � 14.30 '.70 64-655 'Remodel House tdD Alyce Anderson/724 W. Broadway 1 1,430.00 14.30 .70 84-656 .House Addition AD Jerry Peters/1120 Sandy Lane 8,400.00 70.90 4.20 84-657 (Industrial Building tt I Fulfillment Systems/406 Lauring,Lano I 720,000.00 1,983.00 360.00 57.00 .50 84-658 iRetail Store Remodel 4C1 Tripp Oil Co./318 W. Broadway 30,000.00 193.00 15.00 24.00 .50 I TOTALS $1,285,438.00 S 4,603.67 $643.69 1 $ 194.00 53.50 PLANCHEC. ZNG r 84-644 (Truck service Island C1 James Refrigeration/160 Oakwood Dr. 91.33 84-649 industrial Building II Bondhus Corporation/1400 E. Broadway 632.13 ` 84-657 Irndustrial Building I; Fulfillment Systems/406 Lauring Lane i 1,288.95 TOTALS $2,012.41 �I 1 TOTAL REVENUE- $7,457.27 CITY OF MkTPICELI.O �a Monthly Building Department Report iwnth of 3w,c 19 04 PERMITS and USES La at Thla 'Same Manth -Last Year 'This Year 1 PERMITS ISSUED Month May Month June Last Year To Date To Date ` RESIDENTIAL Number 14 12 7 30 55 Valuation S 147,000.00 $ 190,238.00 S 110,170.40 $1,455,977.90 $1,847,738.00 T Fees 1,017.70 1,204.22 723.47 6,456.10 10,088.93 Surcharges 73.50 95.44 58.88 728.58 914.09 OOM1MERCIAL Number 5 5 2 11 21 Valuation 58,295.00 60,200.00 461,600.00 1,073,525.00 779,395.00 1 Fees 504.33 535.28 2,225.95 4,954.61 5,244.87 Surcharges 29.15 30.35 230.80 536.65 389.80 i INDJSTRIAL Number 1 2 1 4 Valuation 13,500.00 1,035,000.00 500,000.00 1,768,500.00 Fees 101.50 4,876.58 1,197.45 8,250.03 Surcharges 6.75 517.90 250.00 884.65 I PL J MBING Number 3 7 3 15 32 -- Fees 67.00 194.00 84.00 519.00 1,094.00 Surcharges 1.50 3.50 1.50 9.00 16.00 OTHERS Number 1 1 6 1 Valuation 16,420.00 Fees 10.00 100.00 334.50 10.00 Surcharges 6.00 TOTAL 110. PERMITS 24 26 13 63 113 TOTAL VALUATION 218,795.00 1,285,438.00 571,770.40 3,045,922.90 4,395,633.00 TOTAL FEES 1,700.53 6,610.08 3.133.42 ___ 13,461.66 24,687.83 TOTAL SURCHARGES 110.90 647.19 290.38 1,530.23 2,204.54 CURRENT MO;TfH -�-- Number to Date PFRNQT NATURE Number p}�I.QT �mC3�Aacg_, Valuati on This Year Lnst year Single Family 3 S 836.25 S 76.50 S 152,300.00 18 12 Duplex 1 0 Multi -family 1 3 Commercial I 231.83 10.00 20,000.00 6 9 Industrial 2 4,876.58 517.90 1,035,000.00 4 1 Res. Garages 2 101.00 5.00 10,000.00 13 5 Mb-' Signs 0 2 Public Buildings 1 56.50 3.00 6,000.00 2 0 ALTERATION OR REPAIR � Dwellings 7 266.97. 13.94 27,938.00 22 7 ,I Commercial 3 246.95 17.35 34,700.00 13 2 Industrial 0 PUIMBDIG ; All types 7 194.00 3.50 32 15 1 ACCDSSORy STRUCTURES SwicPools 0 1minq Decks p 3 1 n:ttrORAAY PERMIT 0 2 DEMOLITION I I Tm'A13 26 6,810.08 b47.19 1,285,430.00 113 _ 63