Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 05-14-1990AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, May 14, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held January 29, 1990, and the regular meeting held April 23, 1990. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Consideration of appeal on a public nuisance order. Applicant, Luke Torell. 5. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a daycare (headstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. Applicant, First Baptist Church/Wright County Community Action Headstart Program. 6. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow retail commerciai activity in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKMV Partnership/21st Century Builders. 7. Consideration of approval of preliminary and final plat of Kirkman Addition (K -Mart). Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. 8. Consideration of rezoning request of land south of realigned 7th Street right-of-way from PZM (performance zone mixed) to B-3 (highway business) zoning. Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. 9. Consideration of resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for Tax increment District 1-1 (7th Street Project) and refunding of 1983 C.O. Bond along with Meadows 2nd Addition phase II Improvement. 10. Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment which would allow operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products as fuel in an 1-1 zone. II. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products as fuel. 12. Consideration of a resolution awarding bids for Project 90-03, street and utility improvements for the Meadows 2nd Addition, phase 1I. ry 2 City Council Agenda May 14, 1990 Page 2 13. Consideration of accepting appraisal for park dedication purposes --West Prairie Partners plat. 14. Consideration of a zoning amendment to amend the entire sections of Chapter 18, Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Applicant, City of Monticello. 15. Consideration of zoning ordinance amendment reducing "convenience food" parking requirement. Applicant, Shingobee Builders. 16. Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting surety bond requirements for on -sale liquor license applicants. 17. Consideration of granting annual approval for municipal licenses. 18. Consideration of sale of excess right-of-way at the intersection of service drive and East County Road 39 adjoining Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 19, Block 3, Hoglund Addition. 19. Consideration of accepting a portion of annual sidewalk report and adopting a resolution setting a public hearing. 20. Adjournment. INFORMATION TO COUNCIL AND FELLOW STAFF MEMBERS Following are the minutes of the special meeting held Monday, January 29, 1990. Obviously, the minutes are long overdue. My sincere apologies for letting this item slip as late as it has. I will try not to let this occur in the future. L, MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, January 29, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Hlonigen Members Absent: None 2a. Consideration of accepting feasibilit,, repnrt and estimate of costs for street and utility improvements to 7th Street and Minnesota Street. 2b. Consideration of accepting hydrologic study and feasibility report for improvements to the 7th Street watershed. Council reviewed the feasibility report and hydrologic study completed in conjunction with development of the K -Mart addition. The information contained in both reports provided cost information that assists the City in developing a finance plan for the public improvements associated with the X -Mart project. In addition, the hydrologic study provides Information that allows the City to complete short-term planning for the management of storm water created by the K -Mart addition and also provides information that assists the City in its planning for future storm water improvements in the area. After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair, to accept the feasibility report and estimate of costs for street and utility improvements to 7th Street and Minnesota Street and accept hydrologic study and feasibility report for improvements to the 7th Street watershed. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of project finance plan and consideration of revised plan for use of tax increment financing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill outlined two plans for construction and financing of the improvements associated with the 7th Street improvement projoctlK-Mart development. He noted that on September 25, 1999, Council adopted the basic package for use of tax increment financing, which called for use of TIF primarily for costs associated with realignment and construction of 7th Street. After adding soft costs, including bonding, capitalized interest, and contingency, the original level of TIP contribution amounted to $470,000. Subsequent to September 25, 1969, TIF approval, Council acted Page 1 9 Special Council Minutes - 1/29/90 to remove the Kramer property from the list of property to be acquired, which resulted in a net reduction of $129,000. O'Neill reported that changes to the plan for public improvements, along with the development of more detailed engineering data, necessitates another look at the project finance plan. The original finance plan called for development of the 7th Street right-of-way along a grade that would have allowed the Hornig property to have access to 7th Street right-of-way on the south side of the Hornig property. Due to the need to elevate 7th Street, project costs increased and caused the elimination of Hornig property access to 7th Street right-of-way. O'Neill then went on to review two basic proposals for public improvements and financing of improvements for Council review. The first proposal called for development of total private and public improvement costs in the amount of $822,000. The second plan calls for a total public and private improvement cost of $752,000. O'Neill went on to break down the proposed sources of funding for both plans. O'Neill noted that the added expense associated with the first plan involves added sanitary sewer and water cost associated with extending sewer and water from its present position at the intersection of Minnesota and 7th Street all the wny to the freeway. Under the second alternative, sewer and water would not be extended to the freeway and would be terminated at the intersection of 7th Street and Minnesota Street. The added cost of this alternative is approximately $38,000. The first alternative also calls for development of additional storm water section which would service drainage coming from the Brennan property. The added cost of this improvement amounts to approximately $32,000. O'Neill also reviewed the finance plan which proposed deferral of assessments against the Brennan property for the storm sower and sanitary sewer until such time that those utilities would actually be utilized. In addition, the plan called for deferring The Lincoln Companies' sewer and water assessment until such time that the parcel immediately west of the K -Mart site is developed. O'Neill noted that the tax increment financing district proceeds can be used to pay for the cost of the improvements. At the same time, the City, on a deferred basis, may assess the benefiting property owners for the improvements that have been received. Dan Blonigen supported the concept of designing the plans as outlined in plan #1 with an option of scaling back the plans in the event the project costs are excessive. He also noted that Mr. Brennan should agree to pay an assessment in the future equal to the benefit his property Pago 2 9 Special Council Minutes - 1/29/90 receives with the installation of the utilities as proposed. Blonigen also noted that the potential assessment against the Brennan property should be recorded against the property. Warren Smith noted that the public improvements as proposed in plan 01 are acceptable and that they look toward the future while staying within financial means. Shirley Anderson was concerned about the precedent that might be set by deferring some of the assessments associated with the improvement project. Fran Fair noted that in her view, the citizens would not object to extending the sanitary sewer and water lines from Minnesota Street to a position where they can be more easily placed under the freeway, thereby encouraging development on the south side of the freeway. Ken Maus, in reviewing the finance plan, noted that the plan is consistent with Council's original concept adopted in September of 1989. Chuck DuFresne of The Lincoln Companies noted to Council that his company prefers option #1. Pat Pelstring noted that the City could develop a TIF plan and distribute it based on finance plan #1. Council at a later date can always make reductions but not additions. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve construction and finance pian. 01 and include both option #1 and option #2 in the development of plans and specifications for the 7th Street improvement project. Pian #1 should include development of 7th Street storm sewer. Final design is to be addressed at the public hearings on the improvements and at the TIF public hearing scheduled for March 12, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Consideration of callinq a public hearing on street and utility improvements to 7th Street and Minnesota Street. Public hearinq tentatively scheduled for February 12, 1990. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to call a public hearing on the 7th Street/Minnesota Street Improvement project, public hearing to be conducted February 12, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-3. Page 3 (D20 Special Council Minutes - 1/29/90 Therebeingno �fuurrther discussion, the meeting was adjourned. _ 1. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Page 4 �`J r. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 23, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: None 2. Approval of minutes. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the meeting minutes of the regular meeting held April 9, 1990, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Consideration to adopt the final plat for Remmele Addition. Mike Pudil, representing Remmele, was present and informed Council that verbal agreements are in place, and it appears kcly that Rc=cic1,1111 be able to acquire the land proposed for platting. After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Fran Fair, to approve the final plat of the Remmele Addition subject to the placement of the names of the actual property owners of land incorporated with the Remmele Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Consideration to approve the vacation of Fallon Avenue between Chelsea Road and I-94 and the vacation of drainaqe and utility, easements. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to vacate said drainage and utility easements subject to the recording of the final plat of the Remmele Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Review proposal to install and 000rate prototype furnace usinq rubber products as fuel. No formal action requested --review only. The Assistant Administrator reported that Ray Schmidt of Universal Equipment Manufacturing Company hopes to occupy the structure that will soon be vacated by Larson Manufacturing. Schmidt has placed earnest money down in anticipation of Page 1 0 Council Minutes - 4123/90 purchasing the structure; however, he will not complete the purchase until the City reviews his operational plans which include the operation and development of a prototype furnace which uses automobile tire byproducts as fuel. The furnace proposed for development installation is not an incinerator. The furnace is designed to use tires in heating the structure and is not intended to be designed for the sole purpose of incinerating tires. This furnace is one among other machines that Schmidt manufactures that are designed to transform waste tires into materials that can be used for other purposes. O'Neill went on to report that in addition to the rubber burning furnace, Schmidt also has developed machinery that will remove tires from wheels, cut tires into manageable pieces, and reduce the manageable pieces further into tire bits which can be used for many purposes, including furnace fuel. The equipment that Schmidt has designed is relatively inexpensive and is intended to be used by small scale tire reducing operations. O'Neill went on to ask Council to discuss this matter and provide Schmidt with some direction for future action. Schmidt's next step would be to apply for an ordinance amendment which would allow this type of furnace to be installed as a conditional use in an I-1 zone. Ray Schmidt raltoratcd the- the tire burning flrr,nflre is one product among many that he is designing and building for the purpose of recycling and reusing tires. He noted that the furnace burns at 3,000 degrees, which creates a very clean burn, with the major byproduct being the steel used in the steel belted radial tires that are burned in the furnace. Fran Fair asked how the burn starts. Schmidt noted that the furnace is designed to burn one minute every four hours. No other fuel is used to start the burner. Ray Schmidt stated that we all know that waste tires are a problem. Someone has to tackle it. We need something on a small scale. He went on to note that his company must hire a testing agency to test the furnace prior to PCA approval. A testing process can cost as much as $30,000. Finally, he went on to note that the use of the furnace is only a small part of his operation and that most of his sales and business activity comas from manufacturing and selling his other tire reducing equipment. Mayor Maus asked if Schmidt could live up to the conditions stipulating a review time for operation of the furnace. He asked Schmidt if he would be willing to remove the furnace in the event the furnace does not meet with PCA approval. Schmidt stated that if his burner fails the test, he would quit using it immediately. Page 2 (;D?- Council Minutes - 4/23/90 Warren Smith stated that the City should not say "no" to the operation of this furnace due to a preconceived notion. After discussion, it was the general consensus that this matter should be referred to the Planning Commission for the purpose of reviewing a proposal to allow installation and operation of a rubber burning furnace as a conditional use in an I-1 zone. Consideration of preliminary plan to develop a shopoinq mall connected to and extending east of Maus Foods. Plan requires that Cedar Street be vacated and Palm Street be opened. At this point in the meeting, Mayor Maus relinquished his position as Mayor and asked Fran Fair, as acting Mayor, to conduct the meeting during discussion of this matter. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the site plan which called for development of a 34,000 square foot retail mall connected to the existing Maus Foods store and extending east across Cedar Street and into the existing undeveloped parcel of land. The proposal also called for development of a roadway around the eastern perimeter nf rhP proposed shopping center which would cross the tracks and connect to Palm Street. The proposal would also require relocation of city sewer, water, and storm sewer structures now located under Cedar Street. O'Neill asked Council to review the proposal and indicate to the developers if they should proceed with further detailed study of the feasibility of the concept. If Council supports the concept, then this site plan would be further refined and then submitted to the Planning Commission for review. Finally, O'Neill noted that if Council is not supportive of the site plan as proposed, it is his understanding that the developers will submit a new site plan which utilizes the available land and utilities as they now exist. O'Neill also noted that the City Planner, John Uban, was not supportive of the concept, as the proposal would create a significant disruption to the traffic pattern established in Monticello. He noted that Walnut and Cedar Streets act to strengthen the access from the downtown area out to the interstate making it possible for commercial linkage between the shopping center and the downtown area. By breaking Cedar, the parallel road system breaks down at a critical point as it approaches the interstate. By directing traffic to Palm Street, the commercial traffic will increase on an otherwise residential area. It would further de-emphasize the parallel road system and desire for Page 3 Council Minutes - 4/23190 commercial development to attach to downtown and would start spreading the commercial activity in an east/west fashion that is not recommended in the comprehensive plan. Greg Mooney of 21st Century Builders noted that the proposed development allows space for Maus Foods to expand and stated that the idea is innovative and worth serious consideration. Shirley Anderson noted her opposition to closing Cedar Street, as the proposal will bring significant commercial traffic onto an otherwise residential street. Warren Smith noted the high cost of completing such a re -alignment. Dan Blonigen stated that we should not consider the proposal and that the City should not consider spending any money on the re-routing of utilities. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to not consider closing Cedar Street, as the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Voting in favor: Dan Blonigen, Warren Smith, Fran. cAlr, Shirley Anderson. Abstaining: Ken Maus. Public hearinq - Consideration of amendment to off-street parkinq requirements for theaters. The Assistant Administrator reported that the Monticello Theater has plans to develop two new screens which results in the need for an additional 105 parking spaces according to the present ordinance. In conjunction with the expansion of the theater, Wright County State Bank plans on purchasing the Stokes Marine building and developing a parking area for use by theater patrons. The new parking area will be able to accommodate approximately 44 stalls, which falls short of the 105 new spaces that are needed with the theater expansion. Council is asked to consider lessoning the theater parking requirements from 1 space per 4 seats to 1 space per 5 seats. O'Neill went on to note that traffic studies are available which support tho concept of lessoning the theater parking requirements. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve an ordinance amendment which would lesson the theater parking roquiremont from one parking space for each five seats based on the design capacity of the main Page 4 LT -111 Council Minutes - 4/23/90 assembly hall. Said amendment should apply to i'.eaters located in the Original Plat of Monticello only. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 186. 9. Public hearing - Consideration of ordinance amendment which would allow theaters to utilize ioint off-street parkinq facilities located within five hundred {500} feet of theater. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the current ordinance requires that joint parking associated with theater use must be located within 300 feet of the theater. The proposed ordinance amendment calls for extending this distance to 500 feet. By extending the distance as proposed, a number of public parking spaces can be counted as joint parking spaces, which enables the theater expansion to meet minimum parking requirements. O'Neill went on to note that according to the City Planner, it is not unreasonable to expect people to walk 500 feet from parking areas to a theater; and such a distance is common in many other cities. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Warren Smith to approve the amendment to the ordinance which allows theaters located in the Oriainal Plat of Monticello to utilize joint parking located within 500 feet of said theater. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Fran Fair, Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus. Opposed: Dan 0lonigen. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 187. 10. Public hearinq - Consideration of conditional use permit allowinq the Monticello Theater to use certain public oarkina areas as "ioint Parkina." Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council consider granting a conditional use permit to the Monticello Theater which would allow the theater to use certain public parking areas as joint parking. O'Neill noted that plans developed by the theater called for development of 420 seats. If a 5 to i parking ratio is used, 85 parking spaces must be created. The site plan presented calls for demolition of Stokes Marine and development of 44 parking spaces, which results in a deficit of 41 parking spaces. The joint parking conditional use permit as proposed calls for utilization of public parking spaces within 500 feet of the theater. He noted that numerous public parking spaces are available within 500 foot and are available for joint use, as the businesses that these parking spaces service are typically daytime operations. He wont on to add, however, that there will be Page 5 0 Council Minutes - 4/23/40 some conflict between the theater and these typical daytime operations on Saturdays and on some weeknights, as a number of the businesses in the area do stay open past 7:30 p.m. one or more times per week. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Fran Fair to approve the joint parking conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: a. City approved joint parking areas shall be located within 500 feet of the theater. b. No substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two uses (theater/retail service) for which the joint uses of the off-street parking facility is proposed. C. A properly drawn instrument executed by the parties concerned for joint use of the off-street parking facilities duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney shall be filed with the City Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder. d. A properly drawn instrument executed by Wright County StAtP RAnk And Monticello Theater outlininq a full and uninterrupted use by Monticello Theater of 44 parking stalls. Said instrument shall be filed with the City Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder. e. Owner/operator shall provide information to patrons regarding location of approved parking areas. Notice shall include publication of maps in the official city paper, posting of parking areas in theater lobby, review of parking areas at each show preview. Voting in favor of the motion: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Fran Fair, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. 11. Public hoarinq - Variance request which would allow more than 50 percent of the off-street parkinq for the Monticello Theater Addition to be supplied ov a joint parkinq facility. Withdrawn from agenda, as sufficient parking is available to moot the 50 percent requirement. No varianco needed. Page 6 M Council Minutes - 4/23/90 12. Consideration of a resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizinq advertisement for bids --7th Street improvement project. Motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-16. 13. Consideration of loq structure for Ellison Park. It was reported to Council that the Lions Club will commit labor and an annual dollar contribution toward the cost of the project. Annual contributions toward payment of the cost of the project will possibly amount to $6,000 to $8,000. Development of the structure is planned for the June 9, 1990, weekend. After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Dan Blonigen, to authorize the City of Monticello to purchase a log shelter from Voyageur Log Homes of Orr, Minnesota, for a cost of $12,338, and to further authorize purctanc cf rcofing mAter.ials and installation of a concrete slab and wiring at an estimated cost of $2,512, bringing the total estimated cost of the building to $14,844. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Consideration of resolution approvinq the sale and transfer of ownership in cable system and transfer of the cable franchise of Jones Intercable to FBN Cablevision. Mayor Maus noted that the cable system reception needs improvement and wondered if it is not time to stipulate an improvement in the service. Rick Wolfsteller concurred that the reception is not as good in Monticello because the signal must be brought over cable lines from Buffalo. He noted that the reception would be better if the television signal was sent via microwave to Monticello and then distributed to cable users in town. He wont on to state that unfortunately, the City is not in the position at this time to stipulate improvements in the signal; however, the cable company is aware of the problem and may take steps to improve the signal. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, to adopt a rosolution approving tho sale and transfer from Jones to FON Cablovision, which would include the transfer of the cable franchise rights. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-18. Pago 7 0 Council Minutes - 4/23/90 15. Consideration of resolution amending the Sherburne/Wright County Cable Communication Commission's joint and cooperative agreement. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that the voting structure of the cable consortium is weighted in a manner that allows three Of the larger communities of the consortium, including Elk River, Buffalo, and Monticello, to entirely control the decision making of the cable commission. It was the concern of the commission that too much power is in the hands of three cities, which might discourage the remaining cities to remain in the consortium. Wolfsteller went on to note that it was not the intent of the largest communities within the cable commission to control the actions of the committee. He agreed that it is a ten -city cooperative agreement; at least half of the voting members should vote in the affirmative for official actions. Wolfsteller noted that it was not Monticello's intent to have significant power over the other commission member cities and stated that he had no problem with the new voting arrangement proposed in the resolution. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to Approve n resolution which notes that all official actions of the commission must receive a majority of all authorized votes cast on that issue at a duly constituted meeting of the commission and the affirmative vote of five directors. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 90-17, 16. Consideration of hirinq a Municipal Construction Inspector for the City of Monticello. John Simola noted that with the second advertisement for City Inspector, we received an additional eight applications and conducted two additional interviews. We received a total of 30 applications all together and conducted a total of 7 interviews. Simola recommended that the City hire Tom Bose at a starting salary of $26,000 contingent upon his passing a physical that is now required by City policy. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to approve tho appointment of Thomas Bose to the position of Municipal Construction Inspector at a starting salary of $26,000. Motion carried unanimously. Pago 8 6Z) Council minutes - 4/23/90 17. Consideration of hirinq a water/Collection Svstems operator to fill existinq vacancy. Administrator Wolfsteller noted that Rich Cline, a current City employee, and an applicant from North Dakota are prime candidates for this position. At this time, the staff recommendation is to hire Rich Cline for the position; however, Wolfsteller noted that the applicant from North Dakota has excellent qualifications and appears to be more qualified for the position. At the same time, however, Rich Cline has done a good job for the City in his current position and will likely be able to achieve the same level of expertise as the other candidate with training and time on the job. In addition, Rich Cline is the candidate that the Water Superintendent has selected as his favorite candidate. Shirley Anderson noted that Rich Cline has been injured in the past on the job. Will the injury affect his ability to do the job? John Simola reported that Rich is off restrictions and should be able to fulfill all job duties. Shirley Anderson asked if this job is easier than his job with the streets department. Simola stated that both positions require heavy lifting on occ3yiora. Ken Maus noted that Rich Cline has not missed work for a long period of time, and he is comfortable that Rich has overcome his physical problems. Ken Maus noted that the City should recognize the desire of individuals to transfer or move up from within the organization. Warren Smith was uncomfortable with hiring an individual that is not the best qualified for the position. He noted that maybe it makes sense to bring a better qualified person in from the outside. Dan Slonigon suggested that we transfer Rich Cline from his present position to the new position and advertise for Rich's old position. Fran Fair noted that Rich is a good employee, and his personality and skills are known and as such could make him just as qualified as the candidate from North Dakota. page 9 02, Council Minutes - 4/23/90 After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, to transfer Rich Cline to the position of Water/Wastewater Collection Systems Operator. voting In favor: Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Warren Smith stated that he is opposed because he does not feel that we are hiring the best person for the job given the information presented. After discussion, motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Warren Smith, to authorize advertisement for the position vacated in the transfer of Rich Cline to the position of Water/Wastewater Collections Systems Operator. 18. Consideration of proclaiming Mau 6-12 "Drinking Water Week." Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to proclaim May 6-12 as "Drinking Water Week" in Monticello. Motion carried unanimously. 19. Approval of bills. Motion made by Warren Smith, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to apprc•:c bills as submitted. 20. Other matters. June 4 was designated as the day of the annual joint meeting between city Council and all City commissions. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jefg O'Neill Assistant Administrator Pago 10 e Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Consideration of appeal on a public nuisance order. Applicant, Luke Torell. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Luke Torell, 107 Marvin Elwood Road, was cited for a public nuisance, a non-current licensed car, on March 30, 1990. Mr. Torell did not license his automobile within ten days, and the Wright County Sheriff's Department was notified on April 10, 1990, to have a Wright County Deputy stop by and ticket Mr. Torell for a non-current licensed vehicle. In talking with the Sheriff's Deputy, Mr. Torell had put the tabs that were for this public nuisance car on one of his personal 'cars that he has been driving. When he was stopped for some type of violation, they found that he had the wrong tabs on the wrong car. The Sheriff's Department explained that the correct tabs were now on that car, so it is a licensed automobile. On April 20, 1990, we sent Mr. Torell a new public nuisance letter indicating he had a licensed, immovable car. The car was up on blocks just like it was on March 30, 1990; so it appeared to me, as the Zoning Administrator, that the car was immovable. On April 22, 1990, 1 received an appeal letter from Mr. Torell indicating he would nice to appeal the public nuisance for which he is being cited. Enclosed is a copy of his official appeal. Mr. Torell explains that the car does run, but it cannot be moved under its own power because it is up on blocks and it does not have a clutch In it. A. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Acknowledge Mr. Toreii's appeal and give him additional days to keep the licensed, immovable car at his property. 2. Acknowledge Mr. Torell's appeal but do not give him any additional days to keep the licensed, immovable car at his residence. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is a tough request for which to make a recommendation. Yes, the applicant does keep the vehicle to the rear -most portion of his property behind a storage shod. Currently, the vehicle is immovable and cannot run under its own power. if Mr. Toroll, indeed, does intend to use this car for racing and does have it entered in a certain period of events during the summer racing season, maybe one would consider allowing him to Council Agenda - 5/14/90 keep it there during the summer. But Mr. Torell does have a two -automobile garage. If this car is that valuable as he explains it is, it is probably in his best interest to keep the vehicle under cover to keep it from being subject to possible vandalism and elements of the weather while left outside in its current location. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the official appeal by Mr. Luke Torell; Copy of the March 30, 1990, public nuisance letter; Copy of the April 20, 1990, public nuisance letter. 0 y/ iso �cisons,, /� � /j/Lv f �iC�,,•ov/A� or A/7 Goil�/�i-"o.v e e 0 Lac%o/ df ALL 74'ocs /Jr y / Gr► r �^tTS y %14S or/, "Q T Sc�i��iil�� �14P 4 ,.y9 G . ""Z/ e "�i!D'!/4 � /S � /%OGS t/j/o!/O /j d�SD ' /S GOrll��•�'G7� A Givrx/c /e. — �rrf,ire-- %I/Gea�pr/y- btc.� /yJOA sar/ YY/ /r1.� �H�� rOro� cel- o? �Or is/r.'�y ora'' �►/so p'o.�►�-'' AcG J GOu/a, q�Sa �71- /�'r"f `p r °S�rrGG o 7' 1lo �:� �s-�if/ seri%/,;,. �:-7/ ,;yJ ..r /t/E'"/�' �,,�e,. fr-.�r��vs ,�s•� �i jos Gori ,1 _7i,,�','o?-17 • 4 1" /1�i�. �Z' ` ?le411 Ke, � 704 far . fy/fie / �I� �r•,,r� ,� ,��� �,dr,� . ;SO/ e Otic/ _ L�jliY`� Af• ►�r Plee401'Z. S��i�,y%►r�.�.�,L-rte. G rho �- Cdr C�l.►- �,il/r�.e. /�/J� r/'o/u,�✓ tf�s, Gvii� tvo�/� X -e ford 44? e Br„ er- /� /T/lfo �f�iosvj �✓l�i,'� !�- �=� 7!i/r CU 7-1-1 CHAPTER 1 PUBLIC NUISANCES SECTION: 7-1-1: Activities, Business Prohibited 7-1-2: Exceptions 7-1-3: Public Nuisance 7-1-4: Enforcement 7-1-1 7-1-1: ACTIVITIES, BUSINESS PROHIBITED: Subsequent to the enactment hereof, the following acts, conditions, activities, business or businesses are hereby prohibited except as hereinafter permitted: (A) No unwholesome substance, garbage, refuse, offal, or similar substances shall be brought, deposited, left, dumped, or allowed to accumulate within the City. For purposes of this section of the City Ordinances entitled "Public Nuisances," refuse shall include but not be limited to the following or similar items stored or parked outside: 1. Passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, and other vehicles not currently licensed (if applicable) by the State which are, because L of mechanical deficiency, incapable of movement under their own power; 2. Passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, and other vehicles which are currently licensed by the State but, because of mechanical deficiency, are incapable of operation on a public street or highway under their own power, or passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, and other vehicles which are capable of operation under their own power but which are not currently licensed by the State, when stored or parked outside for more than 30 days, unless prior to the expiration of the 30 days the owner of said vehicle petitions the City Council for and the City Council grants an extension of the time limit on outside storage. In reviewing such application, the City Council shall consider: a) the number of such vehicles stored on the petitioner's property; b) the condition of the vehicles for which the extension is sought and the hazzards posed by such vehicles to public health and safety; C) the effect of said vehicles on neighboring property and property owners; 3. Household appliances such as but not limited to washing machines, dryers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, television and radio sots, phonographs, and similar items, vehicle parts, old machinery, machinery parts, tires, tin cans, bottles, building materials (unless current building permit for their use is in force), wood (unless used for fire wood and neatly stacked), metal, or any other material or case off material, and similar items. (3/26/90 •184) 0 X R 250 Fast Broadway ,Monticello, 'AN 553629245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 ,Lfeuo: (612) 333.5739 DATE: March 30, 1990 OWNER: Luke Torell 107 Marvin Elwood Road Monticello, MN 55362 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 155-026-001040 Block 1, Lot 4 Anders Wilhelm Addition Dear Luke Torell: A violation of Monticello City Ordinance 7-1-1 has been cited at the above property description. x Non current licensed motor vehicle. Non current licensed recreational vehicle. Refuse. Household appliance. Building materials. Other. Please remove or eliminate the nuisance noted above within LO days of this notice. A violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $700.00 and by imprisonment in the County jail of not more than 90 days. If the ordinance violation is not corrected within 10 days, the matter will be referred to the County Sheriff or City Attorney for further action. A copy of the above -referenced ordinance is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF MONTICELLO Gazcy Anderson Zoning Administrator 0 ktON-IICELLO DATE: April 20, 1990 OWNER: Luke Torell 250 East Broadwav 107 Marvin Elwood Road Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Monticello, !LN 55362 Phone: (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 LEGA-L DESCRIPTION: 155-026-001070 Block 1, Lot 7, Anders Wilhelm Addition Dear Luke Torell, A violation of Monticello City Ordinance 7-1-1 has been cited at the above property description. Non current licensed motor vehicle. r Non current licensed recreational vehicle. Refuse. Household appliance. Building materials. Other. Licensed Immovable Car Please remove or eliminate the nuisance noted above within 10 days of this notice. A violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $700.00 and by imprisonment in the County jail of not more than 90 days. If the ordinance violation is not corrected within 10 days, the matter will be referred to the County Sheriff or City Attorney for further action. A copy of the above -referenced ordinance is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincorely, CITY OF MONTICELLO Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator O Council Agenda - 5/14/90 5. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a daycare (headstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. Applicant, First Baptist Church/Wright County Community Action Headstart Program. (G.A.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The First Baptist Church, formerly Temple Baptist Church, has been approached by the Wright County Community Action Group to start a headstart program in a portion of the existing First Baptist Church building. The proposed use is allowable only as a conditional use subject to nine conditions within an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. The Wright County Community Action Group is proposing t o start a headstart program with operation days similar to the school district, mid-September to mid-May. There will be two sessions of classes held each day with the children transported to the facility in a small school type bus and then transported back to their homes at the end of each day's session. There will be no other vehicles used at this site with the exception of two school teachers and two headstart program teachers. The existing site to be serviced with off-street parking and loading/unloading requirements is in the process of a five- year program to be completed within a five-year time Spdn wiLh the First Baptist Church, the owners of the property. At the time of the proposed request, therewill. be no hard surfacing or curbing done on this parking lot which is to be used by the Wright County Community Action Group. The children in this headstart program will be utilizing the existing East 4th Street Park facilities. In speaking with Arlene Wirth, representative of this group, she voiced complete agreement in meeting all nine of the conditions listed in the conditional use application. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a daycare (hoadstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a daycare (headstart program) in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With this proposed use of the First Baptist Church being used primarily other than the times that the church is in session, Council Agenda - 5/14/90 certain rooms would be used for a headstart program being operated during the school year. City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request with the applicants meeting all of the nine conditions related to this conditional use request. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy of the ordinance section listing the nine conditions of an R-2 zone; Copy of the memo from Wright County Community Action. [D] Day Care - group nursery provided that: 1. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily. 2. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet. J. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter J, Section 5 of this Ordinance. d. Adequate off-street loading and service enLrm uvea ntu pYuv ial sal lu aumpliauee with Chapter 3, Section 6 of this Ordinance. 5. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. 6. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter J, Section 9 of this Ordinance. 7. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily mot. 8. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare, Public welfare Manuel 11-31-30 an adopted, amended and/or changed are satisfactorily mot. 9. A written indication of preliminary, pending or final license approval from the regulatory welfare agency in supplied to the City. 9 WRIGHT COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. Community Action Building Box 39 t Waverly, Minnesota 55390 (612) 658-4415 MEMO DATE: April 13, 1990 T0: Residents of Monticello living near the First Baptist Church FROM: Arlene Wirth 0 Director of the WCCA Head Start Program We are applying for a conditional use permit to use one (1) classroom at the Baptist Church for a Head Start Center. I feel that you should have some basic information about what Head Start is and how it will impact your neighborhood. Head Start is a program that provides a comprehensive, preschool education to enrolled 3. 4 & 5 year old children from low income families in the Monticello area. A Head Start Mini -bus picks up the children from their h== =-a brings them to the center site four (4) days n week dllring the regular school year. Children are given a snack, and lunch along with a planned educational curriculum. There will be two class sessions offered, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. A total of about eighteen (18) children will be attending each session. Three Head Start staff will be on site to supervise and instruct the class. Children are indoors most of the time. When outdoors, they are constantly under staff supervision. They would be using the city park across the street for their outdoor play area. Head Start provides a quality program that is beneficial to the children, families and community. If you have any questions or concerns, please caLl me of 658-4415 or Pastor Sams at 295-3552. 0 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow retail commercial activity in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKMV Partnership/21st Century Builders. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: JKMV Partnership, along with 21st Century Builders, requests that the Planning Commission and City Council consider allowing retail activity to occur in a PZM zone as a conditional use. The Planning Commission has scheduled a special meeting and will be conducting a public hearing regarding this matter at 5:30 p.m., May 14, 1990. City Council will be reviewing this item immediately following the special meeting of the Planning Commission. Staff will be reporting on the Planning Commission's recommendation as part of the presentation of this item to Council. As you recall, Council previously denied consideration of a development plan for the area which included closing of Cedar Street and relocation of utilities. As a result of this decision and based upon additional input from City staff, a new site plan has been prepared for City review. The following is a brief review of the purpose of the PZM zone along with a review of the site plan. PZM Zone Purpose (taken from comments made by City Planner) The purpose and intent of the PZM district clearly calls for development that is sensitive to the surrounding area and environment and must produce a creative and innovative development with aesthetic controls as a transition between high density residential and low intensity commercial. Maus Foods would be considered a high intensity commercial, and a continuation of high intensity commercial activity Is not the Intention of the PZM district. The district also clearly intends to preserve open space and unique characteristics of the surrounding land and must address all of these issues through a complete submittal. An important part of the PZM district is to create significant separation between commercial activity and residential development. As the area directly north of the proposed shopping center is residential, including the railroad right- of-way, a significant setback of berming and landscaping would be anticipated. Also, woodland preservation is part of the review, much of which has already boon removed from the site prior to submittal. Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Setback requirements within the PZM are, as a minimum, those requirements found in the zone most similar to the development proposed. The perimeter setbacks can be increased as needed by the City of Monticello to properly integrate the development into the community considering the guidelines of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW The characteristics of the new site plan for the most part are consistent with the suggestions made by the City Planner. Included in the new plan are greater setback distances between adjoining properties, additional landscaping, and a reduction in the size of the structure. In addition, the structure has to be turned 90 degrees so that it will now face Highway 25. This was also a suggestion made by the City Planner. Setbacks The proposed plan meets all building setback minimums for the B-3 zone. No formal setback requirements are in place for the PZM district. As you can see on the attached site plan, the project calls for a 10 -foot setback parking/drive area and adjoining residential areas. Trees and other landscaping plantings will be placed in the 10 -foot setback areas along the northern and eastern boundaries of the properties. The final landscaping plan is not available at this time. Landscapinq The landscape plan shows approximately 40 trees, which meets the minuimum level of tree plantings had this development been located In a B-3 zone. Since the development is located In a PZM zone, the City at its discretion may require additional landscaping for the purpose of creating a buffer between commercial and residential uses. It is suggested that the City Planner provide some input into the design of the landscape plan and assist the City in determining to what extent additional plantings are necessary to create the proper separation between commercial and residential land uses. The City/Planning Commission could approve the conditional use permit subject to such a review. Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Access Drives The site plan submitted calls for development of an access drive that is 5 feet from the 5th Street right-of-way/BN tracks. According to City ordinance, driveways must be located at least 40 feet from a City right-of-way; therefore, this portion of the site plan does not comply with City ordinance. It is suggested in one of the proposed conditions associated with this conditional use permit that the developer simply move the entrance 40 feet from the property line, or the entrance could be eliminated altogether. It should be noted that an entrance to Cedar Street at such a close proximity to the railroad tracks might be creating a traffic hazard. For instance, vehicles turning north onto Cedar Street from the access might have some difficulty seeing train traffic coming from the east. To what extent this potential traffic hazard is a bona fide problem is difficult to say given the infrequency of train traffic. In addition, truck traffic servicing Maus Foods currently utilizes Cedar Street for maneuvering space during the process entering and exiting Maus Foods' loading berths. Using City right-of-way for maneuvering space should be discouraged, as a traffic hazard is created when trucks are backing and turning on City right-of-way. The presence of the drive area across the street might encourage the use of the drive for additional maneuvering space, which might result in a worsening of the existing poor traffic situation. The site plan also calls for development of an access drive on the south side of the parking lot which is off -set from the 6th Street right-of-way. The site plan should be improved by realigning this drive to match 6th Street. Alignment with 6th Street would allow vehicles entering the development from 6th Street to simply cross Cedar rather than cross diagonally in an unsafe manner. Moving the drive as proposed would also require that the parking displaced by the drive be moved to the south of the access drive. Parkinq Spaces The plan shows 124 stalls, which is consistent with ordinance requirements. Demolition Debris on 5th Street Right-of-way It is my understanding that demolition debris, including tree stumps, possibly construction material, and other unknown materials, was burled in an area along the northern property Council Agenda - 5/14/90 line and within the 5th Street right-of-way. This material was buried without authorization after verbal notification to the contractor (Veit Construction of Rogers, MN) by City staff that this was not permitted. Consequently, at some time in the future, this may need to be removed. This material will decompose and could affect the stability of the railroad or if 5th Street is ever developed; or if a utility line such as storm sewer is installed at the dump location, the debris may cause settlement and would need to be excavated and replaced with good fill material. At the present time, however, the presence of the debris is not creating a noticeable problem. It is suggested that one of the conditions require that the property owner remove the debris material in the event it becomes necessary to do so. This responsibility could be formally recorded against the property. The City Council could also require removal of the material with the development to assure no future problems. Summary It appears clear that the site plan, with some modifications as noted above, is consistent with the goal and intent of the PZM zone. Following under alternative #1 is a list of conditions that Council may wish to attach to the conditional use permit. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve conditional use permit request subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of final landscaping and berming plan creating effective transition between commercial and residential properties as determined by the City Planner. A bond in the amount of 1009 of the cost to install borming and landscaping shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of a building pormlL. 2. Development of a retaining wall shall be accompanied by installation of a safety fence for the purpose of eliminating access to the edge of the retaining wall. Fence shall be made of weather resistant material and be at least 6 feet high. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage and retaining wall construction plans shall be approved City onginoer. Council Agenda - 5/14/90 4. Southerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be aligned with 6th Street. 5. Northerly most access onto Cedar Street shall be moved 40 feet to the south or eliminated. 6. A document identifying the approximate location of demolition or unknown material on the 5th Street right-of-way and designating the property owner as the party responsible for removal of the debris and restoration shall be recorded against the property. This would require someone in the future to be responsible when and if problems develop. 2. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit request. If the applicants are not willing or able to satisfy the conditions noted, then the Planning Commission/Council may elect to deny the conditional use permit process. Condition number 5 is the only condition that would need a variance prior to final approval. If Planning Commission elect" to eliminate condition number 5 as one of the conditions, then the applicants would need to obtain a varianco. This process would require an additional public hearing process. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request subject to conditions noted in alternative Al and any other conditions that Planning Commission/Council might add. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Site plan. 9 Numbers /tq),fCh Re sidential too' M-1 Vacant %III RAN STUDY r. We Mfw moon Imli sidential too' M-1 Vacant Council Agenda - 5/14/90 7. Consideration of approval of preliminary and final plat of Kirkman addition. (KMART) Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. ( J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this matter on 5/1/90 and recommends to Council that the preliminary plat of Kirkman Addition be approved. If no changes to the preliminary plat are necessary, Council is also asked to consider approval of the final plat as well. The Lincoln Companies and the City of Monticello are joining together toward development of a plat that will "clean-up" a complex set of legal descriptions associated with the K -Mart development area. Incorporated into the plat are properties now owned by the City (formerly owned by Holthous and Pratt) and The Lincoln Companies. The plat includes street and easement dedication areas associated with the 7th Street improvement project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve preliminary and final plat of Kirkman Addition. ; (SAL: Approval of the plat is important, as it includes dedication of the 7th Street right-of-way. This dedication makes the 7th Street improvement project possible. II ^�}iu."4-he prclimirary and final plat meet City requlrFments with one II .r`�yLi exception. Due to a conflict between the K -Mart site plan and the original design of the 7th Street right-of-way, the K -Mart site C slightly overlaps a portion of the standard 80' right-of-way. At L��•(i;li�y the point of overlap, the right-of-way is reduced; however, a road `lar easement has been granted to the City in lieu of the full 80 -foot width. Although this situation is not ideal, staff views this discrepancy as being somewhat benign. Also, a 6' side yard utility eosement along the eastern boundary of the K -Mart is not included on the plat, as The Lincoln Companies has already boon awarded a variance which allowed a zero lot line at this location. 2. Motion to deny approval of preliminary plat of Kirkman Addition. City Council should select this alternative if problems with the plat are discovered. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,: Staff recommends approval of tho preliminary and final plat, as the Kirkman plat cleans up a complex set of motes and bounds legal descriptions. In addition, plat development is a requirement of the development agreement between the City and The Lincoln Companies. And finally, the plat is in sufficient compliance with the standards noted C In the subdivision ordinance. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of final plat --Kirkman Addition. 10 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 a. Consideration of rezoning request of land south of realigned 7th Street right-of-way from PZM (performance zone mixed) to B-3 (hiqhway business) zoninq. Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On May 1, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this matter and recommended to Council that the proposed rezoning be approved. The proposed amendment to the zoning map is a non- controversial item which calls for changing the zoning map to reflect the final alignment of the 7th Street right-of-way. As you may recall, the 7th Street right-of-way was originally planned to swing toward the freeway as it was extended west from Locust Street. All points to the south of this original alignment are zoned under the B-3 category. All points to the north of this original alignment fall under the PZM category. The 7th Street alignment which was adopted is not in the same position as the original alignment; therefore, it makes sense to adjust the zoning map accordingly. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. , Notion to approve the proposed zoning map amendment. N"` , Motion based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the geographical character of the area �1 and that the original intent of the zoning ordinance was to utilize 7th Street as the boundary between the PZM zone and the B-3 zone; therefore, it makes sense to change the zoning map to match the final alignment of 7th Street. Motion to deny ordinance amendment. Denial of the ordinance amendment would leave a sliver of PZM property between the B-3 zone and the 7th Street right-of-way. The configuration of this sliver of land would render it useless for development. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Zoning map showing existing 7th Street boundary line and proposed boundary lino. m R- 411 00, ! Two .• 5 , r Jj �••�.4,t «�-f ��~ µ y.v ' �•�'�'Ot"'+1''.' ' �.}� e } 7� (`� JijB�J �J c! \ � �' ' �..:.:1 .J�''°1.�,� J1 1t]•� � (^ "'�tie,,,jcc 77 �. SCHOOL, • �,r• .^t ;ems • �.Jy,, t� .t �j }� M't yj '- ii.^ � „, l c, �'�''� �' p ..� ��� • ��• 4e:_ �r M . T�. , t --i lam" t„i l�R+�J 1•: �t�S�r� _ '11FF ��'S.� .• �' ,�•M `.... (`,{ �4t (.� r, 'fit. t'..^�=� t , '•-n a��•�iti�': •i tt+?rte F�« `t'il^' �jit)� f. ..�r�.% 1 J• tii (•;.. �,� :,,,,•'pun �.. 1.•"� { ,' �. `p NIGNWAY .. 1 ! , Council Agenda - 5/14/90 9. Consideration of resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds for Tax Increment District 1-1 (7th Street Project)_ and refunding of 1983 G.O. Bond along with Meadows 2nd Addition phase II improvement. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the bid opening scheduled for May 18 for the improvement of 7th Street and Minnesota Street as part of the K -Mart project, it is now time to consider authorizing the sale of bonds to finance these improvements as part of the City's Tax Increment District 1-1. The City has already incurred costs in land acquisition for the 7th Street alignment; and with K -Mart now under construction, it is recommended that authorization be granted to sell bonds in the amount of $560,000, which is in accordance with the adopted budget within the tax increment plan. According to the adopted budget, the tax increment revenue that will be generated from the K -Mart project will be sufficient to retire the bonded indebtedness, and additional revenue will be available in the future from proposed assessments pertaining to Minnesota and 7th Street improvements that can be utilized by the City for its revolving improvement funds in the future. In discussions with Jerry Shannon of Springsted, Inc., our bond consultant, regarding this bond issue, it has been recommended by Sprinqsted that the City also consider issuing a second bond issue at the same time to be used to refund (refinance) our existing 1983 G.O. Bond that was used primarily to funs: improvements to the Meadow Oak Subdivision. The original 1983 bond was for $1,150,000 and has a remaining principal balance of $620,000 and currently has a call feature which allows us to prepay the bonds by August 1, 1990. The remaining principal has an average interest rate of over 88 interest, and it is recommended by Sprinqsted that we could refinance this bond at a lower interest rate and save interest cost in the future. It is expected that the interest rate on a refinanced issue would be 6-1/28 to 6-3/48 and save the City a substantial amount of interest over the remaining 6 years of this bond. If the Council approves the refunding authorization, it is also proposed to include an additional $100,000 to this bond lssuo for the purpose of financing the improvements to the Meadows 2nd Addition phase II improvement. Initially, I had recommended that the City could finance internally the construction costs associated with this improvement since it was a small amount; but now that we have the ability to incorporate this funding requirement with the refunding Issue, it makes more sense for tho City to sell bonds since the interest rates are favorable. It is proposed that the 12 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 refunding issue would be spread over 10 years, increasing the life by 4 years over the present 6 -year payment schedule. Since the Meadow Oak Subdivision has experienced an above - normal delinquency rate, the City has in the past made its bond payments by transferring funds from other bond issues with surpluses to make the payments. It is hoped that spreading this out over a longer period of time will ease the burden on the City in addition to saving us interest cost. Fortunately, the City has had surplus money to make the bond payments even with the delinquent ratio being high; but if the bond is not refinanced, the City may have to levy additional funds to make up for continued delinquencies. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolutions authorizing both bond sales, one for the 7th Street improvement in the amount of $560,000, and the second for the refinancing of 1983 bond issue and the Meadows Second Addition improvements for $730,000. 2. Adopt resolution authorizing sale of only the $560,000 7th Street improvement issue. 3. Do not adopt resolution --this does not appear to be a reasonable alternative for the 7th Street improvement since K -Mart is under construction. In regard to the refinancing of the 1983 bond issue, the City does have a choice on this issue; but it does appear feasible to save Interest expense by refinancing. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff's recommendation that both resolutions authorizing the sale of $560,000 and $730,000 be approved. The 7th Street improvement project will be covered by tax increments generated from the K -Mart project, and the refinancing of the 1983 bond issue makes economic sense and also allows the City to finance the improvements to the Meadows 2nd Addition without using our capital revolving outlay fund monies. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of recommendations from Springsted concerning both bond sales; Resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds. G� 13 N ,\ C� Recommendations For City of Monticello, Minnesota $560,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990A $730,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1990B Study No. 3641 SPRINGSTED Incorporated May 10. 1990 F111", SPRINGSTED PUSUC FINANCE ADVISORS 65 East Savemh Placa Stmo 100 SaIn1 Paul, IAN 55101.2143 (612) 2233000 Fo,: 612.223.3002 May 10, 1990 Mr. Ken Maus, Mayor Members, City Council Mr. Rick WoBsteller, Administrator City Hall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of: $560,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds. Series 1990A $730,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19908 We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the Issuance of these bonds according to the terms and conditions set forth In the attached proposed Official Terms of Offerings. In these recommendations we will discuss each issue separately and then we will discuss items common to each Issue. 01 $560,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1990A The proceeds of this issue will be used to Improve roadways along 7th Street and Minnesota Avenue and the acquisition of right-of-way facilitating those Improvements. The improvements will take place within Tax Increment Financing District 1-1 and benefit primarily the K Mart development. The project costs of this program are set forth in Appendix I. The security for the debt service of this issue Is provided from projected increment Income to be received from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1 and the City's Development District No. 1. As a supplement to the anticipated Increment Income, it Is anticipated that approximately $235,000 of project cost may be assessed against benefited property. While these assessments are not specifically pledged to the debt service of this Issue, they may be used in the event Increment Income Is Insufficient to provide 100% of debt service. It is anticipated that K Mart will have their facility up and open by late fall this year and further, that the full value of the facility will be on the tax rolls as of January 2, 1991. The first increment, therefore, will not be received by, the City until 1992. Since this is an economic development district, the length of the district will run for a period not to exceed ton years from the date of approval of the plan or eight years of increment, whichever Is lose. The district was approved on March 12, 1990 and therefore ton years from that date will be March 12, 2000. The first Increment will be received in 1992 and the last Increment to be received will be in 1999. Therefore, the district will close no later than March 12, 2000. hdana OOmo hnf= Otsa M=0Irxl W to 135 Na101 617OU 0600 CW. 000 W.0'wd 500 Elm Grow Rana Su;O 2015 swo GOD Sabo 101 lna.ann;W.z, aJ 413204.2498 Ovortlnd Palk. FS 662114533 Cm Grove. WI 531"-0037 (317) G84 GOOD 101.'0345-8002 (414) 71328222 Pa• 317044 0004 f a• (913) 345-1770 Pa, 414-7.82.29D4 04? City of Monticello, Minnesota May 10, 1990 Since revenues will not be received until June of 1992 it is necessary to provide capitalized interest in the principal amount of the bond issue to pay interest on the bonds from their dated date. July 1, 1990, through February 1, 1992. Based on current Interest rates it is anticipated the total capitalized interest for the issue will be $59,500. Based on the aforementioned, Appendix II is the recommended maturity schedule for the tax increment bonds. These bonds will be dated July 1, 1990 end mature each February 1 from 1993 through 2000. Columns 1$ show the years and amounts of principal and estimated interest on the obligations. Column 7 shows the capitalized interest included in the bond issue and will be used to meet the interest payments through February 1, 1992. Column 9 shows the annual debt service requirement including a five percent overlevy. This overlevy is a protection to the City and the bondholder in the event 100% of the revenues are not received. Column 10 is the projection of increment Income based on the completed estimated value of the property and the current certified original tax capacity rate for the City. You will note in Column 11 that there is an estimated cumulativo surplus to be generated throughout this program and a tax levy is not anticipated. Since the City approved the tax increment financing plan and requested certification of original value prior to April 30, 1990 the provisions contained in the tax increment financing plan are not affected by the tax law changes recently enacted by the legislature. $730,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 19908 The proceeds of this issue will be used to finance the new Improvement costs associated with the Meadows Second Addition, Phase II project and to refinance the outstanding principal of the 1983 improvement bonds. The composition of this Issue is set forth in Appendix III. The Meadows Second Addition has a total estimated cost of $130,400. It is anticipated that 100% of these costs will be assessed against benefited property with the assessments filed this year and spread over ten years requiring equal annual payments of principal with interest charged on the unpaid balance at a rate of approximately 1 1/2% above the bond rate. For purposes of estimation of assessment Income we have used a rate of 8 1/2% on the assessments. You will note in the composition of the Issue In Appendix 111 that $35,000 of project costs will be payable from other sources. In 1989 the City Issued its improvement bonds to finance various projects and approximately $35,000 still remains as unspent bond proceeds. It Is the intention of the City to use these unspent proceeds to reduce the financing requirement of this Issue. Therefore, the assessments that aro spread against benefited property for the Meadows project should be allocated in the amount of $35,000 to the 1989 Issue and $95,000 of assossmonts will be attributable to the 1990 Issue. Appendix IV sots forth the projection of assessment Income assuming $95,400 of project costs will be attributable and assigned to this bond Issue. Appendix V is the recommended maturity schedule had this Issue boon financed on Its own and not Incorporated in the ovorall improvement bonds to be sold. In May 1983, the City sold Its Improvement bonds in the amount of $1,150,000 for project 82- 2. It was anticipated at the time of issuance that approximately $350,000 of the $900,000 potential assessments may be delinquent for a period of at least Ove years. The maturity schedule of that Issue was structurod based on that assumption. The anticipation of delinquent assessments for that Issue have come to reality and those assessments In at least that amount aro still dolinquont. The bonds outstanding are at a rate of 8.17% and aro Pago 2 (D City of Monticello, Minnesota May 10, 1990 currently eligible for prepayment based on current market conditions. We anticipate those bonds could be refinanced at a rate of slightly less than seven percent. In order to meet the differential between assessment income, limited as it is, and the required debt service, the City has been using a temporary transfer of other available funds of the City to meet all of the payments. To our knowledge, the City has not levied taxes as yet to cover these deficiencies. We assume the City makes a careful analysis to assure that such transfers will not impair the City's ability to meet its ongoing commitments. Since these payments are made from temporary transfers, the City expects reimbursement of not only the principal amount o1 the transfer, but also interest accrued at the average rate o1 the City's investments. In an effort to provide a smaller need for the amount of City contribution from available funds and to allow for a potential for restructuring the assessments we have structured a new refinancing program for all o1 the bonds subject to call. The total amount o1 bonds outstanding is $620,000. To this we have added $15,000 for associated issuance costs and allowance for discount bidding. As it is assuned the City may extend the term of the delinquent assessments in order to facilitate the development of this property, we have extended the final maturity for the refinancing of this issue to coincide with the maturity schedule for the Meadows Second Addition financing program. Rather than having a final maturity to occur in 1996 as currently scheduled, we have extended the final maturity to 2010. Should the term of the assessments not be extended, and the property is either sold or goes to tax forfeiture, we have provided a call feature in the issue to allow for prepayment. The restructured financing program appears on Appendix Vi. As with the previous maturity schedules, Columns 1-7 show the years and amounts of principal and estimated interest due on these bonds including the Me percent overlevy. Column 8 shows the current debt service requirement for the 1993 Improvement bonds. Column 9 shows the estimated cumulative additional costs the City will Incur in refinancing those bonds. Column 10 shows the annual savings or the reduction in the amounts necessary to be provided to moot actual debt service requirements. Column 11 shows the cumulative savings or the cumulative net cash outflow the City would not Incur with the refinancing. It Is generally not fiscal policy to extend current debt based on vague anticipated generation of future revenues. Howovor, in view of the fact that there is a distinct probability that assessments will be forthcoming for this Issuo, we fool It Is prudent for the City to restructure this Issue In anticipation of those potential rocoipts as wall as to have a financing program in place in which It can roadily assist a developer in finishing the project and bringing it to its rightful culmination. The combined Improvement bond is sot forth in Appondix VII. Common to Both leauee Included In the principal amount of each Issue Is a provision for an allowance for discount bidding. The City has used this morkoting tool In the past and we recommend Its continued use heroin. The discount provides the underwriters with all or part of their profit and/or working capital for purchasing the bonds and allows them to rooffor the bonds to the Investing public at a price close to par. With the inclusion of the allowance for discount bidding, we anticipate the Interest rates for the bonds will be competitive for other bonds offered throughout the state. Pago 3 0 City of Monticello, Minnesota May 10, 1990 i We recommend you authorize Springsted Incorporated to appy for a rating of these Issues from Moody's Investors Service of New York. Moody's will charge a fee of approximately $3.000 for this service and they will bill the City directly. We have provided for this cost as part of the Issuance costs associated with both issues. We recommend the bonds maturing on or after February 1, 1997 be subject to payment in advance of their stated maturity on February 1, 1996 and any date thereafter at a price of par and accrued Interest. With the Inclusion of the allowance for discount bidding, we do not feel this aggressive call feature will impair the marketability of the bonds. We recommend bids be taken on these bonds at our offices on Monday, June 11, 1990 at 1:00 P.M. Subsequent to the receipt of those bids we will tabulate the results and present them to the City Council for consideration of award at your regularly, scheduled meeting at 7:00 P.M. that same evening. A representative of Springsted will attend the meeting to provide recommendations as to the acceptability of bids received. Respectfully submitted, �SPRINGSTIncor orated P mjh Ce Page 4 (9 CITY OF MONTICELLO C; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1.1 (K MART) COMP0SI110N OF BOND ISSUE V Land Acquisition Public Improvements Contingencies Professional Services Administrative/Issuance Capitalized Interest Allowance for Discount Total Costs Less Available Funds Total Bond Issue $120,000 366,500 3,400 5,000 35,000 59,500 7.000 $5,96,400 $560,000 • Project is expected to be fully on tax rolls as of 1.2.91 • First collection of taxes to be received In 1992 • Lest year of collection 1999 • District approved March 12, 19W • District Terminates March 12, 2000 • Estimated Tax Capacity at Completion $124,740 Less Original Tax Capacity 2.311 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity $122,429 Original Tax Capacity Rate 81.843% Estimated Increment Income $100,199 • There is no adjustment factor for the original tax capacity base. APPENDIX I Pago 5 /,% Cl) CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared May 9, 1990 $560,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incorporated TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1990 A Bated: 7. 1.1990 Mature: 2. 1 Total Capital- Net Projectod Year of Year of Principal ized Levy 105 Increment Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest 8 Interest Interest Required of Total Income Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (9) (9) (10) (11) 1989 1991 0 0.00% 21,660 21,660 22,000 0 0 0 340 1990 1992 0 0.00% 37,132 37,132 37,500 0 0 0 708 1991 1993 55,000 8.25% 37,132 92,132 0 92,132 96,739 100,190 4,159 1992 1994 60,000 0.35% 33,694 93,694 0 93,894 98,379 100,190 5,970 1993 1995 65,000 8.45% 29,884 94,884 0 94,884 99,628 100,190 6,532 1994 1996 70,000 6.55% 25,691 95,691 0 95,691 100,476 100,190 6,246 1995 1997 70,000 6.65% 21,106 91,106 0 91,106 95,661 100,190 10,775 1996 1998 75,000 6.75% i6,451 91,451 0 91,451 98,024 100,190 14,941 1997 1999 80,000 8.85% 11,388 91,388 0 91,388 95,957 100,190 19,174 1998 2000 85,000 6.95% 5,908 90,908 0 90,908 85,453 100,190 23,911 TOTALS: 560,000 240,046 800,046 59,500 741,254 778,317 801,520 Bond Years: 3,576.67 Annual Interest: 240,046 Avg. Maturity: 6.39 Plus Discount: 7,000 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.711% Not Interest: 247,046 N.I.C. Rate: 6.907% Interest rates are estimates; changos may cause Significant alterations of this schedule. m 9 Ino actual undor.ritor'e discount Old may also very. _ O tAr m o1 C 64 C� APPENDIX III CITY OF MONTICELLO 19110 IMPROVEMENT BONDS COMPUTATION OF ISSUE Meadows Second Addition, Phase II Sanitary Sewer $ 38,000 Water 30,000 Streets 49,400 Storm Sewer 13.000 Subtotal $130,400 Less Funds Available (35.0001 Net Required $ 95,400 Principal Outstanding 1983 Improvement Bonds 620,000 Additional Issuance Costs 5,475 Allowance for Discount 9.125 Total Bond Issue $730,000 Meadows Second Addition, Phase 11 total costs to be assessed by 10.1-90 over ten years at 1.5% above bond rate or 8.50%. Allocation will be $95,400 to this Issue with the remaining $35,000 allocated to the I M Issue. The 1983 Improvement Bonds will be refinanced to take advantage of lower rates (curron:ly o=standing at 8.17%) and to rostructuro cash flour duo to delinquent assessment payments. Page 7 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared May 9, 1990 MEADOW 2nd ADDITION, PHASE 2 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated ALLOCATION TO 1990 IMPROVEMENT BONDS PROJECTED ASSESSMENT INCOME a) Incluaos interest from tiling date to 12/31/1991. m to CD CD O J V�; a m z 0 C MEADOWS 2nd PHASE 2 Filing Date: 10/ 1/1990 Filing Collect Interest Year ..... Year ....... Principal ......... @ 8.500% ........ Total ..... 1990 1991 9,540 10,153a 19,693 1991 1992 9,540 7,298 16,838 1992 1993 9,540 6,487 16,027 1993 1994 9,540 5,676 15,216 1994 1995 9,540 4,865 14,405 1995 1996 9,540 4,055 13,595 1996 1997 9,540 3,244 12,784 1997 1998 9,540 2,433 11,973 1998 1999 9,540 1,622 11,162 1999 2000 9,540 811 10,351 TOTALS 95,400 46,644 142,044 a) Incluaos interest from tiling date to 12/31/1991. m to CD CD O J V�; a m z 0 C 0 J CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared May 9, 1990 595,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incorporated IMPROVEMENT BONDS, MEADOWS ALLOCATION Dated: 7- 1.1990 Mature: 2- 1 Total Projected Cumulative Year of Year of Principal 105% Assessment Net Cumulative Levy Mat. Principal Rates Interest 6 Interest of Total Income Requirement Surplus (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (6) (9) (10) 1989 1991 0 6.15% 3,648 3,646 3,830 0 3,830 0 1990 1992 10,000 6.20% 6,253 16,253 17,066 19,693 0 2,627 1991 1993 10,000 6.25% 5,633 15,633 16,415 16,638 0 3,050 1992 1994 10,000 6.35% 5,008 15,008 15,758 16,027 0 3,319 1993 1995 10,000 6.45% 4,373 14,373 15,092 15,216 0 3,443 1994 1996 10,000 6.55% 3,728 13,728 14,414 14,405 0 3,434 1995 1997 10,000 6.65% 3,073 13,073 13,727 13,595 0 3,302 1996 1998 10,000 6.75% 2,408 12,408 13,028 12,784 0 3,058 1997 1999 10,000 6.85% 1,733 11,733 12,320 11,973 0 2,711 1998 2000 10,000 6.95% 1,048 11,048 11,600 11,162 0 2,273 1999 2001 5,000 7.05% 353 5,353 5,621 10,351 0 7,003 TOTALS: 95,000 37,258 132,258 138,871 142,044 3,630 Bond Years: 555.42 Annual Interest: 37,258 Avg. Maturity: 5.65 Plus Discount: 1,168 Avg. Annual Rate: 6.708% Not Interest: 36,446 M.I.C. Rate: 0.922% Interest rates aro estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. Tho actual undorvritor*s discount bid may also vary. D M M v 2 �w t7 m 7i to < D-z j CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Prepared May 9, 1990 $635,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION By SPRINGSTED Incorporated IMPROVEMENT BONDS, 1983 REFINANCING Dated: 7- 1.1990 Mature: 2. 1 Total Current Cumulative Year of Year of Principal 105% Debt Sery Net Annual Cumulative Levy Nat. Principal Rates Interest 6 Interest of Total 1983 Imps Cost Savings Savings (1) (2) 13) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 19) (10) (11) 1983 1971 55,000 C.15% 24,404 79,484 83,458 149,657 0 66,199 66,199 1990 1992 45,000 6.20% 38,590 83,590 87,770 165,065 0 77,295 143,494 1991 1993 45,000 6.25% 35,800 80,800 84,840 155,440 0 70,600 214,094 1992 1994 50,000 6.35% 32,987 82,987 87,136 150,440 0 63,304 277,398 1993 1995 50,000 6.45% 29,812 79,812 83,803 64,780 0 0 258,375 1994 1996 55,000 6.55% 28,587 81,587 85,666 65,160 0 0 237,869 1995 1997 60,000 6.65% 22,984 62,984 87,133 0 0 0 150,736 1996 1998 65,000 6.75% 18,994 83,994 88,194 0 0 0 62,542 1997 1999 65,000 6.85% 14,606 79,606 83,586 0 21,044 0 0 1998 2000 70,000 6.95% 10,153 80,153 84,161 0 84,161 0 0 1999 2001 75,000 7.05% 5,288 80,288 84,302 0 84,302 0 0 TOTALS: 635,000 260,285 895,285 940,049 750,542 189,507 Bond Years: 3,845.42 Annual Interest: 260,285 Avg. Maturity: 6.06 Plus Discount: 7,938 Avg. Annual Roto: 6.769% Not Interest: 268,223 N.I.C. Rete: 6.975% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this Schedule. The actual underwriter's dlsCount bid may also vary, D b 9 2 1p m t7 Q 0 5 CITYor MONTICELLO. ■Ila4ESOTA 8130.000 OEMEIUL 081 LME ION IWROVEl9N1 BOWS. 1003 REFINANCING mud: 1� I -low Mel urs: 2 1 Prepared Yar 9, 1990 Br SMIN03YED Incorporated CuNulet Iv To"' Nn IncOY Ratlul-les (101 111) 149,637 0 164,750 0 112,276 0 160,467 0 10,9M 0 16,503 0 13,595 0 12.7- 0 11,613 77,133 11,162 Be ga 10,351 16,311 692.586 186.324 Annual Cululat TWO surpina Burp lue 1171 1191 07.369 02,389 79,07. 147,293 11,07. 713,317 63,513 276.6- 0 251,993 0 237, 948 0 ISa, 214 0 61,711 0 0 0 0 0 0 a•, m z 0 foul Current Proloct d Year of Year of Princ 1peI IOS\ 0a6t herr aa.aewnt LerY flat. Principal Rat ee Interest 8 Interest of Total 1963 lope Inose 111 171 IJI lel (81 IBI 171 181 191 1989 1991 55,000 6.15% 7.,131 83.131 81.2- 146,857 0 1900 1992 55,000 6.20% 4e, Be7 99.64 194,83. 163.ws 19,093 1991 1993 53,000 6.25\ 41,432 96.437 101.7Se 153,440 16.838 1987 1994 60.000 e.36% 31,994 97,994 107.0- 160,440 16,077 1993 IBBO 00,000 6.4311 31,194 94,194 88,093 64,190 15,216 1994 IBBB 65.000 8.65% J0,J11 95.314 100,080 65.160 u,e05 1995 1Be1 I0.000 26. ase 86,056 100,858 0 13.595 1.96 lege 15,000 6. IS\ 21,401 BB,401 lot .271 0 12.194 1997 1980 75,000 6.65% 1.,336 91,330 95,905 0 11,973 1986 2000 so.000 0.95% 11.200 91,700 95.leo 0 11.162 tm 7001 so, 000 7.05% a.640 65.640 09.922 0 10.351 10 At 9: 130.000 261,537 1,021,632 1.078.610 )00,&47 142.044 Bona Yon: 4,.00.03 Annual Inbrnt: 787,532 •v9. Usurllr: 6.03 Plus 0l.count: 6.125 Erg. A—. Pate: 0.101\ Net Int avast: 300,851 N.I.C. Date: 6.9941 Interest rates are sallsates; changei say cause significant ollenttons of this schedule. ,:*rest Yndore ller'a discount 512 YY oleo vary. Prepared Yar 9, 1990 Br SMIN03YED Incorporated CuNulet Iv To"' Nn IncOY Ratlul-les (101 111) 149,637 0 164,750 0 112,276 0 160,467 0 10,9M 0 16,503 0 13,595 0 12.7- 0 11,613 77,133 11,162 Be ga 10,351 16,311 692.586 186.324 Annual Cululat TWO surpina Burp lue 1171 1191 07.369 02,389 79,07. 147,293 11,07. 713,317 63,513 276.6- 0 251,993 0 237, 948 0 ISa, 214 0 61,711 0 0 0 0 0 0 a•, m z 0 OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $560,000 CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1 MA Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Administrator or his designee on Monday, June 11, 1990, until 1:00 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated July 1, 1990, as the data of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1991. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued In the denomination of $5,000 each, or in Integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and Interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as It appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediatoly, preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 In the years and amounts as follows: 1993 $55,000 1996 $70,000 1999 $80,000 1994 $60,000 1997 $70,000 2000 $85,000 1995 $65,000 1998 $75,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 1996, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds duo on or after February 1, 1997. Redemption may be In whole or in part and If In part, in inverse order of maturity and within a maturity by lot as solocted by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued Interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge Its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge anticipated increment Income from the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.1. The procoods will be used to flnanco the public project costs assoclatod with the City's Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.1. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not loss than $553,000 and accruod interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds, and shall be accompanied by a certified or cashior's chock In the amount of $5,560, payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said chock has not boon C received. The City will deposit the chock of the purchasor, the amount of which will be doductod at sottiomont and no Interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be rotainod by the City. No bid can be Pago 12/ � 1 withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction o1 the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds quality for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, Including a no -litigation certificate. On the data of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of tho City or Its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made Impossible by action of the City, or Its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the Cly for any loss suffered by the City by reasons of the purchaser's noncompliance with said forms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a noarly-final Official Statement as required by Rule 15c2.12 of the Securities and Exchango Commission. For copies of the Official Statement and the Official Bid Form or for any additional information prior to sato, any prospective purchaser Is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springstod Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone C (612) 223.3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addondum or addenda spocitying the maturity datos, principal amounts and Interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other Pago 13 n9 information required by law, shall constitute a'Final Official Statemenr of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any -� underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an Official Bid Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 25 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Bid Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that H its bid is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) H shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. 01 0 Dated May 14, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE CrTY COUNCIL /s/ Rick Wolfsteller Administrator Pago 14 /t OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $730,000 CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 19908 Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Administrator or his designee on Monday, June 11, 1990, until 1:00 P.M., Central Time, at the offices o1 SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated July 1, 1990, as the date of original Issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1991. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature FPhruery 1 in the yeefs end errTunls Ps !T!!0 ?: C 1991 $55,000 1995 $60,000 1999 $75,000 1992 $55,000 1996 $65,000 2000 $80.000 1993 $55,000 1997 $70,000 2001 $80,000 1994 $60,000 1998 $75,000 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 1996, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds duo on or after February 1, 1997. Redemption may be In whole or In part and if In part, in inverse order of maturity and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will plodgo Its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will plodgo special assessments against benefited property. The proceeds will be used to finance the construction of improvements In the City and to refund all outstanding maturities of the City's $1,150,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1983, dated Juno 1, 1983. TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not loss than $720,875 and accruod Interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds, and shall be accompanied by a certified or cashier's check In the amount of $7,300, payable to the order of the City. No bid will be considered for which said chock has not boon received. The City will doposit the chock o1 the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no Interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser Pago 15 (9 fails to comply with the accepted bid, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall boar a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non -substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds quality for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the ofncos of the City or Its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the forms of payment for the Bonds shall have boon made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchasor shall be liable to tho City for any loss sufforod by the City by reasons of the purchaser's non-compllanco with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT Tho City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information rolatNe to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a noorly-final Official Statomont as required by Rule 15c2.12 of the Socuritios and Exchange Commission. For copios of the Official Statement and the Official Bid Form or for any additional information prior to safe, any prospoctive purchaser Is roforrod to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springstod C Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (812) 223-3000. Pago 16 0 C/ The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a 'Final Official Statement* of the City with respell to the Bonds, as that term Is defined In Rule 15c2.12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwritor or underwrlUng syndicate submitting an Official Bid Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 30 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Bid Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if Its bid is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter Into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated May 14,19W @v ORDER OF THE CrrY COUNCIL /s/ Rick Woffsteller Administrator Pego 17 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Consideration of adopting ordinance amendment which would allow operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products as fuel in an I-1 zone. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission will be conducting a public heariny regarding this matter immediately prior to City Council consideration of the proposed amendment (5:30 PM). Recouunendations made by the Planning Commission will be reported to Council during the Council presentation. This memo is addressed to both the Council find to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission/Council is asked to consider amending the list of conditional uses allowed in the I-1 zone by adding the "operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products as fuel." Following is a review of this planning case along with comments already made by Council. Ray Schmidt of Universal Equipment Manufacturing Company hopes to occupy the structure that has now been vacated by Larson Manufacturing. Schmidt has placed earnest money down in anticipation of purchasing the structure; however, he will not complete the purchase until the City reviews his operational plans which include the operation and development of a prototype furnace which uses automobile tire rubber as fuel. The furnace proposed for development and installation is not an incinerator. In other words, the furnace is designed to use tires in heating the structure and is not intended to be designed for the sole purpose of incinerating tires. This furnace is one among other machines that Schmidt manufactures that are designed to transform waste tires into materials that can be reused for other purposes. A video will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting which shows various tire reduction products in operation. In addition to the rubber burning furnace, Schmidt also has developed machinery that will remove tires from wheels, machinery that cuts tires into manageable pieces, and then reduces the manageable pieces further into tire bits which can be used for many purposes, including furnace fuel. The equipment that Schmidt has designed is relatively inexpensive and is intended to be used by small scale tire reducing operations. Schmidt believes that the typo of equipment that he is manufacturing will create an affordable process by which tiros can be converted into a product that can be roused. As many as 20 jobs may be created with the enterprise as proposed by Schmidt. In talking to Larson Manufacturing, it is my understanding that Bridge Water Tolophono is waiting in the wings to purchase the Structure if Schmidt does not receive City approval. The same source indicated that Bridge water Telephone plans to use the structure primarily for warehouse use, and it is anticipated that very few jobs will be created by such use. Council Agenda - 5/14/90 LAND USE ZONING ISSUES Under the present zoning ordinance, the type of manufacturing and assembly of equipment proposed by Schmidt is an allowable use in the I-1 zone; therefore, under normal circumstances, Schmidt would need no permit whatsoever to occupy the Larson Manufacturing structure and begin his operation. This situation, of course, is unusual because one of Schmidt's product lines is a furnace which utilizes rubber as its fuel. The furnace is a prototype model and is untested at this time; therefore, it appears unwise to allow the operation to begin without an environmental Impact review and subsequent regulations. At the same time, however, the furnace does appear to burn very cleanly. It may be that operation of a single furnace utilizing rubber chips as Its fuel may not create a negative impact on the adjoining properties. To assist the City in providing answers to our questions regarding the impact of this furnace on adjoining properties, City staff has requested that the PCA review the operation of this furnace and provide the City with information or direction regarding this matter. Attached you will find a letter from Gary Standish of the Pollution Control Agency which outlines the pro's and con's associated with the operation of this furnace. This item was addressed on an informal basis by City Council at the previous Council meeting. In response to the information provided, Council said it would consider allowing the furnace to operate on a limited controlled scale until it is tested and approved. The furnace would not be allowed to operate if the furnace tailed to meet PCA guidelines. Ray Schmidt indicated that such a condition or conditions would be acceptable. other conditions were also discussed and are listed in the proposed ordinance amendment. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve ordinance amendment establishing operation of a prototype rubber burning furnace Incidental to principal use as a conditional use in an I-1 zone provided that: 1. Furnace must moot all existing or future air omission standards as established by federal or state pollution control agencies. 2. Stack height must be high enough to eliminate potential of stack gases being trapped at ground level by the effect of wind flow around buildings. 3. Before 9/1/90, furnace owner will complete all omissions tooting on prototype furnace and will T apply for an air emission permit from the PCA even If exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design must moot or exceed proportional requirements for a I million BTU furnace as required by the PCA. 15 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Failure of emission tests during prototype development, or failure to obtain permission to sell this product in Minnesota shall terminate conditional uae permit. 4. Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the heating season. Non -heating season use of the system shall be limited to testing and demonstration. Furnace shall not be operated for the sole purpose of reducing waste tires. 5. A 6 -foot 90% opaque fence shall be used to screen waste tire storage areas. No waste tires shall be in plain view. The site may not contain more than 75 unprocessed tires at any one time. The site may not be used as a tire transfer station. 6. Complaints made by area property owners about the furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the City to withdraw the conditional use permit and therefore halt furnace operation. 7. waste ash and particulate recovered shall be treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the City of Monticello and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. a. Motion based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with geography and character of the industrial setting. b. Issuance and enforcement of the conditional use permit will not tend to depreciate the value of adjoining properties. C. The need for the use has been sufficiently demonstrated. d. The conditional use permit is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission/Council could tako the position that given the strict conditions noted above, it Is likely that the amendment is consistent with the zoning ordinance amendment requirements above. Under the plan above, Schmidt assumes all of the risk associated with installation and operation of the furnace. It is incumbent upon Schmidt to operate efficiently and cleanly or face immediate possibility of termination of the conditional use permit. Motion to deny approval of ordinance amendment establishing operation of a prototype rubber burning furnace Incidental to principal use as a conditional use in an I-1 zone provided that the operation of said furnace is not consistent with A, B, C, and D in alternative 01 above. 16 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Despite the safeguards provided by the conditions, Planning Commission/Council could take the position that the furnace is untested and unregulated, and the City should not allow operation of the unit until it is formally tested and approved. Only until such testing is complete would the City be assured that the furnace emissions would not negatively affect adjoining land owners. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may not have the resources to assist the City in monitoring or policing this type of operation. The City, for the most part, will be on its own in terms of regulating this type of use. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed ordinance amendment; Comments from the Pollution Control Agency; Letter to the Pollution Control Agency requesting information; If time allows, a video presentation showing operation of equipment manufactured by Schmidt will be presented. U Proposed Ordinance: H. Prototype rubber burning furnace incidental to principle use provided that: �w 1. Furnace must meet all existing or future air emission standards as established by Federal or L State pollution control agencies. 1� ipV2. Stack height must be high enough to eliminate potential of stack gases being trapped at ground level by the effect of wind flow around buildings. 3. Before (9/1/90) furnace owner will complete all emissions testing on prototype furnace and will apply for an air emission permit from the PCA even if exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design must meet or exceed proportional requirements for a 1 million BTU furnace as required by the PCA. Failure of emission tests during prototype development, or failure to obtain permission to sell this product in Minnesota shall terminate conditional use permit. 4. Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the heating season. Non -heating season use of the system shall be limited to testing and demonstration. Furnace shall not not be operated for the sole purpose of reducing waste tires. 5. A 6 foot 90% opaque fence shall be used to screen waste tire storago areas. No waste tires shall be in plain view. 6. Complaints made by area property owners about the furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the City to withdraw the condltlonl use permit and thorofore halt furnace operation. r, 7. waste ash and particulate recovered, shall be treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of In a manner approved by the City of Monticello and the MN Pollution Control Agency. 1, V, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road. Saint Paul. Minnesota 55155 p� Telephone (612) 296-6300 `� 4 April 20, 1990 Mr. Jeff O'Neill Assistant AchninisLrator City of Monticello 250 Fast Broadway I,bnticello, Minnesota 55362-92.45 hear Mr. O'Neill 111e following letter will respond to your lrxluiry dated April 9,1990 legarditly the poLenUal developrtenL of a facility by Lie Tire Service rtltrilttent Manufacturing ColIpany iticotpmaLed. 'lite contents LepresenL the views of the Waste Tire ManatymnenL Program alit Lin Divison of Ai.r QjaliLy leased on information provided to our. office. 'Ib pnyvide answers to t11e City of M)nticello's questions, we will start with question no. 3, "is a state or federal pormiL LWIlred 7" Minn. Rules part 7001.1210 l+tovidos that a f:ac:AILLY whose only air orni.ssiuns are flan ccndetsLiun 01' a solid fuel, And wltuse Lute[ rated InaL inl.lul is less Uuau I 10111011 IVIU l:er Ixxn-, is exalgjt: from tine valttirment. to obtain an air emission lnnniL. Fm4n t.lr± picturo alrl dnl.a pnwilh.l, the 111111 nigtN,irs LQ 1.+ m1Y'lll clxJuyh Lu Ix: 0xrnq�t. Wu Wit I use. n I nd 1 I toilISIU Int- Haar Milt with rxj IrA ltiLion control alui.l.menL as tin basis for the other ginsLi.olul. N). 1. WIv1L tyln of air rinissions--parLicu.lnLe, gaseous, or otherwise-- earl W expected fruit Lill stock alxl whit grlanLILy could bo pi.-xtuced 7 ILAsed on Lire mtnylses and test hurns,tire ccndiusLion can he exlecLed to anLL ixv-LlculaLes, carWn nunoxide, sulfor dioxido, and niLnx9en oxides. Inca gA01.0 CrAdAISLlun could nesulL ill an unpredictable vat:ieLy of urgnnic emit cl uxls and u1M11'. A I Illi I I iun 1!111/Ix,xu' unl1. axrld Ixn'11 n19)rnx1m-lLQIy IUU tons of Lire chills in a fleeting seas(-mn. Lltti.aslons nee caLlmiLled to bot lintAculnt.es 2.9 HAP.)ur 4.4 Lon/IteaLIny seasun Cnrl:run m3lnxido 2.6 11?/Ix:,w• 3.9 t.011/11a'1tiny soasun Sulfur Oloxick) 7..0 Ib/Ikxu' 3.0 ton/henLitly sensun N1LLZ1gc11 Oxides 1.2 Ib/10th 1.0 tort/Inatiny Season Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainard • Dolroll Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal Opponunlly Empbyor Printod an R ocyclod Popor a Mr. Jeff O'Neill Page 2 No. 2. Wuuld Lite MCA require furnace tergrerature regulation, electrostatic precipitions,or bag houses for particulates in the future 7 Ile 2.9 113/hour. emission rate for particulates could be considered to exceed an applicable Minn. Ai.r Pollution Control Staoxlerd currently in effect. Tlx: rale should le 0.4 Ib/Irour fur- a 1 million Iift1/Inour unit to curgply with Lire role. '19111s, srnre type of dust collector aj-tears to lie rvx:essary fruit Lire start. Rules for waste incineration are under development and my apply in the future. No. 4. Will the operation of Lie Lire burning furnace at Lie scale as described create a bona fide in]IuLion problen for nelghborfng property udners 7 Ilds would not necessarily occur. Good design and operation might result in stack emissions which ace onuL visible arxl produce no grvurxl level udur or excessive concentrations of pollul.nnts. Sufficient sLack helyhL is irrgorLanL to avoid Lire sLack gases being trapped at grvwxl level by Lire effect of wind flow around buildings. Mi. 5. Can LI>P furnace manufncLur._rl nL this site be sold in Minnesota 7 If noL, w147L' tests rmost the furnace Lass before i1. can be sold statewide 7 When are you planning on Lest.ing Lin oLeraLion of Lite furnace,and if you already have, wiaL were Cite resulLs of Lire Lest 7 'Ile sale of Llp furnace is not- reyulaLed by nny Minn. PvlluLi.un CunLrol /klerx:y rules, lalL MLlnc Lire oleraLlon or use of. Line furnace. If na lateral regulal.iuns nlq,ly to Lhis furnace, Llner:e is ono nvuklaLory Lestinrg raiuirvrr_nL. MjsL lnerpar new solaces are vc%*Hrerl to Lest oni.ss.i.ons within sate Line frwrn nfLor. nLarLup. 'Mis soutc0-spOcific LesL.lnly is llkely to Ix3 prohl.bltively expensive fur wilts of this size. (Tre nlgnronch, used by U.S. EPA to regulate wood -burning slaves, Is to require Ll a minul.acLurer to Lest unx, uni.L out of every 100 manufnclured. 'Igp nunuinclurer receives it letter of ccagrlinr"x tivnt rvnains effecl..i.ve so long its each unit LesLed I"Bases Its Lest. Ile- MICA does not perform Lite testing. 'Ignn:e are rnmrrcnrs Lest.itwj consult.arnts In Minnesota slid olscwhere in Lo U.S. to provirlo Lhis service. No. 6. Can Llso furavnce be sold In Other 01.01.08 7 SLALO regulnLiuns vary widely noxi chnn(r. I'M-quenlly enough Llunl this must 1..o answ3l.vd Pry each st.OLO. W. 7. 7b what extent should thno city limit Lite use of Lite furrwuce at tlp rrnnufacLuring site 7 and N). 0. Mint cunx111.ionn Of olcrat.lon wuuld you eugc,Ir:st LInnL Lino CjLy placo on Lite proposed opreraLlon 7 If n conditional use I.enult., building pelmlt, or eller clLy Iaetmil. is r:oiulrod, ore alVrvach would be Lu royul.re Lin facillty Lunar to apply Mr. Jeff O'Neill Page 3 for an air emission permit from the MPCA even if exempt. 7bie permit we would issue would list all applicable air pollution control standards. 7bie stack height slwuld be required to be high enough to avoid the problem described in No. 4 above. 79x3 use of the furnace could be limited to the heating season. The interest in waste tire recycling and potential level of equipment manufacturing for waste tire reduction, as represented by this capeu:y, are encouraging to our p:cxgram. if you have questions or require additional L:formation please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A �y / a A// � ry Standish w/ Qw�/', llution Control Specilist Waste Tire Management Unit Site Response Section Ground Water and Solid Waste Division GSikn Enclosure cc: Wes Sprunk April 9, 1990 2501?ast Ikaadsvny Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295.2711 Metro: (612) 333.5739 Mr. Gary SLandlsh F {-.,rh Mnur MinnesotaPollution Control Agency u ati"d 520 LafayeLLe Road un,r f3lnnrgrn St. Paul, MN 55155 F"n Ni, v,oleynndronn Dear Mr. Standish: IY'nrrrn Smit, ^''"""""""' The C1Ly of Monticello seeks your input regarding Lite Itnh nrrgr"Ihr po Lenl.lal deve.lopmenL of a facility LhaL proposes Lo """'""'"'rw,.,.,, ,,, manuf.acLure automobile Lire reducing equipment. The 9 IH'Nedl location of Lite facility is not a problem, as Lite site r,,r.,,,u.,•,,. Is zoned for this type of manufacturing; however, a JA Snn.rI" unique situation has developed Ln that Included among n„n•n,n r Lite ILoms to be manufactured at. LIYis aIle In furnace „.n„h•,.,^ e,.lul.pmonL that: uses auLomob.11e Lire chips as 1.1101. n„�,.,,,.• There is a concern that operotlon of such a furnace ur 10i'^°^It°h furnaces might neyaLively affect. air quality and ad)olnLny properties. The facility an proposed would operate a Lire fueled furnace for Lite following purposes: 1. A Lire fueled furnace would be used to heal Lite sU'ucLure In which Lite manufacLur-Ing is conducLod. The furnace would be the ongoing primary source of heal. for Lite structure. 2. In addition to Lite furnace being used to heat Lire structure, Mr. Schmidt' would also operate nn nddlLlunal furnace or furnaces on on experlmenLn.l basis for Lite purpose of product developinont. The City of Monticello understands Lhe ImporLance of. Lire reduct.lon and recycling, and the City also sees Lite ecunomlc dovolupmonL poLenLlal associated with mnnufneLuriny of Lire reduction oquJpmenl. At Lite nnmo Lima, however., the C1Ly Is ohllgnLed to proLecL Lite JnLeresLs and land values of existing property owners. The City noodn to determine to what extent 0 Mr. Gary Standish April 9, 1990 Page 2 will the presence of Lite the burning furnace or furnaces be detrimental to Lite adjoining properties. Please assist the City of Monticello by offering answers to Lite following quesLlons: 1. What type of air emissions --particulate, gaseous, or otherwise --can be expected from Lite stack and in what quantity could they be produced? 2. Would Lite MPCA require furnace temperature regulation, electrostatic preclplCaLions, or bag houses for particulates In the future? 7. Is a state or federal permit required? 4. Will Lite operation of. the tire burning furnace at Lite scale as described create a bona fide pollution problem for neighboring property owners? 5. Can Lite furnace manufactured at Lhls site be sold In Minnesota? If not, what tests must Lite furnace pass before It can be sold sLnCe wide? When are you planning on LesLing Lite operation of. Lite furnace, and if you already have, what were Lite resulLs of Lite test? G. Can the furnace be sold In other states? 7. To what extent should Lite City limit Lite use of Lite furnace at the manufacturing alto? 0. What general conditions of operation would you suggost that Lite City place on Lite proposed operation? Thank you for addressing the questions listed above or. forwarding Lite questions to the appropriate party. I look forward to your response. Yours truly, CITY OF MONNT1C�IiLLLO Jeff O'Nolll Assistant Administrator JO/kd cc: Flirt Council Agenda - 5/14/90 tt. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow operation of prototype furnace usinq rubber products as fuel. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A special meeting of the Planning Commision has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m., May 14, 1990, at which time a public hearing will be held on this matter. Planning Commission recommendation will be reported verbally to the City Council when Council addresses this item at its regular meeting later on the same day. If the Planning Commission/Council approves the related zoning ordinance amendment, then the awarding of the conditional use permit to Universal Equipment Manufacturing Company (UEMC) should be considered. It is my understanding based on Schmidt's comments at the previous meeting that his company is willing to comply with all of the conditions listed; however, this should be reaffirmed at the meeting on May 14, 1990. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve issuance of conditional use permit allowing operation of prototype furnace using rubber products as fuel subject to the following conditions and any other conditions that the Planning Commission/Council might add: 1. Furnace must meet all existing or future air omission standards as established by federal or state pollution control agencies. 2. Stack height must be high enough to eliminate potential of stack gases being trapped at ground level by the effect of wind flow around buildings. 3. Before 9/1/90, furnace owner will complete all emissions testing on prototype furnace and will apply for an air emission permit from the PCA even If exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design must moot or exceed proportional requirements for a 1 million BTU furnace as required by the PCA. Failure of emission tests during prototype development or failure to obtain permission to Boll this product in Minnesota shall terminate conditional use permit. 4. Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the heating season. Non-hoating season use of the system shall be limited to testing and demonstration. Furnace shall not be operated for the Bole purpose of reducing waste tiros. 18 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 5. A 6 -foot 90% opaque fence shall be used to screen waste tire storage areas. No waste tires shall be in plain view. The site may not contain more than 75 unprocessed tires at any one time. The site may not be used as a tire transfer station. 6. Complaints made by area property owners about the furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the City to withdraw the conditional use permit and therefore halt furnace operation. 7. Waste ash and particulate recovered shall be treated as hazardous waste and shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the City of Monticello and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. This alternative should be selected if Planning Commission approves related zoning ordinance amendment. Approval based on the finding that the operation of the furnace as regulated is: a. Consistent with the geography and character of the I-1 and I-2 zone. !� b. The operation of the furnace will not tend to depreciate the area and the land values in the area. c. The need for the use has been sufficiently demonstrated. 2. Motion to deny said conditional use permit. This alternative should be selected if the applicant is unwilling to meet any additional conditions developed by the Planning Commission/Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission/Council approves the zoning amendment, and if the applicant is willing to comply with all of the conditions listed, staff recommends that the City award said conditional use permit. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A Soo previous agenda item. 19 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 12. Consideration of a resolution awarding bids for Project 90-03, street and utility improvements for the Meadows 2nd Addition, phase II. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At a previous meeting, the City Council authorized advertisement for bids for street and utility construction on Crocus Lane and Crocus Circle in the Meadows 2nd Addition. The bids were due on Friday, May 11, at 11:00 a.m. The feasibility study prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates gave an estimated construction cost of 499,970. By adding a 5% contingency and 249 legal, engineering, administration, and financial cost, the total project is expected to cost $130,000. On Friday, May 11, seven bids were received for the project. The apparent low bidder at this time without verification of the bids is Redstone Construction of Mora, Minnesota. A copy of the bid tabulation is enclosed for your review. The City Engineer will be verifying bids and checking references and have his recommendation ready for Monday evening's meeting. At the same time, we will be meeting with the owners of the project to see if the bids are in line with their expectations. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to award the project to the lowest responsible bidder as recommended by the City Engineer. 2. The second alternative is not to award the project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff withholds its recommendation until the City Engineer has had time to check the bids and references of the low bidder and we have had timo to discuss the proposed costs with the owners of the Meadows. We should have a recommendation available for Monday evening's meeting. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the bid tabulation; Copy of resolution for adoption. C N 1 20 BID TABULATION FOR STREET A UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS & APPURTENANT WORK THE MEADOWS AND THE MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION CITY PROJECT NUMBER 90-03 CITY OF MONTICELLO BIDS OPENEDt May 11, 1990 ORit SCHELEN MAYBRON 11:00 A.M. i ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDENDUM CONTRACTOR NOTED BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Annadale Const. X 5% Bond $83.209.24 A--111— MN B 6 D Underground X 52 Bond $94,018.00 Mound, MN Kadlec Excavating X 51 Bond $94,901.77 Morn, MN Lntour Const. X 5% Bond $86,958.40 Maple Lake, MN Randy Krnmer Exc. X 5% Bond $89,035.55 Wntkins, MN Redstone Const. X 5% Road $81,899.55 Morn, MN R. L. Lnroon Exc. X 5% Bond $83.910.43 St. Cloud, MN •Donotoo Corrected Figure I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON: DATE KA JL 1990 BY _-Bent A.- Weiee OSM Comm. No. 0876.00 0 RESOLUTION 90 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Improvement of Crocus Lane and Crocus Circle within the Meadows Second Addition with sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, bituminous streets, curb and gutter, and appurtenant work, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: WHEREAS, it appears that is the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: l- 1. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to enter Into the attached contract with In the name of the City of Monticello for the improvement of Crocus Lane and Crocus Circle within the Meadows Second Addition with sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, bituminous streets, curb and gutter, and appurtenant work. According to the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and on file In the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator. In hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposit made w]Lh their bids, except that tho deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has boon signed. Adopted by the City Council this 14th day of May, 1990. Mayor City Administrator (S) Council Agenda - 5/14/90 13. Consideration of accepting appraisal for park dedication purposes --West Prairie Partners plat. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In November of 1989, the Council approved the final plat of the West Prairie Partners' subdivision with the only item left to complete being the park dedication fee required by ordinance. The developers proposed making a cash contribution rather than a land donation; and based on their letter of May 4, 1989, they proposed a cash contribution of $1,700 based on a market value of $17,000 that they arrived at by subtracting the values of parcels they sold to arrive at the raw land being platted. Because of the unusual circumstances surrounding this remaining 2-1/2 acre parcel, the Council in November voted in a split decision to require the developer to get an appraisal of the property to substantiate the value. In January of 1990, the developers presented City staff with information that the Wright County Assessor's Office was going to value the property at $17,200 for tax purposes, and the developers indicated a desire to use this valuation for park dedication purposes. I believe I asked the Council whether this would be acceptable as a solution to this problem, and the opinion of the Council was to still require an actual appraisal. On January 5, 1990, Mr. Jim Metcalf, a partner in the development, submitted a letter from Mr. Dan Goeman of Goeman Realty who supported the valuation of the property at $12,000. This valuation supplied by Mr. Goeman indicated that It was a personal opinion rather than a formal appraisal due to his previous involvement in the West Prairie Partners/ Baptist Church transaction. I had informed Mr. Metcalf that the Council's decision was to request a formal appraisal and that I did not feel the opinion expressed by the realtor, Dan Goeman, would be sufficient. Again in April of 1990, the developers referred to their 1990 tax statement that listed the valuation at $17,200 and Inquired as to whether this again would be acceptable. I again informed the dovolopere of the Council's requost for a formal appraisal, and I received another letter from Dan Goeman of Goeman Realty indicating that it was his appraisal that the value of the property was $12,000. Since this item has been going on for almost a year, two offers have been made regarding the park dedication fee, one from the developers initially accepting the County Assessor's valuation of $17,200 as the appropriate value, and now another Council Agenda - 5/14/90 committing only to the $12,000 figure. The question becomes, is the Council willing to accept Mr. Goeman's opinion/ appraisal of $12,000 as meeting the requirements of our ordinance? Or does the City Council still wish to have a formal appraisal presented by a certified appraiser? Although Mr. Goeman's letter of May 1 is titled an appraisal, I am not sure if Mr. Goeman is a certified real estate appraiser or if it is the requirement of the Council to be one. I ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Council could accept the appraisal submitted by Mr. Goeman which establishes the value at $12,000 for a park dedication fee of $1,200. The Council could accept the County Assessor's valuation for 1990 taxes at $17,200, which would result in a $1,720 park dedication fee. The Council could require an appraisal of the property by a third party independent of the original transaction and certified to do appraisals according to accepted standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since I have been corresponding with the developers for over a year on this matter, I do not feel that the developers intend to use an outside appraisal firm as requested initially by the City Council. With the County Assessor establishing the value on the 2-1/2 acre parcel at $17,200, it does seem odd that the appraisal of the property would only be $12,000; but at this point, I would just as soon get this matter over with and let the developers know for sure one way or the other whether or not an actual certified appraisal will be a requirement. If the Council Is comfortable with Mr. Goeman's expertise, I would suggest accepting the $1,200 to clear up this last remaining item regarding this plat. If the Council Is uncomfortable with Mr. Coeman's involvement, I would suggest either accepting the County Assessor's valuation or Informing the developers once and for all that the plat will not be recordable unless a certified appraisal is submitted. SUPPORTING DATA: May 4, 1989, letter from developers; January 5 loiter from Dan Goeman Realty; January 8 letter from developers; April 18 letter from developer; May 1 letter from Gooman Realty. 22 MetCal/ & oLar!„n ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Boa uB 313 west Broadway Monlicalb. Mlnneaata SM0446 JAMES G. METCALF TELEPHONE BRADLEY V. LARSON May 3, 1990 (81 32 METRO (6 1 2) 421-3393 Mr. Rick wolfsteller City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Your Letter Dated April 30, 1990 Concerning west Prairie Partners Proposed Plat and Park Dedication Dear Rick: In response to the above -referenced matter, please find an enclosed appraisal from Goeman Realty dated May 1, 1990. I believe this removes the earlier objections several council members had. According to the appraisal by Mr. Goeman, we are prepared to tender to the City our check in the amount of $1,200.00 to complete this matter. Please advise me when this can be accomplished. Sincerely, METCALF & LARSON By: am Esq. JGM:ds Enclosure REPRESENTING QUALITY Cce ■ ■an Uealtv May 1, 1990 Mr. James G. Metcalf Metcalf S Larson Attorneys at Law 313 W. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Appraisal of West Prairie Partners Property Proposed Plat Dear Jim: I wrote to you regarding the above -captioned matter on January 5, 1990. You have informed me that the City finds my earlier evaluation inadequate, basically because they believe it is an opinion. The evaluation of all real estate is only opinion and that the value of the property is never established until an arms length transaction is included. In my January 5, 1990 letter I indicated the matters that I had considered in arriving at my opinion. I will again summarize some of them here and indicate that this letter is regarded by me to be an appraisal of the 2.5 acres presently owned by West Prairie Partners. I had reviewed 51 CRV's for unplatted land in the City of Monticello from 1981 forward. There is no similar transaction within the City of Monticello since there has bean no platting of residential property within Cha City in that period of time. The only comparable transaction would be the Mark ling/Grossnick to transaction which I referred to in my January 5, 1990 letter. The valuation of $12,000.00 was arrived at by normal methods at the Wright County Assessor's office. I understand that the City had paid for an appraisal on the Markling property valuing the land only at less than $12,000.00. As I indicated in my January 5, 1990 letter, it is my opinion that the Markling property should be valued somewhat higher because it is not adjacent to the railroad track. While the valuation of your parcel could be higher, as I earlier indicated, 1t is also arguable that it should bo lower than the Markling property, for the reasons earlier indicated. THEREFORE. IT IS MY APPRAISAL THAT THE VALUE OF THE WEST PRAIRIE PARTNERS PROPERTY WHEN YOU ACQUIRED IT WAS $12,000.00. Sinceroly, G/OE REALTY, C DLG:bkh 201 West Broodway. P.O. Box 325, MontICe110, MInnnesoto 55362 • (612) 205.4200 • Matto 33e-3141 M.I".If & oCa„o„ ATTORNEY$ AT LAW PO Bo. 4a 317'011 1"'0*” Mpn11C0110. MInn t. SM0448 JAMES G. METCALF TELEPHONE BRADLEY V. LARSON (81212953272 METRO April 18, 1990 (8 1 21 421-3M Mr. Rick wolfsteller City of Monticello 250 East Broadway P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 RE: West Prairie Partners Proposed Plat and Park Dedication Dear Mr. wolfsteller: I am enclosing a copy of the real estate tax bill, which lists a valuation of $17,200.00. Please advise me if you are in a position to close this matter. Sincerely, METCALF & LARSON BY _ et tca , Es . JGM:dms Enclosure 9 / Ica if & —..".- ATTORNEYS AT LAW PO Bo. u6 313 west BNee.ey Monuteuo, Min .W. &U62duB JAMES G, METCALF TELEPHONE BRADLEY V. LARSON (61Z 29a1272 January 8, 1990 METRO 1612) 4213399 Mr. Ken Maus, Mayor City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 Mr. Rick Wolfsteller City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 re: Proposed Plat of west Prairie Partners Gentlemen: I am delivering to the Mayor a copy of Mr. Goeman's letter dated January 5, 1990, and a copy of my letter to the Wright County Assessor's Office dated January 4, 1990. I am delivering to Mr. wolfsteller copies of both of those letters, although he has already received a copy of the January 4th letter, and with Mr. Wolfsteller's package are the 51 Certificates of Real Estate Value that Mr. Goeman refers to. As I have told both of you earlier, this matter cannot be resolved to everyone's satisfaction because the requirements of the City are somewhat unique as far as real estate valuation purposes are concerned, the almost total lack of comparable transactions, and the lack of goodwill that west Prairie Partners has managed to generate. I have previously stated my arguments on these points and will not repeat them here. Our proposal of $1,700.00 was rejected. I offeredS1,100.00 based upon my calculation of the Markling property, which according to my calculation was in fact 81,125.00, but since Mr. Goeman believes that the calculation should be $1,200.00, I am prepared to offer $1,200.00 as the park dedication fee for this parcel. If either of you have any questions, kindly call me at your convenience. Sincerely, KETE�LF & LARSON BY: JGM:dms J Matcal q. pc: John Sandberg REPRESENTING QUALITY Gceman UedKy January 5, 1990 Mr. Jim Metcalf Attorneyat Lav 313 West Broadway P.O. Box 446 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Appraisal of West Prairie Partners property for proposed plat Dear Jim: In response to your letter of December 13, 1989, I have reviewed 51 CRV's for unplatted land in the city of Monticello dating back to March 2, 1981. Copies attached. The Markling/Grossnickle transaction dated August 17, 1988, stands out as the most comparable property in the Monticello area. Both properties are similar in relationship to zoning, size, and location. Both are bordered by roadways with moderate to heavy traffic, namely County Road 39 and County Highway 75. Both properties provide an attractive view of the Monticello Country Club Golf Course. The West Prairie Partners property, however, has the disadvantage of the railroad track and right-of-way between it and the golf course, which cuts off access to the Golf Course. This, in my opinion, detracts from the overall value of the property in comparison to the Markling property. Based upon the lack of any totally comparable properties as would generally be used in the Real Estate business, I feel that any figure would be arbitrary. If you are interested in a figure, it would be my opinion that the West Prairie Partners property would be valued at $12,000, as vas the Grossnickle property, to a high of $15,000, keeping in mind the restricted access to the Golf Course. 201 West Broadwoy, P.O. Bo. 725, Monticello, Mlnnnosota 55302 • (d 12) 205.4200 • Metro J38• 1 �f Mr. Jim Metcalf Page 2 January 5, 1990 This information is submitted as my personal opinion rather than a formal appraisal due to my previous involvement in the West Prairie Partners/Temple Baptist Church transaction. I hope this information will be of some help to yourself and the City. Sincerely, COE REAL�IHiK/Y���'� Daniel L. Goeman, GRI, CREA Broker DLG:bkh Enclosures (9 In response to the above captioned matter, as far as I am concerned the City has now had almost seven months to come up with a determination and I can see of no reason to attend yet another meeting on November 27th. we have attended numerous meetings in the past and have talked to the city staff on numerous occasions, and particularly this matter has been before the Planning Commission twice and the Council twice regarding the subdivision of this parcel alone. Why the matter requires an additional meeting is a mystery to me and I will assume you can carry on without my participation. Also be advised that West Prairie Partners will not pay for the cost of the City making an appraisal, or anybody else making an appraisal, without first having an arrangement concerning who shall do the appraisal, the extent of the appraisal, and the fee involved. The idea of having the property appraised when there is recent evidence of a transaction makes little sense, and even less when the City and County have appraisers available for establishing the market value of property for real estate tax purposes. I trust that you will provide the Council with the substance of this letter, or a copy of it, at or in advance of the November 27th meeting. If you wish to discuss this further, please contact me at your convenience. If you conclude that I am not impressed with the time delay encountered and the manner in which the Council may proceed, and I expect they probably would if you recommend it, you are quite correct. Sincerely, METCALF & LARSON' y James /G/1. Metcalf, F, a JGM:as / /v` 0 W.1'a// & —.".. ATTORNEYS AT LAW POSn. 446317 Waal Broadway Zllcell M, wla SSW Moa November 22, 1989 JAMES G. METCALF TELEPHONE BRADLEY V. LARSON (812) 2953232 Mr. Rick Wolfsteller METRO (812) 421-M3 City Administrator 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Your letter dated November 20, 1989 regarding West Prairie Partners Subdivision Dear Mr. wolfsteller: In response to the above captioned matter, as far as I am concerned the City has now had almost seven months to come up with a determination and I can see of no reason to attend yet another meeting on November 27th. we have attended numerous meetings in the past and have talked to the city staff on numerous occasions, and particularly this matter has been before the Planning Commission twice and the Council twice regarding the subdivision of this parcel alone. Why the matter requires an additional meeting is a mystery to me and I will assume you can carry on without my participation. Also be advised that West Prairie Partners will not pay for the cost of the City making an appraisal, or anybody else making an appraisal, without first having an arrangement concerning who shall do the appraisal, the extent of the appraisal, and the fee involved. The idea of having the property appraised when there is recent evidence of a transaction makes little sense, and even less when the City and County have appraisers available for establishing the market value of property for real estate tax purposes. I trust that you will provide the Council with the substance of this letter, or a copy of it, at or in advance of the November 27th meeting. If you wish to discuss this further, please contact me at your convenience. If you conclude that I am not impressed with the time delay encountered and the manner in which the Council may proceed, and I expect they probably would if you recommend it, you are quite correct. Sincerely, METCALF & LARSON' y James /G/1. Metcalf, F, a JGM:as / /v` 0 /A1'. 11 &'X""". AFrORNEYS Ar LAW vo so. ue ]U Vhfl Br000rAf MomiCf110, minnefDIA 55U204fe JAMESU. ME II:AI.F IFI.EI'1 IIn IF DnAULEY V. LAIISUN May 4, 1989 (612)2953232 MEIn- (GI 2) 4213393 Mr. Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator Monticello City Nall 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 RE: PROPOSED PLAT OF WEST PRAIRIE PARTNERS Dear Mr. Wolfsteller: At Its mceLLny on May 2, 1984, the PLannLny Comini.ssion recommended the approval of the above -referenced plaL wILhuut qualification. It is my understanding that this will come before the Council on the 8th of May, and it would be our intention to make a cash contribution, rather than a land donation to accomplish the park requirements. As most of the town already knows, our acquisition cost was $110,000.00 and we have entered .into a Contract for Deed arrangement to sell the two (2) lots on Fourth Street for $33,000.00 and have recently suld the structure rnl (Ain. former Baptist property for a ncL $G0,000.U0. Thi.^, wou.Ld pinl:c our Cost on the two and one-half acre parcel at approximately $17,000.00 or $6,800.00 per acre. Accordinyly, we are prepared to offer a $1,700.00 contribution to satisfy the park requirement. We also are interested in retaining Mr. John Badalich to prepare the plans and specifications for the installation of the water, sanitary sewer, streets and curbs. Since this appears to be a relatively straight forward project where no great discretion would be used as to how the project should be designed, we do not believe that there would be any conflict using Mr. Undalich, and we would desire to avoid the additional - expense of gettiny an extra engineer involved. l have discussed this matter generally with Mr. Badalich In the past, and I believe that he will require that lie ycLs permission to do so from you, or the Council. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matters raised in this letter further, please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, METC F LARSON By:� JGM:dms Jam i t; Metcalf, ':y. Council Agenda - 5/14/90 14. Consideration of a zoning amendment to amend the entire sections of Chapter 18, Flood Plain Manaqement Ordinance. Applicant, City of Monticello. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Our flood plain ordinance is noncompliant due to 1986 changes In the federal requirements of the national flood insurance program. Enclosed are the areas highlighted with changes. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Amend the entire section of the flood plain ordinance. 2. Do not amend the entire section of the flood plain ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends to amend the ordinance as presented. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the amended flood plain ordinance. 23 Sample Two District Floodplain Management Ordinance Two -Map Format June 7, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE 1 1.1 Statutory Authorization 1 1.2 Findings of Fact 1 1.3 Statement of Purpose 1 SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1 2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies 1 2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map 1 2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation 2 2.4 Interpretation 2 2.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 2 2.6 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability 2 2.7 Severability 2 2.8 Definitions 2 SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 4 3.1 Districts 4 3.2 Compliance 4 SECTION 4.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 5 4.1 Permitted Uses 5 4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses 5 4.3 Conditional Uses 5 4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses 6 SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 7 5.1 Permitted Uses 7 5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses 8 5.3 Conditional Uses 8 5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses 8 5.5 Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses 10 SECTION 6.0 Roserved for Future Use SECTION 7.0 SUBDIVISIONS 11 7.1 Land Suitability Review Criteria 11 0 7.2 Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation it SECTION 8.0 UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES 11 8.1 Public Utilities 11 8.2 Public Transportation Facilities 11 8.3 On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems 12 SECTION 9.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES/TRAVEL TRAILERS AND TRAVEL VEHICLES 12 9.1 New Manufactured Home Parks 12 9.2 Replacement Manufactured Homes - Existing Parks 12 9.3 Travel Trailers/Travel Vehicles 12 SECTION 10.0 ADMINISTRATION 13 10.1 Zoning Administrator 13 10.2 Permits, Certification Requirements and Record Keeping 14 10.3 Appeals and Variances/Duties of the Board of Adjustment 15 10.4 Conditional Uses -Standards and Evaluation Procedures 16 SECTION 11.0 NONCONFORMING USES 18 SECTION 12.0 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION 19 SECTION 13.0 AMENDMENTS 20 0 SAMPLE TWO DISTRICT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TWO -MAP FORMAT SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE 1.1 Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minn so a has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 104 and qio (Zoning Enabling Statute) delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the C;tU%'n'-ir;/ of (governing body) , Minnesota does ordain as follows: (local unit) 1.2 Findings of Fact: 1.21 The flood hazard areas of %^�o�/ii ,_ O X (local unit) Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results in potential loss of life, loss of property, health and _ safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood Q protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 1.22 Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards. This Ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards which is consistent with the standards established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1.3 Statement of Purpose: It is the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize those losses described in Section 1.21 by provisions contained herein. SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1 Lands to which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of ' nn"J T 'C,' //•. shown on the Official Zoning (local unit) Map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts. 2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map: The Official Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of 0 this ordinance. The attached material shall include the Flood Insurance Study for the prepared by (focal unit) the Federal Insurance Administration dated fand the Flood Boundary and Floodwayap dated XWDA'7,1t//J I.77; and Flood Insurance Rate Map dated/�U/7,f�/ /wgtherein. The Off' 'al ZZ,,oninq Map sh�11 be on file in the Office of the (,' M ,�Ji/1�,;.4., �A?1: and the (City erk/County Auditor) (Zonirfq Administrator) 2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation: The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flocd elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. 2.4 Interpretation: 2.41 In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the Governing Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. 2.42 The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances on the official Zoning Map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official Zoning Map, as for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Adjustment shall make the necessary interpretation � All decisions will bei based on elevations on the regional (100 -year) flood profile and ,1 other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries shall be given a }1 reasonable opportunity o present their case to the Board EIi ,UA1� and to submit technicaltovidence } 2.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing casements, covenants, or doed restrictions. However, where this Ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this Ordinance shall provail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 2.6 warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the flood plain districts or land uses permitted within ouch districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Ordinance shall not S /-, or create liabilitv on the oart of e ////, 14Xi,-j "// ­ 7�,' (name of local unit) any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 2.7 Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 2.8 Definitions:Unless specifically defined below, words i or phrases used n thistOrdinance;'shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable application. 2.811 Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. r2.:.12 B asement - means any area of a structure, including crawl p c es, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground 1 evel) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. f 2.813 Conditional Use - means a specific type of structure or land use listed in the official control that may be allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: (1) certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance exist and (2) the structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and \,are compatible with the existing neighborhood. 2.814 Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. 2.815 Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. 2.816 Flood Frequency -ftho frequency3for which it is expected that a opecifid- flood Stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded. 2.817 Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "fl odwa fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for (lochl unit) 0 2.818 Flood Plain -tthe beds proper anf the areas adjoining a -etland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. 2.819 Flood -Proofing - a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. 2.820 Floodway - the bed of a wetland or lake anJ the channel of a watercourse and those portions of tie adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. 2.821 Obstruction - any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, w;;re fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or mat.ter`inl� along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. _ .822 Principal Use or Structure - means all uses or structures that are not accessory uses or structures. 2.823 Reach - a hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river gnfluenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, he segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. 2.824 Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 - year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. 2.825 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. 2.826 Structure - anything constctod or erected onhe ground or attached to the ground{or on-site utilities, including, but not limits to, b ildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, travel trailors/vehiclos not moe ing the exemption criteria specified in Section 9.31 of the ordinance and other similar items.] 0 2.827 Variance - means a modification of a specific permitted development standard required in an official control including this ordinance to allow an alternative development standard notstated as acceptable in the official control, but only as applied to a particular P roperty for the purpose of alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in a community's respective planning and zoning enabling legislation. SECTION 1.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 7.1 Districts: ].11 Floodway District. The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodwayLon the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 2.2. 7.12 Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe Ton the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section �.2 7.2 Compliance: No view structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, - or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this Ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance. within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts, all uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 that follow, respectively, shall be prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here that: 3.21 New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are subject to the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically Section 9.0; 7.22 Modifications, additions, structural alterations or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures andl nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically Section 11.0; and ].2) As -built elevations for elevated or flood proofed structures must be certified by ground surveys and flood proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as specified in the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically as stated in Section 10.0 of this Ordinance. SECTION 4.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 4.1 Permitted Uses: a 4.11 General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. 4.12 Industrial -commercial loading areas, parking areas, and airport landing strips. +.13 Private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges,icnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails., 4.14 Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. 4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses: 4.21 The use shall have a low flood damage potential. 4.22 The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district if one exists. 4.23 The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not involve structures, Pill, obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or equipment. 4.3 Conditional Uses: 4.31 Structures accessary to the uses -(11isted in 4.1 above and the uses listed in 4.32-4.38 below 4.32 Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other materials. 4.33 Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water control structures. 4.34 Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipolines. 4.35 Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials. 4.36 Placement of fill. 4.37 Travel trailers and travel vehicles either on individual lots of record or in existing or now subdivisions or commercial or condominium type campgrounds, subject to the exemptions and provisions of Section 9.3 of this Ordinance. 0) 4.38 Structural works for flood control such as levees, dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height where the intent is to protect individual structures and levees or dikes where the intent is to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10 -year J frequency flood event. 4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses: 4.41 All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a Conditional UseTthat will cause any increase in the stage of the 100 -year or egional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. 4.42 All floodway Conditional Uses shall be subject to the procedures and standards contained in Section 10.4 of this ordinance. 777 ,C4.43 The conditional use shall be permissible in the y underlying zoning district if one exists. J 4.44 Fill: r (a) Fill, Lredge oil and all other similar materials) depositedor storedyin the fl plain shall`be protected from erosion by ve etive cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. (b) �Dredge spoil site and sand and ravel operations shaLL not be -allowed}in the loodway unlessla long-term site development plan is submitted which includes an rosion/sedimentation prevention element to the plan} (c) As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection (b) immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel operations may allow temporary, on-site storage of fill or other materials which would have caused an increase to the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood but only after the Governing Body has received an appropriate plan which assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. The Conditional Use Permit must be title registered with the property in the Office of the County Recorder. 4.45 Accessory Structures: (a) Accossory structures shall not be designed for human habitation. (b) Accessory structures, if permitted, shall oe constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters. (1) whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood flow, and, (2) So for as practicable, structures shall be 0 placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures. (c) Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classifications in the State Buildin Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 500 square feet in size, and for a detached garage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards, as appropriate: (1) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and (2) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protecti0r,1 Elevation or properly flood proofed. 4.46 Storage of Materials and Equipment: (a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. (b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a floodwarning and in accordance with a plan approved by the Governing Body." 4.47 Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105. Community -wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory flood plain shall not be alloyed in the floodway. 4.48 A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to the 100 -year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) L 1 Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses shall be those uses of nd or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the derlying zoning use district(s). If no pre-existing, derlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential non residential structure or use of a structure or land all be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided such e does not constitute a public nuisance. All Permitted Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe "Permitted Uses" listed in Section 5.2 and the standards for all Flood Fringe "Permitted and Conditional Uses" listed in Section 5.5. 5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: 5.21 All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon. 5.22 As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance with Section 4.45 (c). 5.23 The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time_ in excess of one -thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a Conditional Use, unless said fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 5.21 of this ordinance. 5.24 The storage of any materials or equipment shall be elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. N.-5.25 The provisions of Section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall apply. 5.3 Conditional Uses: Any structure that is not elevated on fill or flood proofed in accordance with Section 5.21-5.22 or any use of land that does not comply with the standards in Section 5.23-5.24 shall only be allowable as a Conditional Use. An application for a Conditional Use shall be subject to the standards and criteria and evaluation procedures specified in Sections 5.4-5.5 and 10.4 of this ordinance. 5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses: [5.41 Alternative elevation methods other than the use of ll may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor ove the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These ternative mothods may include the use of stilts, pilings, rallel walls, etc., or above-grado, enclosed areas such as awl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an closed area shall be considered above-grado and not a structure's basement or lowest floor if: 1) if the enclosed area is above -grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and 7) is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The aboved-noted % alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: (a) Design and Certification - The structure's design and 1Ias -built condition must be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as being in compliance with the general design standards of the State Building Code Jand, specifically, that all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of flooding.(b) Specific Standards for Above - grade, Enclosed Areas - Above -grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate: (1) The minimum area'of openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique. when openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for f/ entry of flood waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one -foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or ` other coverings or devices provided that they permit the \ automatic entry and exit of flood waters. (2) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP-] or FP -4 classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used \ aoolely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage. 5.42 Basements, as defined by Section 2.812 of this Ordinance, shall be subject to the following: (a) Residential basement construction shall not be allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. tRs b) Non-residential basements may be allowed below the egulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with Section .4] of this Ordinance. 5.43 All areas of non residential structures including basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with the structurally dry flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. Structurally dry flood proofing must meet the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code and this shall require making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of bouyancy. Structures flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 classification shall not be permitted. 5.44 when at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for such activities as on-site storage, landscaping,sand and gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal or construction of flood control works, an erosion/sedimentation control plan must be submitted unless T he community is enforcing a state approved shoreland nagement ordinance. In the absence of a state approved oreland ordinance, the plan must clearly specify methods be used to stabalize the fill on site for a flood event a minimum of the 100 -year or regional flood event. The an must be prepared and certified by a registered ofessional engineer or other qualified individual ceptable to the Governing Body. The plan may incorporate 1ternative procedures for removal of the material from theJood plain if adequate flood warning time exists. 5.45 Storage of Materials and Equipment: (a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. (b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable frcm the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the Governing Body. 5.46 The provisions of Section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall also apply. 5.5 Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses: 5.51 All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two (2) feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If a variance to this requirement is granted, the Board of Adjustment must specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the structure for times of flooding and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local flood emergency response procedures exist. 5.52 Commercial Uses - accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater (F than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood. 5.53 Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations especially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in Section 5.52 above. In considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas. 5.54 Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 - year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi -structure or multi -lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site prepdration if a change of special flood hazard area I designation will be requested. 5.55 Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect \ the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood plain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified on the Official Zoning Map. 5.56 Standards for travel trailers and travel vehicles are contained in Section 9.3. 5.57 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. SECTION 6.0 Reserved for Future Use aga SECTION 7.0 SUBDIVISIONS2 7.1 Review Criteria: No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than _two feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. `For all subdivisions in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe boundaries, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labelled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents.} 7.2 Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the100-year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements _ incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi -structure or multi -lot lvelopments. These standards should be investigated prior o the initiation of site preparation if a change of specia llood hazard area designation will be requested. Lj SECTION 8.0 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES 8.1 Public Utilities. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the flood plain shall be flood -proofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 8.2 Public Transportation Facilities. Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the flood plain shall comply with Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this Ordinance. Elevation to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. 2 This Section is not intended as a substitute for a comprehensive city or county subdivision ordinance. It can, however, be used as an interim control until the comprehensive subdivision ordinance can be amended to include necessary flood plain management provisions. 3 8.3 On-site Sewage Treatment and water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systeas into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this Section. SECTION 9.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND PLACEMENT OF TRAVEL TRAILERS AND TRAVEL VEHICLES. 9.1 New "manufactured home parks and expansions to existing mobile manufacture home parks shall be subject to the provisions placed on subdivisions by Section 7.0 of this Ordinance. /9.2 The placement of new or replacement manufactured homes in existing manufactured home parks or on individual lots of - record that are located in flood plain districts will be f treated as a new structure and may be placed only if elevated in compliance with Section 5.0 of this Ordinance. If vehicular road access for pre-existing manufactured home \ parks is not provided in accordance with Section 5.51, then replacement manufactured homes will not be allowed until the property owner(s) develops a flood warning emergency plan acceptable to the Governing Body. 9.21 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over -the -tap or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. i 9.3 Travel trailers and travel vehicles that do not meet the exemption criteria specified in Section 9.71 below shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as specifically spelled out in Sections 9.73-9.74 below. �1 9.31 Exemption - Travel trailers and travel vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance if they are placed in any of the areas listed in Section 9.32 below and further they meet the following criteria: ( (a) Have current licenses required for highway uoo. (b) Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and trailer parks and the travel trailer/travel vehicle has no permanent structural type additions attached to it. (c) The travel trailer or travel vehicle and associated use must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning use district. 9.32 Areas Exempted For Placement of Travel/Recreational Vehicles: (a) Individual lots or parcels of record. (b) Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds. (c) Existing condominium type associations. 19.33 Travel trailers and travel vehicles exempted in Section 9.31 lose this exemption when development occurs on Ithe parcel exceed inq;/J&t ollars for a structural addition to the travel trailer/travel vehicle or an accessory 'structure such as a garage or storage building. The travel trailer/travel vehicle and all additions and accessory structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall be subject to the elevation/flood proofing requirements and the use of land restrictions specified in Sections 4.0 and \ 5.0 of this Ordinance. 9.34 Now commercial travel trailer or travel vehicle parks or campgrounds and new residential type subdivisions and condominium associations and the expansion of any existing similar use exceeding five (5) units or dwelling sites shall be subject to the following: (a) Any new or replacement travel trailer or travel vehicle will be allowed in the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts provided said trailer or vehicle and its contents are placed on fill above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and proper elevated road access to the site exists in accordance with Section 5.51 of this Ordinance. Any fill placed in a floodway for the purpose of elevating a travel trailer shall be subject to the requirements of Section 4.0. (b) All now or replacement travel trailers or travel vehicles not meeting the criteria of (a) above may, as an alternative, be allowed as a Conditional Use if in accordance with the following provisions and the provisions of 10.4 of the Ordinance. The applicant must submit an emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and people during the 100 year flood. Said plan shall be prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified individual and shall demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. All attendant sewage and water facilities for new or replacement travel trailers or other recreational vehicles must be protected or \ i constructed so as to not bo impaired or contamnated di U, _g times of flooding in accordance with Section 8.1 of this Ordinance. SECTION 10.0 ADMINISTRATION 10.1 Zoning Administrator: A Zoning Administrator designated by the Governing Body shall administer and enforce this Ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator finds a violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the Zoning Administrator shall notify the person responsible for such violation tin accordance with the procedures stated in Section 12.0 of the Ordinance. 10.2 Permit Requirements: 10.21 Permit Required. A Permit issued by the Zoning Administrator in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be secured prior to the erection, addition, or alteration of any building, structure, or portion thereof; prior to the use or chanr1ge of use of a building, structure, or land; prior to thefchange or extension of a nonconforming use; -'.and pr'0r to the placement of fill, excavation of materials,r the storage of materials or equipmen�within the floo "plain. 10.22 Application for Permit. Application for a Permit shall be made in duplicate to the Zoning Administrator on forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall include the following where applicable: plans in duplicate drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel. 10.23 State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit or processing an application for a Conditional Use Permit or Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the applicant has obtained all. necessary State and Federal Permits. 10.24 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure until a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall have beer. issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance. 10.25 Construction and Use to be as Provided on Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of Zoning Compliance. Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or Certificates of Zoning Compliance issued on the basis of 0 approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Any use, arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by Section 12.0 of this Ordinance. 10.26 Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Flood - proofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. 10.27 Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator sh11 maintain a record of the elevation of Etlowest floo he r (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations or additions to structures are flood -proofed. 10.7 Board of Adjustment: 10.71 Rules. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers conferred on such Boards by State law. 10.32 Administrative Review. The Board shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative offical in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance. 10.]] Variances. The Board may authorize upon appeal in specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest and only for those circumstances such as hardship, practical difficulties or circumstances unique to the property under consideration, as provided for in the respective enabling legislation for planning and zoning for cities or counties as appropriate. In the granting of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the criteria specified in the respective enabling legislation which justified the granting of the variance No variance shall have the affect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by State law. 0 10.34 Hearings. Upon filing with the Board of Adjustment of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an application for a variance, the Board shall fix a reasonable time for a hearing and give due notice to the parties in interest�as specified by law 3 The Board shall submit by mail to tii�ie Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Variances sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. 10.35 Decisions. The Board shall arrive at a decision on such appeal or Variance within q10 days. In passing upon an appeal, the Board may, so long as such action is in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify the order, requirement, decision or determina ..on,of the Zoning Administrator or other public official. It shall make its decision in writing setting forth th" findings of fact and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a Variance the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards such as those specified in Section 10.46, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a _ part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 12.0. A copy of all decisions granting Variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. 10.36 Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the Board may be made, and as specified in this Community's Offical Controls and also Minnesota Statutes 10.17 Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100 -year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. 10.4 Con ition i Uses. The �, � 0,11 MI / 1� (Governing Body/Planning Comm./Bd. of Adjust.) shall hear and decide applications for Conditional Uses permissible under this Ordinance. Applications shall be submitted to the ZoningAdeinist who shall forward the application to ator 4 nq_tJ1; f for consideration. r (Designated Body) 10.41 HeriI C,�jngs. upon filing with the t4 I i an application for a (Designated Body) Conditional Use Permit, the (41j4 coyp�?:/ shall submit (Des&gnated Body) by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Conditional Use sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. 10.42 Decisions. The t/ku,i/ el,' shall arrive at (Desig7hated Body) a decision on a Conditional Use within days. In grantinga Conditional Use Permit the C:Zrsha113 prescribe appropriate (DesignAed Body) conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in Section 10.46, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use Per -nit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 12.0. A copy of all decisions granting Conditional Use Permits shall be forwarded by mail to the commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. 10.43 Procedures to be followed by the (4aAl(d- (Designted Body) in Passing on Conditional Use Permit Applications Within all Flood Plain Districts. (a) Require the applicant to furnish such of the following information d additiR al information],as deemed necessary by the �11� Z, (h,Alfil. for determining the suitability of (Desigrrated Body) the particular site for the proposed use: (1) Plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the lot, existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, flood - proofing measures, and the relationship of the above to the location of the stream channel. (2) Specifications for building construction and materials, flood -proofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary facilities. (b) Transmit one copy of the information described in subsection (a) to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary, Le in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, and other technical matters. (c) Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer or expert, the is Co�,(d shall determine the (Desigrfated Body) specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood hazard. 10.44 Fppctors Upon which the Decision of the r;?! /uv.•;; ( Shall Be Based. In passing (Designated Body) upono itional Us applications, the r shall consider all relevant factors (Designate Body) ' specified in other sections of this Ordinance, and: (a) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. (b) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands_ or downstream to the injury of others£or they may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures (c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. (d) The susceptability of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. (e) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. (f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (g) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (h) The computability of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the forseeable future. (i) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. (j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. (k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate o: rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. (1) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Ordinance. 10.45o for Acting on Application. The (; T/n , I'] e, ( shall act on an application in the (Desigrfated Body) 9 manner described above within _() days from receiving the application, except that where additional information is requiredpursuant to 10.44 of this Ordinance. The /,' 4 /p / shall render a written decision within (Designaibd Body) " days from the receipt of such additional information. 10.46 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factorlisted agove and the purpose of this Ordinance, the (_,'7w 'ehal�attach such (DesigAted Body) conditions to the granting of Conditional Use Permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. (b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. (d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. (e) Flood -proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood -proofing measures are consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. SECTION 11.0 NONCONFORMING USES 11.1 A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions: 11.11 No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. 11.12 Any alteration or addition to aCnonconforming 8tructure3 or nonconforming use which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of that tructurez or use shall be{protectod to the Regulatory Floo Protection Elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or flood proofing techniques ( i.e. , FP -1 thru FP -4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Coda, except as further restricted in 11.13 below. 11.13 The cost of any structural alterations cr�additiong; to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure /f� shall not exceed 50 percent of the �marketivalue of the structure unless the conditions of this eection are satisfied. UVIe cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the Community's initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market value of the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Section 4.0 or 5.0 of this Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. 11.14 If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months, any future use of the building premises shall conform to this Ordinance. The assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of 12 months. 11.15. If any nonconforming use or struct re is destroyed by any means, includin flood to anfexten of 50 percent or more if its market value at the time of destruction it shall not be econstructe except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance.The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new s ructures in Sections 4.0 or 5.0 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively} SECTION 12.0 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION 12.1 Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of Variances or Conditional Uses) shall constitute z a misdemeanor and shall be punishable[as 3 defined by law 12.2 Nothir}g h rein contained shall prevent the 6,-� n{ N !M from taking such other lawful action (loc9 unit) as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. LSuch actions may include but are not limited to„}' Lbut In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the g Administrator and Local Government may utilize the array of enforcement actions available to it including ot limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, -the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a st to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial ood insurance availability to the guilty pa=ty.Thonity must act in good faith to enforce these official ols and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 12.22 When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or 1! brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the / violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information will be submitted to the / appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal 1 Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the % Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible. I 12.23 The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected I jparty of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other ) Official Controls and the nature and extent of the suspectedi violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is) under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator , may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the �• Community. If the construction or development is already completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1) ` issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must / 1 be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls, or (2) r notify the responsible party to apply for an after -the -fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 -days. 12.26 If the responsible party does not appropriately I respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified I period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and I shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also upon the lapse of the specified response period notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance. SECTION 13.0 AMENDMENTS The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if he determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. All amendments to this Ordinance, including amendments to the Official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes in the official Zoning Map must meet the; Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical C nditions and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources must be given 10 -days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this ordinance and said notice shall include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under consideration 0 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 15. Consideration of Zoninq Ordinance Amendment reducing "convenience food" parking requirement. Applicant, Shinqobee Builders. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter and recommends approval of the proposed amendment outlined below. Planning Commission reviewed the technical data showing that the current ordinance requires parking in excess of the parking demand generated during peak periods experienced by convenience or "fast food" shops. Following is the data that the Planning Commission reviewed prior to making its finding. Shingobee Builders requests that the City consider amending the parking requirements associated with convenience food establishments. The proposed reduction amounts to a significant reduction in the convenience food parking requirement and is accomplished by placing the "convenience food" activity in the same parking requirement category as restaurants, night clubs, taverns, cafes, and private clubs serving food and drinks. Shingobee Builders proposes the development of a Subway Sandwich Shop directly south of the Tom Thumb store on Highway 25. Also proposed is a structure to be used for retail purposes. The retail structure/use meets ordinance requirements. The Subway Shop portion of the site plan calls for sufficient parking spaces if one applies the "restaurant" parking requirement (22 spaces) rather than the "convenience food" parking requirement (60 spaces). According to the zoning ordinance, the Subway Sandwich Shop clearly meets the definition of a convenience food establishment; therefore, it appeared clear-cut that the sandwhich shop needed 60 parking spaces. After further investigation, it was found that the City of Monticello, in years past, has used the "restaurant" parking requirement when establishing the parking requirements associated with other "convenience food" establishments, including Wendy's and McDonalds. In light of this Information, I contacted the City Planner and researched other ordinances regulating parking associated with convenience food activity. What I found out was quite interesting. It appears that convenience food parking requirements vary from city to city. Roseville, for instance, requires about the same number of convenience food parking spaces as is required by the existing Monticello ordinance. On the other hand, recent traffic studios indicate that the parking ratio for restaurants is adequate for convenience food activities; therefore, there does appear to be a rationale for reducing Council Agenda - 5/14/90 the convenience food parking requirement based on the traffic study. It should be noted that a reduction in the convenience food parking requirement is not necessitated by previous incorrect application of the ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve ordinance amendment by moving "convenience food" parking requirements from 3-5 H. Number of Parking Spaces Required - Section 13. to Section 19. Amendment based on the finding that: a. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the character and geography of the commercial districts that apply. b. The amendment will not tend to depreciate the area and the land values in the area, as studies show that spillover parking should not be a problem. The need for the change in the ordinance has been sufficiently demonstrated. The existing parking requirement for convenience food activity is excossive. According to the City Planner, it appears reasonable to reduce the parking requirement for convenience food activities as proposed, as such a reduction is consistent with a, b, and c above. In addition, the City has incorrectly applied the proposed standard in years past, and parking problems do not appear to have resulted. By the same token, Wendy's has not experienced terrific business activity, and McDonalds did expand their parking after the original development. Motion to deny ordinance amondment as proposed. The proposal to reduce the parking requirements for convenience food activity is reasonable according to traffic studies. At the same timo, however, the amendment takes convenience food parking requirements from one extreme to the other. City Council might wish to consider an amendment that is slightly less extreme. 25 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 If Council selects this alternative, the Subway Shop parking would be insufficient, which would require a variance; or the establishment could provide "proof of parking," which would indicate a parking expansion area that would be accessible should parking become a problem under the current site plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is somewhat uncomfortable with the degree by which the ordinance will be amended. Lessening the requirement too far may result in parking problems that would be difficult to reverse. At the same time, however, it does appear that the convenience food parking requirement as proposed is justifiable given the results of fast food parking demand study. Staff agrees with Planning recommendation that the ordinance be amended as proposed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed ordinance amendment, Copy of Subway Shop site plan, copy of fast food parking study. 26 Existing Ordinance 13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT AND CONVENIENCE FOOD (move to 19): At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor area, but not less than fifteen (15) spaces. 19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS: At least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area. Proposed Ordinance 13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT: At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor area, but not less than fifteen (15) spaces. 19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS, CONVENIENCE FOOD: At least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area. 6 BF FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOW (836) Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET LEASABLE AREA Ona: WEEKDAY PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Range of Standard Number of Average 1,000 GSF 1 Rate Rates Deviation Studies Leasab(o Area 9195 3,55-15.92 3.41 to 3 Cz DATA PLOT AND EOUATION CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—LOW R'. 44 42- n L) w 40- a: 38 - Cl 36- 0 (A w 34- U 0< 32- 'b XA,-.<N 30 - Z 28- x cc 26 - 24 22 w 0- 20- tt i 1 U 0 CL 18- 16- 14 1 2 3 4 5 G '7 x = 1000 GIIOSS SOUARE FEETLEASABLE AIIEA 1:1 ACTUAI, UAIA POINIS - Fl I I r.0 CUIM: Filled Cuivo Equaliow 13 d 1.95(X) 1 20.0 St n' • 0.038 ilar*,nq 0—mmson. Auquif 108711fistitula of Itanaportallon Council Agenda - 5/14/90 16. Consideration of ordinance amendment deletinq surety bond requirements for on -sale liquor license applicants. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of the 1989 legislative session, the requirements under state statutes for issuance of liquor licenses by cities eliminated the surety bond requirements in the amount of $3,000. With this deletion, a local unit of government is not required to obtain a surety bond in the amount of $3,000 and submit this bond to the Liquor Control Division before issuing an on -sale liquor license. City Ordinance 3-2-3 (B) and (C) pertaining to the surety bond requirements can be deleted from our ordinance to correspond with the nPw state requirements. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the ordinance amendment deleting the surety bond requirements. 2. Do not amend the ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since originally the $3,000 surety bond was a requirement of the state before we could issue a liquor license, the City had no choice but to require this of all applicants. Since the state has now deleted this requirement, staff recommends that our ordinances be amended to also delete this requirement. All applications for on -sale retail licenses shall still file with the City and the state a certificate of liability insurance in an amount not less than $300,000, which should adequately protect the public. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of ordinance amendment proposed. 27 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS that ordinance Sections 3-2-3 (B) and (C) pertaining to liquor license surety bond requirements be deleted in its entirety. Adopted this 14th day of May, 1990. Mayor City Administrator Council Agenda - 5/14/90 Wine/3.2 Beer Combination, On -sale (fee $500) Renewal 1. Dino's Deli Set-up License (fee $275) 1. Country Club 2. Rod and Gun Club Licenses (fee --set by Statute based on membership) 1. V.F.W.--$500 2. American Legion --$650 Binqo, Temporary (fee $20) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival Gamblinq, Temporary ($20 per device) 1. St. Henry's Fall Festival 2. Rod and Gun Club --Steak Fry --August 10 6 18 A single motion approving these licenses should read similar to, "I move that the following licenses be approved effective July 1, 1990." There is no supporting data for this item. , �d 29 0 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 17. Consideration of grantinq annual approval for municipal licenses. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the past, you have renewed the licenses listed below in a single motion. I believe that the motion has been a contingent motion such that licenses are approved depending upon successful completion of the application, approval at the state level, eLC. The licenses submitted for your consideration are as follows: Intoxicatinq Liquor, On -sale (fee $3,750) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. Stuart Hoglund --Comfort Inn Intoxicatinq Liquor, On -sale, Sunday (fee $200 --set by Statute) Renewals 1. Monticello Liquor, Inc. 2. Silver Fox 3. Joyner's Lanes 4. VFW Club S. American Legion Club 6. Comfort Inn Non -intoxicating Malt, On -sale (fee $275) 1. Rod and Gun 2. Pizza Factory 3. Country Club Non-Intoxicatinq Malt, Off -sale (foe $75) Renowals 1. Monticello Liquor 2. Rivorroad Plaza 3. Maus Foods 4. Rivor Torraco 5. Tom Thumb 6. Holiday 7. Plaza Car Wash 28 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 18. Consideration of sale of excess riqht-of-way at the intersection of service drive and East County Road 39 adjoining Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 19, Block 3, Hoglund Addition. (J.S.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At an earlier meeting, the City Council discussed the possible sale of unneeded right-of-way created during the development of the new Service Drive and new County Road 39 East. The Council directed the staff to meet with each of the affected pruperLy owners to see if each of them would wish to purchase the right-of-way created by the extension of their lot lines to the service drive and EasL County Road 39. The purchase price was to be $.25 per square foot plus the cost of drafting descriptions and transfer of property. If not all of the property owners were interested in purchasing right-of-way, the City would offer to sell the entire piece to any of the adjoining property owners. There was some discussion that the City might wish to keep the little portion of right-of-way adjoining Lot 1 for the location of a future City of Monticello sign. During the past weeks I have had the opportunity to speak to D all of the property owners except one. Kevin Boynton, the owner of Lot 1, indicated no interest in the property, as he was in the process of attempting to sell the property. Leslie Strong, the owner. of Lot 2, is in the same situation but did express some interest and would let us know by Monday or be at the meeting. Their property is currently for sale. Dennis Taylor, the owner of Lot 3, is not interested in the property, as there is a significant berm in between his property and the additional right-of-way, and he has already planted additional trees for screening in the area. Mr. Alfred Kiel, the owner of Lot 4, is retired and spends much of his time at a lake cabin. I have not been able to reach him but will keep trying. Mr. Darrell Hoikes, the owner of Lot 19, has expressed an indication in purchasing either the 2,060 square foot of right-of-way calculated with the extension of his property lines, or the entire piece of property with or without the small point of property on the oast and that the City expressed interest in for a future sign. Since not all property owners are interested In purchasing their Individual pieces of property, it may be appropriate to sell the property to Mr. Heikes. The entire parcel has an estimated 17,893 square foot and would sell at $4,473.25. If the City were to keep the most easterly parcel, we would deduct $326.25, making the sale price $4,147. Mr. Hoikes would be responsible for the cost of drafting the legal description and the cost to transfer. We could also sell Mr. Hoikos only up to Lot 2 if Mr. Strong expresses an interest and then keep Lot 1 right-of-way for our sign. 30 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: ' 1. The first alternative would be to sell all of the property to Mr. Heikes at a cost of $4,473.25 plus transfer. 2. The second alternative would be to sell all of the property to Mr. Heikes except the most easterly portion, which we would keep for a future sign. The cost of the property sold would be $4,147 plus transfer. 3. The third alternative would be to sell Mr. Heikes the right-of-way to Lot 2, sell Mr. Strong his right-of-way for Lot 2, and keep the right-of-way for Lot 1 ourselves for a future sign. 4. The fourth alternative would be to sell Mr. Heikes only the 2,060 square feet created by the extension of his lot lines at an estimated cost of $515. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council select alternatives #1, 92, or 03, depending upon Mr. Strong's interest. If there is some interest in a future sign at this location, alternatives b2 or Y3 seem most applicable; and this property would not be usable to Mr. Heikes or Mr. Strong. I do think that any decision should be contingent upon notification to Mr. Kiel and his unwillingness to purchase additional right-of-way. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the letter from Mr. Holkes; Copy of the map showing proposed right-of-way sale to adjoining property owner. 31 I 2000 Victory Memorial Drive Minneapolis, Mn 55412 (612)522-2034 May 10, 1990 City of Monticello Monticello, Mn 55392 Attention: Rick Wolfsteller In reference to the strip of land adjoining my property Lot 19, Block 3, Hoglund Addition, I am willing to accept your offer for the entire strip at .250 per sq. foot. 51n erely, —D.,yC. Heikes �_ - e J-�rP,•w;c+�'� c p;_ �_d, ee- `" ixa� 4: .:ya..c, �ermrrr ^ .. .r .- •.Ss�C `sem! vT:r� _ _ __�-- _ -_ - _-�.il..- —._ ��.'_ -_- _ C' _.1, _ i� s/ _ - -XCsS =RAJ _ SA SS/PP/ - MA`(_ I4, ICl A CAST IRON MONUMENT AT SECTION CORNER 7 hoot ti�N R2 vNO I1 z �7 a / 6 13 ;IB 9 c 2� N� 0R/ f < AZA 3 4 . r ;SP-kq I". 400/ 1 v� SEE J 19 2oa0r 3eVSi 3 T,ON v N TA/ r� Cp�VE I Z6 -,25 1. So. S60.5 \ �NfpVJEW / s� 9\_3'1!•. ° p9 - - -'I�/ .pr -1y �• /\ 30 .206.65 E o'. 0 . _ �� — j9 s�9 9q2"E - a _3.5g w ��, • g0'b6 39 S 79.0 1' • x 9 3 i � • �,�o C �, •• X71 `•;g no • �- ....\ -- " ;z�.� 1 � 6 IO'T E N 107'T E _j P�N o fJ n h F 1- N _ N > > ~ '� Q W N C Q y N W i W_ W ya W •01 \ , CA Council Agenda - 5/14/90 19. Consideration of acceptinq a eortion of the annual sidewalk report and adoptinq a resolution settino a public hearinq. (J.S.) REFERENCE ANr, BACKGROUND: City staff is currently involved in an annual sidewalk Inspection to cover the entire city of Monticello. Inspection criteria are being developed, and the overall report is expected to be reviewed by the City Council in June. We have received complaints from Mr. Dennis Seitz about a section of sidewalk on the west side of Maple Street which runs from Broadway to 4th Street. We have informed Mr. Seitz that we were in the process of developing an overall report for the City Council to review as per Section 8, Chapter 1; of the City's ordinance. Mr. Seitz requested that this sidewalk be brought before the City Council immediately, as it has been in poor shape for some time. By referring to the City ordinance, one can see that the proper procedure set forth is that the Public works Director or his authorized representative perform an annual inspection and prepare a report for the City Council. If the City Council believes that any sidewalk Is in such disrepair as to be dangerous to the public travel thereon, the Council will set a public hearing after a two -weeks' written notice period to the property owner. At the hearing, the Council can so order repair or replacement of the existing sidewalk by the adjoining property owner. In some cases where short sections of sidewalk are scattered throughout the town and located in front of private property, the property owners elect to remove the sidewalk rather than make repairs. In such cases, the Council may dotermino that the sidewalk benefits the city at large and may consider participating in a sidewalk replacement program; however, it is recommended that such sidewalk replacement programs be based upon a city-wide report rather than an isolated case, Enclosed you will find the written report and copies of the maps indicating the areas that need repair. Along with this are the Preliminary criteria upon which inspections are based. Our now inspector, Tom Boso, was instrumental In performing this inspection and developing the criteria. It does appear that there aro several areas in need of sidewalk repair that could be considered dangerous to public travel; therefore, the Council has just causo to sot a date for a public hearing on the partial report and send two-wook written notices for the hearing to be held the day after Memorial Day on May 29. 32 Council Agenda - 5/14/90 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to accept the partial report and set a date for a public hearing on said report for May 29 and send written notice to the adjoining property owners. 2. The second alternative would be to notify the property owner immediately as to the perceived condition of the sidewalk and that portions are dangerous to public travel and provide barricades or warning devices for the areas which are in extremely poor repair but to hold off on the public hearing until the completed report is due in June. 3. The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time and wait until the final report is delivered to the Council in June to set a public hearing. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although there is some immediacy to the need to repair the sidewalk, it may be more appropriate to view an overall report and discuss options such as sidewalk replacement programs and criteria for replacement at that time. To lessen the risk until that time, the City could notify the property owners and place barricades ae outlined in alternative N2. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of abbreviated sidewalk report concerning only that section of sidewalk on maple Street from Broadway to 4th Street; Photographs are available at City Hall for your review. 33 CITY OF MONTICELLO PARTIAL SIDEWALK REPORT (West side of Maple Street from Broadway to 4th Street) I. DEFINITION A pedestrian walkway (either bituminous or concrete) is a smooth, continuous horizontal plane generally 4 feet to 5 feet wide, parallel to curb or street driving surface in both boulevard width and vertical height with a cross -slope of 2% to 4% to promote water drainage. It should be free of hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, and snow removal equipment such as, but not limited to, cracks, settlements, protrusions, both horizontal and vertical such as heaved panels (whole or partial), tree limbs, and overhangs. There should be pedestrian ramps where sidewall, .-.seta curb on all new and major restoration construction. II. CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSPECTION A. Continuous --free of cracks other than control and expansion joints. LCracks classified in two groups: 1. Sealable --up to three cracks in a panel which run parallel or perpendicular to the walking surface less than 3/4" in width which do not intersect and do not have panel heaving so as to cause an uneven walking surface. These cracks may be sawcut and/or cleaned as necessary, then sealed or caulked with an acceptable latex or silicon concrete sealer in such a way to make them look like an expansion joint. 2. Unsealable--cause for replacement a. Wandering cracks which deviate more than 3" from a straight line on a 4' panel and 1" on smaller panels generated from the points of origin at edges of panel is cause for whole or partial panel replacement depending on the location of crack/cracks in the panel. b. Cracks caused by panel heave which generate a "lip" or step in the horizontal plane of 1/4" or more will need repair by whole or partial panel replacement. SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 1 �J c. A crack which causes a "crown" in the panel will be treated in respect to the direction of the crack. i) A perpendicular crown of over 1" from the ends of the panel is cause for replacement. ii) A parallel crown of over 1/2" from edges of panel or in such a way that it retards water drainage is grounds for panel replacement. iii) Cracks and heaving caused by tree roots may cause additional work to prevent future damage to replaced panels. d. Settlements i) If the settlement is sufficient to trap water causing puddling or icing of walk or to retard proper cross -slope (toward or away from curb based on natural drainage) it must be replaced. B. Overhangs and hazards 1. A hazard is considered, but not limited to, anything which can cause personal injury from tripping or stumbling such as a "step" in the horizontal plane or head injuries from overhangs or protrusion into the vertical planes of the edges of walk. Rocks and panel chips are examples of hazards. Trees and stumps at the very edge of walks may be considered as potential hazards. SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 2 As per City Council's request for inspection and report of sidewalks in need of repair, I went out to the two -block area of the west side of Maple Street from Broadway to 4th Street. The following is a report of that inspection along with recommendations based on criteria included in this report. The pictures included in this report are areas of special interest, and items referred to in the recornmenciation refer to the picture of that number. Starting at Broadway and working my way south, I found the existing 146 linear feet of sidewalk of the 200 block in very poor condition. It was made up of small (16" x 16") panels to form the 4 -foot walk_ There were very few panels which were not cracked and shifted one way or another (see pictures 01-5). There were weeds and grass growing over the edges and in most of the cracks and control joints throughout the lengths. Roots from the stump appear to have heaved the walk up while the tree was alive. This stump could be a hazard to someone riding a bike on the sidewalk or anyone walking at night. On the second half of the block, the sidewalk was made up of two, 2 -foot wide panels. The first 100.5 feet of sidewalk (pictures #6- 10) had cracked and heaved panels with very few good panels. Picture 08 shows the beginning of a crown effect from either edge settlement or center heave. At this point, there are a few good panels (about 6 or 7) on the property side half of the walk, though they would comprise only about 14 to 28 of the entire walk. Picture 09 shows an even greater crown; and at this point, the property s1 de panels are settled so that they slope toward the property, thus causing improper drainage which should be toward curb. Pictures 11-12A demonstrate crown in sidewalk with cracked panels and walk sloping to the outside edges from the center. Picture 012A shows breakup of the last 8 feet to 10 fast of sidewalk on the block ondirng 9 feet from the back of curb. Pictures 013 and 014 show CBs in line with street 1/2 of sidewalk. Beginning into the 300 block of Maple Street, the sidewalk begins 12.5 foot behind the curb and is settled, cracked, and overgrown as shown in picture 015. In the first 65 feet (through 017) of the walk, the majority of the 2' x 2' panels are cracked and shifted in one way or another, the worst being a panel shift (approximately 25 feet from the back of the 3rd Street curb) in which one corner of one panel is 2-1/4" above adjoining panels. Even the section from the small house walk to the drivoway (an area which appears to have boon replaced once) is very badly cracked. There is a section of the driveway crossing missing as can be seen in picture 018. From the c1 ivoway to the property line, the panels are very badly cracked end beginning to break up in several areas as can be seen in pictures 020 and 021. Picture 021 also shows the misalignment between the walks from one property to the other. SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 3 6 Picture #22 shows a 1 -inch "lip" at the control joint between panels from either the panel by the tree being forced up or the driveway settling. Also shown are two cracked panels with settlement. This is an area which will trap water causing icing of the walk in the winter. Items #23-28, with the exception of #24, are all single cracks in 4' x 4' panels and should be able to be saw cut as necessary and filled/sealed with a latex concrete sealer. Item #24 is panel shift along the east side of the walk causing a 1/2 -inch "lip." Since neither panel on either side of this "lip" is cracked, 1/2 panel replacement would be acceptable. My recommendation would be that due to the cracked, settled, and heaved condition of the sidewalk along the ::est side of Maple Street (east side of Block 39), a complete sidewalk removal and replacement be done with minimum 4" thick concrete for walk and 6" driveway crossings. Total removal would be 169.5 linear feet along Lot 6, Block 39, and 177.5 linear feet along Lot 5. In addition to replacement, I would recommend an additional segment of sidewalk and pedestrian ramp be added in the northwest quadrant of the Maple/3rd Street intersection (southeast corner of Block 39). This would include removal and replacement of a section of curb and gutter and an addition of about 19.5 feet of 4 -foot wide sidewalk (78 sq ft). Due to the storm intake on 3rd Street being in line with the Maple Street sidewalk, the pedestrian ramp should be placed at the mid -radius point of the curb. Placing a pedestrian ramp at this spot will cause replacement of a piece of curb which presently has a crack approximately 6" away from a control joint. At the time of construction, I feel it would be advisable to remove the stump along the west side of the walk at Lot 6 (see picture #4), as it could be a pedestrian hazard. My recommendations for the sidewalk on the west side of Maple Street from 3rd Street to 4th Street (east side of Block 28) would be as follows: The entire existing 146 linear feet of 2' x 2' panel sidewalk should be removed and replaced due to unsafe and unmaintainablo condition. In order to maintain the historic authenticity of the walk, 2 -foot square panels should be allowed for replacement. The new sidewalk should be aligned and transitioned to meet the newer 4' panel construction at the south property line of Lot 6. In addition to the replacement, an additional 10 linear feet should be added along Maple Street and 18 linear feet along 3rd Street (112 sq ft total) with a pedestrian ramp at the mid -radius of the southwest quadrant of Maple/3rd Street (northwest corner of Block 28). Here again the storm intake on 3rd Street is in line with the sidewalk along Maple and would cause the pedestrian ramp to be shifted to the mid -radius. SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Page 4 0 P$I PA RED 3/,0190 H Ler 5 cz 1501 v 3ADSr. v a n E..e I J •DIP IN WALLA �S101WALA '-'D ­ _ .. C....A .l YC er MYIl1 {r fwe I Ieu:.I W.D IJ 6[Afi 690wro, 0via foul OR -Aix. 77 L.F. —• W::r i0A[ OI 'I7. CS IY111 11 Y Ir Ni :L". C[N11A Ltwl 0A IIID: wA.Y PrD. NArIP w0.L0 ..IA i0 Or PIADID Ar v11. r:6W CONS: J Nvmws .ND AARO-S INDICI:C P:CTVRE LOCArION .ND Dfi[CTICN OF SNOT SrJI WA Lw NORiI: Dr Pe w[A Pole S IDIw.I. [ IrID 1[ re:I lL IS 2 SH -IL IN / roA Del vl w.!M[Ylr.11A tfvw Oi POLE [t I$ P $MILL PANT LS yr DE. i DRtrf v.r Lor ''T&8 510 W. bAD.Dw.I I Pwr r.:[ � Il�$MV� I I �/• DIP 1N VAlk �Bbo 15.3 R. Wt.$ • MOST PANIL[ CA.cwKV, MCA110 AND SNI[IPD 00.3 Lr. MAPLE ST, ,200 B10 BLOCK 39 I� Mef r PAI, 11 rAAL. fO, Nf IVL'D AYD fYrlrfD W11. 4AAII GADWrAD SN CRACKS 16 9. 3 J. a 0 0 cr �. f. J PREPARIO 3/10/90 NUMBERS AND ARI ADVS -OTC ArE Pi Ci VRE LOC, TIC. AAa DirEC TI ON Or Swor LOT 5 ST. HINATY CAINCLIC CWVRCW SIDI—. MIIALtswro— (N!W Vu- ♦' 0Oe1a TO CLAA) i .!T .ic "'�I •EE I� -1—-`/7 1 ?� i taACNS IN TWIE rw0 P,NILI MIS .AEAINOVID DE CAACHED ,.o SETTLED SE ALID AND MONI rORED AT CONTROL J0I Nr, THERE IS S ErILEMENT/ MAIL[ ST. AEArE ONANOTWIR (300 81"PANEL CIVIING A 1' UP APPROX. - BLOCK 28 Wm" EPm r N6V CONST .p Co D -O DRIVI VAT — LOT G 500 W. 3RD. ST. 21 �TREC7 d GJ/ M .14 il'T,1 1 I I IS T'R[:J JL �t e1vD. ie rr. �rsDE SIDI w,I- In.l Dr Rl1. elTPAIELI TEP, NELe WI DEI, Or Vwitw ARE CRAG CAACNED, NEAT/0 .. eIT Il1O, WrE Plat UIN& IJITN W.&I ADN O. CIS LrA-L — crAkL GOAee GAOWt-D IN CIACNS, NL IS lR LINI VlT- JNI Al1M[ ND Orep EDGES. Or 11 Dl n, PID D WOu.O -,rl TO El PLACID AT n10 ROO The sidewalk along the church property is in pretty good condition, and repairs can be made by caulking, with the exception of the items listed earlier. Replacement of three to four panels (appror.imately 48-72 sq ft) need replacement at the driveway area (item #22) and 1/2 or whole panel replacement at item #24 (second walkway across boulevard). Half panel replacement will be allowed if the panel is saw cut to give a straight construction joint. SIDEWALK REPORT: 5/11/90 Pago 5 0 CITY or monT ICELLO Monthly Building Department Report Month of APRIL . 19 90 I PERMITS MID USES Lent Sema Month Leet Year 'Tole year PERMITS ISSUED Month Me rel, Mon[h April Laet Year To Date Mo.t To Deta RESIDENTIAL Num bar B 21 10-5 74 Veluatton $84.200.00 S 162,300.00 5678,000.00 S 848,100.00 S 721,700.00 Poem 724.61 1,4]6.7) 4,596.89 6,289.00 2.075.203 .+u rche rge. 41.10 77.90 718.65 422.05 155.95 COMMERCIAL Ilumber 1 5 5 B 7 Ye lust ton 1,500.00 2.477.000.00 22,000.00 1.162,400.06 2,440.000,00 roes 15.00 12.704.69 276.00 6.786.40 12.796.19 Surcharge. .50 1.216.25 10.50 580.70 1.219.50 INDUSTRIAL Numbs[ 1 3 Va=tr fen 7,500.00 98.600.00 Fee. 94.50 1.091.71 Surcharge. 3.75 49.30 PLUlU INS Numb.[ , 4 7 11 7 Fee.23.00 127.00 266.00 396.00 196.00 6urchargee .50 2.00 6.00 5.50 3.50 OTII LRO Nu mlror 4 1 ) 4 Veluatlon 95,000.00 .00 .00 95.000.00 Poen 1,000.80 10.00 70.00 1,080.80 Surcharge. 48.50 .50 1.50 48.50 TOTAL NO. PERMITS 10 35 23 47 55 •` TOTAL VALUATION 65,700.00 2,697.800.00 660.700.00 2.010.500.00 2.954.900.00 TOTAL rr.F.B 762.61 15.463.72 5,100.69 I 13,501.40 18.039.53 TOTAL SURCBAROr.S 42.10 1.748.60 339.65 1.099.75 1.476.75 I CURRENT MOIITII PEES Rumb.r to Data PERMIT NA7vAK IIIImhe[- PERMIT OURCIIAROE Valuation - Thle Year Leet Year BInU1e really 2 S 85).2; S 53.65 S 107,300.00 4 6 It, 1. 0 0 Nulll-f em11Y 0 1 Commar W 4 17.607.49 1.256.75 2.517.500.00 4 0 Indus ter lnl I 0 R.s. Ca raves 1 50.0( 7.50 5,000.00 7 I Bluna 0 0 Puhllc nulldinge 0 0 ALTUNATION Oil REPAIR Dv.111n0. 15 480.5( 70.2! 45.500.00 25 17 Comma rclel 2 45.0( 7.00 4,500.00 4 0 Indn.l r, a, 1 94.5( ).75 7.500.00 2 0 PIAIM BIND All Type. 4 127.00 2.00 7 11 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Sao -Ing Poeta 1 117.0(1 5.00 10,000.00 1 O tl.cA4 3 45.00 ,. SO 4.500.00 3 0 TrxponMY PERMIT 0 0 DEMOLITION 7 20.00 1.00 .00 2 ] TOTAI1 ]! 15.447.77 1,168.40 2.697,800.00 55 47 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT AL•IVITY REPORT Month of APRIL , 1990 PERMIT DESCRIPTION TYPE NAME/LOCATION NUMBER 90-1456 Deck AD Steve Samuelson/225 Prairls Reed 90-1451 Basement flnlah At, Pat 6 Leri Meyhoff/2700 Me edov Lane 90-1457 Basement finish ADEr Builders/2760 Meador Lena 90-1458 Attached garage RD John BOraeh/375 Prelrte Road 90-1459 K -Mart footings G foundatlon walls C The Lincoln Companies/200 W. 7th St. 90-1460 Beaement finish AD Dirk Westveer/b Center Circle 90-1461 House raroof AD Rayne Seestrom/110 Washington St. 90-1462 Houae and garage residing AD Lloyd Lund/124 Hillcrest Road 90-1463 Interior remodel AI Bunny rrelh roma, Inc./206 W. nth et. 90-1464 Building rermt AC Paul B]Orklund/254 West Broadway 90-1465 Besamsnt finish AD Scott 6 Cindy Hogg/227 Crocus Lane 90-1466 Heuae reahingle ADJack 6 Barbara L-/827 W. Broedrey 90-1467 3 •aason porch AD Vl rgtl L Eunice Kalpin/100 Badmen Lena 90-1468 House reahingle AD Don Nagel/524 C. River Bt. 90-1469 Playground structure MISC Monticello Public Schools/1110 W. Oroadray 90-147. House demolltton AD city Ot Monticello/910 M1nna4ota 8t. 90-1471 Ilousa L garage reroof AD Russell G Viola Bell/710 W. River BL. 90-1472 flack AD Ii 6 Gwen Corrigan/779 Aeon Circle 90-1473 House f garage Sr BL11 Builders/2001 Oakvlew Irons 90-1474 Car wash C Investor• Together/1537 C. Broedrey 90-1475 3 ries- porch AO Judy Stokes/1502 W. Rlvar St. 90-1476 House 6 garage reshingle AD Lore 11 BevereoN 1010 E. R1 ver Bt. 90-1477 4 season porch AD, ftiLh/109 Craig Ione 90-1478 Basement llnlsh AD Mlchael Weetphall/105 Rodsan Lane 90-1479 Into riot remodel AC A.E. Michaels Decorating/118 C. Broadway 90-1480 Deck ADPatrlol• Schwan/103 Hl hereat Road 90-1401 House 6 garage aP Value Plus He.../223 Crocus lana 90-1482 Window AD Jerry 6 reren Wells/613 E.River at. 90-1483 In -ground Pool AD Dennis Ralerson/2 Center Circle 90-1484 Bullding 4-I tlon A] Bunny hash roods, Ino./409 Walnut St. 90-1440 K -Mart, above foundation only C Th. Lincoln Campanles/300 W. 7th St. PEE= VALUATION DERMIS SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE 1,500.00 S 15.00 S.50 5 S 1,500.00 15.00 .50 2,000.00 20.001.00 5,000.00 50.00 7.50 351,600.00 1,520.10 175.60 1,500.00 15.00 .50 1,500.00 15.00 .50 9,500.00 112.50 4.75 7,500.00 94.50 7.75 1,500.00 15.00 .50 1,500.00 15.00 .50 1,500.00 15.00 .50 4,000.00 40.00 7.00 1,500.00 15.00 .70 85,000.00 572.00 42.50 .00 10.00 .50 1,500.00 15.00 .5.50 1,500.00 15.00 0 54,700.00 792.06 27.35 27.00 .50 117,100.00 685.35 56.55 70.00 .50 4,000.00 40.00 2.00 1,500.OD 15.00 .50 11,000.00 126.00 5.50 1,500.00 15.00 .50 7,000.00 70.00 1.50 1,500.00 15.00 .50 52,600.00 303.58 26.70 23.00 .50 1,500.00 15.00 .50 10,000.00 117.00 5.00 .00 10.00 .50 1,963,800.00 5,667.10 981.417 51.00 .50 TOTALS 1-2.697,800.00 9.890.:1 1.366.40 127.00 2.00 TOTAL REVENUE 516.792.12 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT Month of APRIL PERMIT DESCRIPTION TYPE NAME/LJXATION VALUATION - EE ES PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING SURCHARGE NUMBER PUN REVIEW 90-1.59 K-Mari footing& 6 foundation Valla C The Lincoln Compania./300 W. 7th St. 4988.06 90-1468 Playground structure C MontiCsllo Public School./1110 W. Broadway ]71.80 90-1173 Rus. G pa rage BE 13LH Bulldere/3001 Oakvisw Ln. 39.21 90-1174 Co., waan C Inw.aso * Toq*th.dl517 E. Broadway 445.47 90-1481 House i garapa 8P Va lua PIU. Herne./223 Crocus Lane 30.36 90-1440 K-Ma rt, above foundation only C The Lincoln Companies/300 W. 7th St. 7.757.61 TOTAL PLAN REVIEW 5.636.51 TOTAL REVENUE 516.792.12 1990 PUBLIC NUISANCE REPORT May 11, 1990 (CONTRACT MOWING = Woods/wass haight 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 JAN FEB MAR /.PRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC CITY PUBLIC NUISANCE LETTER NC licensed vehicle 21 74 4 NC licensed immovable vehicle 0 1 0 Licensed immovable vehicle 5 9 6 ROluse/debris 14 18 1 Household appliance 0 2 0 Woods/grass height 0 1 0 Other 1 3 1 TOTAL 41 108 12 PUBLIC NUISANCE COMPLIED NC licensed vehicle 0 61 15 NC licensed immovable vehicle 0 1 0 Licensed immovable vehicle 0 8 1 Refuse/debris 0 23 2 Household appliance 0 1 0 Woods/grass height 0 1 0 Other 0 5 1 TOTAL 0 100 19 PUBLIC NUISANCE APPEAL NC licensed vehicle 0 0 0 NC licensed immovable vehicle 0 0 0 Licensed immovable vehicle 0 0 1 Roluso/dobris 0 0 0 _ Household appliance _ 0 0 0 Woods/grass height 0 0 a Other 0 0 0 _ TOTAL 0 0 1 W.C. SHERIFF DEPT. TICKET NC licensed vehicle 0 15 4 NC licensed immovable vehicle 0 0 0 Licensed Immovable vehicle 0 2 0 _ Roluse/dobris 0 6 2 Household appliance 0 0 1 Other 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 23 7 (CONTRACT MOWING = Woods/wass haight 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0