The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council AGenda Packet 04-12-1993AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 12, 1883 - 7 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 22, 1993. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of adopting a resolution relating to the modification, by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of the plans for Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts Nos. 1.1 through 1-14, and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District, No. 1-15, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. 5. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (CMEF) Loan No. 006 (Stephen 1'. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr., dba Custom Canopy) for compliance of the (,M EF Guidelines. 6. Consideration to authorize transfer of UDAG Funds for CMEF Loan No. 006 disbursement.. 7. Public hearing on improvement project 93-02C, Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition, and consideration of it resolution awarding project. 8. Consideration of approval of the final plat of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision, phase 111. 9. Consideration of adoption of Cardinal Hills development agreement. 10. Consideration of a resolution declaring intent to reimburse project cost through future bond sale --Project 93-02C. 11. Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello %oning Ordinance by rescinding section 20-2:IC1 which requires that planned unit development proposals must include an area of at least three contiguous acres. Applicant, Americlnnfraco Bell. 12. Consideration of conditional use permit allowing a commercial 1'UD (planned unit development) in a 11-3 (highway business) zone; and a variance request allowing pylon sign height in excess of 32 -ft maximum. Applicant, Taco liell/Willard Murphy. City Council Agenda April 12, 1993 Page 2 13. Public hearing --Consideration of vacating easement --Old Cedar Street right-of- way. Applicant, Taco Bell/Willard Murphy. 14. Consideration of public works phase II facility study and cost estimates. 15. Consideration of preliminary approval of the replat of phase I of the Evergreens subdivision. Applicant, Kent Kjellberg. 16. Consideration of proposed budget for West Bridge Park warming house/restrooms and authorization to proceed. 17. Consideration of a request for (1) day set-up/3.2 beer license for Ducks Unlimited 13anquet and one (1) day 3.2 beer license for July Mverfest celebration - Lions Club. 18. Consideration of a resolution authorizing application for ISTEA Enhancement funds. 19. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow the expansion of an existing clinic building in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. 20. Update on second stage digester inspection at the wastewater treatment plant and consideration of authorization to remove the steel cover. 21. Consideration of non -encroachment agreement with the Federal Highway Administration for the reconstruction of eastbound County Road 75. 22. Considerntion of ndverti sing for bids for paint striping services. 23. Consideration of modification of recycling plan as it pertains to recycling at apartments. 24. Consideration of Arbor Day Proclamation and observance for Friday, April 30, 1993. 25. Consideration of Building Safety Week Proclamation, 4/12/93 to 4/16/93. 26. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 22, 1993 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle, and Patty Olsen Members Absent: None Consideration of aonroval of minutes of the reeular meetine held March 8, 1993. It was noted that the citizens' comment item pertaining to granting permission for a limited burn on property east of Sixth Street Annex did not include the motion vote. The minutes were amended to include the unanimous vote of the Council on this item. After further discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle, seconded by Clint Herbst, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of March 8 as presented and amended. 3. Citizens' comments/netitions. requests, and complaints. There were none Consideration of an aoulicntion for a one-dav eambline license --Ducks Unlimited Banouet. The Wright County Ducks Unlimited organization requested a one -day gambling license to conduct a raffle as part of their May 10, 1993, annual banquet. A motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Brad Fyle, and unanimously carried to adopt n resolution approving the issuance of this one. day license. SEE RESOLUTION 93-8. 5. Considerntion of 1993 fee schedule revisions. The current fee schedule in use by the City for various building and zoning permits and applications, liquor license applications, and other miscellaneous services and fees provided by the City was reviewed by the Council. It was noted by the City Administrator that the current fee schedule did not include the charges for a sign permit nor the fees for home occupation permits. It was recommended that the fee schedule be adopted with the addition of a fee established for the sign and home occupation permits as follows: Page 1 f Council Minutes - 3/22/93 Sign permit - fee to be $10 for first $1,000 of value and $5 for each $1,000 of value thereafter, with a minumum fee of $10. Home Occupation permits - administrative permit charge to be $10 and the special permit fee to be $125 plus expenses. After further review of the various fees currently in place, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Patricia Olsen, and unanimously carried to adopt a fee schedule as recommended for the sign permits and home occupation permits. 6. Consideration of or000sal from Bridge Water Telephone for new phone system for the ouhlic works facility. Public Works Director, John Simola, reviewed with the Council a new phone system that had been proposed by Bridge Water Telephone Company for the maintenance building facilities. The Norstar system is similar to the AT&T Partner 11 system that was reviewed by the Council previously. The phones have many of the same basic features, including direct extension dialing or menu dialing, and also included voice mail capabilities. Simola noted that the cost of the Norstar system with optional features recommended totaled $6,878.25 compared to the previously -reviewed AT&T system at $5,280. Councilmember Fyle noted that it was his opinion the maintenance building facilities did not need an entirely new phone system for over $6,000, as he has not experienced any problems in delays or reaching individuals in the public works department. Bridge Water representative, Wayne Mayer, did confirm that were inefficiencies in how the phone system was currently installed and that the public works employees did not have direct access to each building but would have to physically search for employees receiving phone calls. John Simola also noted that Bridge Water Telephone Company will soon have Centrex switching gear available that would allow the addition of many features that the department is now seeking in a new phone system. The availability of this new system would not be until later in 1993 and, as a result, still recommended that the Council consider purchasing a new phone system at this time. Any equipment purchased would be compatible to the Centrex system in the future. Simola also noted that improving the communications through the purchase of a new phone system should allow the public works department to delay the addition of a full-time secretary for up to possibly one to three years. Page 2 Council Minutes - 3/22193 Based on eliminating the need for a public works department secretary at this time, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to authorize the purchase of the Norstar system from Bridge Water Telephone Company for the public works facilities in an amount totaling $6,600. Voting in favor: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Brad Fyle, Patricia Olsen. Consideration of future cable equipment installation for council chambers City Council reviewed with the Administrator the feasibility of future installation of video equipment within the council chambers. It was noted that the equipment purchases and installation costs would be paid by the Sherburne Wright Cable Commission of which Monticello is a member. The estimated cost of the eventual cable equipment installation could be as high as $25,000 to $40,000 depending on the amount of remodeling work necessary and the type of equipment purchased. Councilmember Anderson again indicated her support for the televising of meetings on cable. Councilmember Fyle had indicated he would like to see the equipment and tour the facility in the Elk River City Hall before committing to the installation in Monticello. Councilmember Herbst suggested that Monticello tentatively indicate a desire to install the equipment in 1994 and so inform the Cable Commission. After further discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Clint Herbst, and unanimously carried to authorize and request the Sherburne Wright Cable Commission to do a feasibility study on the future installation of cable equipment within the council chambers for 1994 installation. Consideration of a resolution amending Cardinal Hills phase III bid opening date from 10 n.m., Aeril 2, 1993, to 10 a.m.. Anril 9, 1993. A motion was made by Clint Herbst, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution changing the bid opening date from 10 a.m., April 2, 1993, to 10 a.m., April 9, 1993, for the Cardinal Hills phase 111 improvement project 93.02C. SEE RESOLUTION 93.9. Page 3 `a Council Minutes - 3/22/93 Consideration to Moot a resolution calling for a public hearine on the proposed modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redeveloument Proiect No. 1. the modification of Tax Increment Districts Nos. 1-1 throueh 1-14. and the adoption of the Tax Increment Financine (TIF) Plan for TIF District No. 1-15 (Custom Canoov). The City Council was informed that the Monticello HRA has adopted a resolution authorizing the preparation of a TIF Plan for District No. 1-15 for Custom Canopy Company. As part of the TIF District creation, the City Council must call for a public hearing on the creation of this district. As a result, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson, seconded by Patricia Olsen, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the adoption of the TIF Plan for District No. 1-15 (Custom Canopy). SEE RESOLUTION 93-10. 10. Consideration of a resolution aDDrovine final Diana for improvement to eastbound Countv Road 75. Previously, the City Council had reviewed and approved the preliminary plans for the improvement to the eastbound lane of CSAH 75 from Highway 25 to the high school. Prior to the project being let out for bids, the City Council must now approve final plans. There have been no changes to the plan; therefore, a motion was made by Brad Fyle, seconded by Shirley Anderson, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution approving final plans for the improvement to County Road 75. SEE RESOLUTION 93-11. 11. Consideration of hills for the month of March. A motion was made by Brad Fyle, seconded by Clint Herbst, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of March as presented. 12. Other matter$. A. The City Council was informed that Mr. John Middendorf has accepted the position of Water/Sewer Collection System Operator and will be starting April 5, 1993. One item that staff failed to include in an informational package that was sent out to all applicants was that the City's health insurance company's policy did not cover new employees or their families for the first 30 days. Since Mr. Middendorf was not aware of this policy, the Council discussed the City Administrator and Public Works Director's recommendation that the City consider reimbursing Mr. Middendorf for continuing his present coverage with the City of Clarkfield for the first 30 days. Page 4 0 Council Minutes - 3/22/93 While the Council did feel that it may be the general standard industry- wide that the first 30 days are not covered for new employees, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to reimburse Mr. Middendorf up to $351.37 for the first month's insurance coverage and to authorize the City Administrator to change the policy wording in our personnel policy to clarify that new employees will receive insurance coverage when they become eligible based on insurance company standards. B. Heard an update from the Public Works Director and City Engineer who estimated the improvement and reconstruction of Fallon Avenue between Dundas Road and Cardinal Hills development could cost $190,000. No action was taken other than to discuss the possible improvement of Fallon Avenue with the Monticello Township Board in the future. C. Reviewed and discussed the recent burning permit that was issued to Veit Construction concerning property located east of Sixth Street Annex. Council members expressed dissatisfaction with the entire land - clearing operation and noted they were not advised that the entire property was going to be cleared of all trees. Mayor Maus noted that the property owner did have the authority to remove trees if he desired, and Mr. Veit did agree to haul some of the larger trees off site to a demolition site rather than burning. It was noted by Brad Fyle that some soil erosion controls may be necessary, and City staff should continue to monitor the site. D. Discussed with Councilmember, Patty Olsen, her recent advertisement that contained an apparent recommendation from a City official for realtors, Patty Olsen and Judy Leming. Ms. Olsen expressed her dissatisfaction with the way the matter was handled by City administration, and councilmembers also expressed their concern over the advertisement being used with the City of Monticello's name and individual employee's title being associated with the ad. Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator Page 5 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of adopting a resolution relating to the modification. by the Housing and Redevelopment Authoritv (HRA). of the Redevelouaneut Plan for Redeveloument Proiect No. 1. the modification of the Mans for Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-14. and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.15. all located within Redevelonment Proiect No. 1. (O.K. ) A. REFERENCE. AND BACKGROUND On March 22, 1993, upon the request of the HRA, the City Council set a public hearing date of April 12, 1993, for modification of plans and for the establishment of TIF District No. 1-15. Said public hearing notice appeared in the Monticello Times on April 1 and 8. School District #882, Wright County, and the Hospital District received a copy of the TIF District No. 1-15 Plan on March 10, 1993, thereby satisfying the 30 -day notice requirement for comment or questions. PUBLIC HEARING Therefore, the HRA requests the City Mayor open the public hearing for comments, questions, or opposition relating to modification of the plans and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-15 and its plan. TIF District No. 1-15 is being established for Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr., dhn Custom Canopy. The HRA adopted a resolution modifying the plans and approving the plan for TIF District No. 1-15 on April 7, 1993. Highlights of the plan follow: 1. Description of Proiect - 9,320 sq ft office/manufacturing facility to be constructed in summer of 1993 and completed by .January 2, 1994. Increasing the local employment base by 11-13. 2. I.et;al Description of Parcel - Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. 3. Parcel in Acuuisit.ion - The HRA is actually not acquiring the parcel as per the legal advise of John Dean, Holmes & Graven, and the Private Development Contract. The H RA is providing financial assistance (Land Writedown) through the use of TIF. BDS, Inc., includes this because of Cite bonding option listed within the district budget. 4. Siened Cont.raft - The HRA and the Birkelands will execute a Private Development Contract prior to or on April 12, 1993. No Assessment Agreement is required because of the pay-as-you-go assistance and, again, is included because ofthe ponding option listed within the district budget. Council Agenda - 4/12193 5. The estimated Tax Capacity at project completion is $10,990, the original Tax Capacity is $1,302, and the estimated annual captured Tax Capacity is $9,688. 6. An Economic Development District is established because the project does not meet the requirements for a redevelopment or housing district; however, in the public interest, the project results are an increase to the local employment base and an enhancement to the local tax base. 7. District Duration - Ten years from approval of the plan or 8 years from receipt of first tax increment, whichever is less. 8. Estimated Impact on Tax Jurisdictions - The impact represents the captured net tax capacity and potential taxes not received by the jurisidictions as it relates to the "but for" test. The 'but for" test means if the project would not have occurred. 9. Cash Flow Assumptions - Tax Capacity payable 1995, $10,990. Receipt of first full tax increment is 1995. Original Tax Capacity is $1,302. Tax Capacity Rate is 107.327%. Calculations based on a zero percent (0%) valuation increase. 10. District No. 1-15 Budeet - Land acquisition, $48,000; public improvements, $19,500; professional services, $7,500; capitalized interest, $13,000; and discount, $2,000, for a total of $90,000. Note, the budget was structured to allow the City to issue bonds if necessary. 11. District No. 1.15 is within Monticello Central Redevelopment Project No. 1. The Private Development Contract, which supports the TIF Plan, defines the development obligations of the Isirkelands and the obligations of the HRA. The contract is between the 11irkelands and the HRA and, therefore, requires no approval by City Council. However, for infornwtional purposes, high points of the contract follow: The developers shall construct a 9,320 sq ft office/manufacturing facility on Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. 2. The project shall be completed in 1993 and fully assessable on January 2, 1994. 3. The project shall comply with the City zoning and ordinances, mid the developers shall provide evidence of approved development financing. 2 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 4. Upon issuance of the Certificate of Completion, receipt of annual tax payment, and sufficient tax increment to cover the Authority's liabilities, tine Authority shall pay the developers $5,000 annually over eight years beginning in 1995. Or the Authority shall pay the developers an additional $1,000 or the sum of $6,000 annually if upon issuance of the Certificate of Completion the project consists of more extensive, greater than required in I-2 zoning, landscape treatment along Fallon Avenue and/or consists of a 50% contrasting exterior -wall material treatment on the Fallon Avenue and Dundas Road sides of the proposed metal facility. 5. No Letter of Credit or Assessment Agreement is required. 6. The developers shall provide evidence of required insurances. HRA policy requires the Private Development Contract to be executed by both parties prior to or on April 12, 1993. With the assumption of no public comment, questions, oropposition, the public hearing may be closed. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION Secondly, the HRA requests the City Council consider adoption of a resolution which finds, determines, and declares: 1. that the modification of TIF Districts Nos. 1.1 through 1-14 and establishment of TIF District No. 1-15 will provide an incentive for commercial and industrial development., increase employment, and promote the public purposes and objectives of the Monticello Central Redevelopment Plan. 2. that District No. 1-15 meets the requirements of an Economic Development District as defined in the State Statutes. 3. that the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within a reasonable foreseeable future. Land $ 63,600 Rank $308,000 Construction $313,475 GMEF $ 42,500 Working Capitol $100,000 000 Equity $1,26,575 'I`OTA1, $477,075 TOTAL $477,076 The pay -ns -you -go TIF assistance is used as cash flow in the company's financial projections. 4. that the plan for TIF District No. 1.15 complies with Redovelopment Project No. 1 objectives and TIF guidelines. Council Agenda - 4/12193 5. that the method of the tax increment computation set forth in the State Statutes is applicable. 6. that the duration of TIF District No. 1-15 is pursuant to the State Statutes. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: v Motion to adopt the resolution relating to the modification, by the HRA, of the Redevelopment Plan relating to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the 5� modification of the TIF Plans relating to TIF Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-14, and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-15, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the approval and adoption of the TIF Plans relating thereto. 2. Motion to deny adoption of said resolution. 3. Motion to table the item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends alternative N1, as the project meets the TIF guidelines, Redevelopment Plan objectives, and the Minnesota Statutes requirements. The motion, if necessary, should be subject to execution of the Private Development Contract between the HRA and the Birkelands. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the public hearing notice; Copy of the resolution for adoption; Copy of the TIF District No. 1-15 Plan. Area NOtIC@S PublIc EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HFARINO CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That the Clly Coun.:il (the "Council") in mind for the Clly of Mon- tkello. County of Wright, Stem of mi_llaote, will hold • public hamr.9 on Aall 17. 1993, •1 .1,pro.ime lel, 7:00 p.m., .1 C11v Hell, 750 Filet Broadway. MontI"oIIO, Mlmieaola. relating to IIM popG.M f'odllkanrn, by a ee.od project coli•, the HTMfrq and Rad—loptbnt Alnhdlry'. Redevelopment Propel No. t end the approval and edopnon of the Modilkd Red aniPlan relatmp Innieto; the prono..d n-ildi—ion, by ii-I.—Clptolect coal.. of the =I filed Ta. In. crement Fina ng Pana Ion la. I--, Fln—np Oil, t ncla Nn. 1-1 lhrough 1. 14, 1- ad w hin Redavelopmenl P'olact No. 1; and the propoald.dopllon o1 Te. Increment Financing flan ,meting 1 0 1 e. Incremnnl Fine -"g plan No 1.15. else located will,, Redevelopment P'oiecl Nn, I. nil Mur eumnl to end In accmdei.ce with Mini—ol. Simi—, Section. 468.001 to 459.047. inclusive, as emandod, and Sertons 469.174 to 469.179, Inclu.lvn, as amended. A copy of the Modilied Radevelopmant Pen;1; Red.valopmenl Piojeci No. 1 and 7a. Increment Finsilc- mg Ram for Te. Im—I Fmtncvg Dialricm No. 1- I through 1 - 15. as pmMl.ed to be .dopled at the olllce of the City Adm...t at" n City Hall net lel& then March 12, 1993. IX— Th properly c—I...ing 1.. Increment Financeryvp Denkl No. 1.101. n tallow.: LEGAL DFSCRIPTION Lot S. BLock 2, Oakwood Indu.I,i•1 Pok PD Nu'nhe': 155.010 002060 Fwthe, inlormmtlon regarding the idanollcetlon of IM putty to M Included In Ta. Incremenl Fin encmg DI.Irkl No. 1.15 mW be obtained I— Ih. office of the City Ad-WatiMm. An intue.led pu4on. may appear •1 TM having and In— the. v— or f1V d n writing. D.lud: 3129'03 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL —Rica wollalell&, City Adminl.tratp IAptll 1 s B, 19931 ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAMNO ON IMPROVEMENT To Whom It May Cones., Notke to herabv elven that the City Cannell of the City of Momkatlo will meet In the council chembu. of the cily heli sI 7 P m on Mader. April 17. 1083. to coned.' The m.11og of publlo ImMovemen11 Io phtae 111 .1 the Cudhul Hill. r.atdnnllat elddhd4on ud — instapallon of an B H. wd. bi lun=pathw ay Moog the—In ad. of School LI l—I ud In two location.. Lac.• tion 1 •.t&d. pnhway 60011 I.rvn the prlpo4M Lrdu lana to Lltlt. Molettaln Ehnrwllaiy School. the aecdd ..ellen ..land. palhwW 800 11. hom the popo.mid P.Iidan Lam to IM antreace to the n.dde schoo m 1. l. Thr.-11cprovided pur4uent to Mlomacl. Slatmaa. Section 470.00011 to 479.11 L The ate. Propo.ad 10 bmi a.aa...If Int .-h Impmvernenl I. the pagan, w .ihpas.hg C.rdlnat Hill. ph... III and Minn.'ty abutting tM popo.M pathway Th. .,It -.t d coal of lM bnpov4 : 1. 6,2 51rch vie—n.a dil if to be Mud with raf.rence to the P,.poaTld krrptovuMn will nn hood al IN. nwel.q. tApe I a 0. 10031 NOTICE or PUSLIC HEARING ' Notice I. hereby elven that puWC now, wu t» hNa by m. City of MonticWo City CovIW i ori Mpday, AMY 12' 7 1093, at 7 p m , In 1M MomtMb Ch "A to corudar the following maHr.: PUBLIC HEARING Comd—Tio , of . pull inn lot veemllon of the 16 31 11 section of the uldity .eaem.nt Inc lied 4Nng IM wm.l ode of the forma CMM SIIMI rghl of way I OCA I ION Bleck 3. 1 m. 4, 9, 0. I, .,dpal l at —.0.d Com OnMI, Low.' Mon, I.I.Ad Iit— m Ill. City of M......on Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-1 THROUGH 1-14 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-15, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section I. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City that the Authority modify, by increased Project costs, Redevelopment Project No. I , pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Slatutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-14 and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and approve the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statute*, Sections 469. 174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. 1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council has investigated the facts with respect thereto, a proposed Modified Redevelopment Plan (The "Modified Redevelopment Plan") for Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely the increased Project costs to be made to Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-14 and the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Financing Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 (collectively referred to as the "Plans"). 1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-14 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882 and the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdiction over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. 1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in the best interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project No. 1, to modify Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-14 and to establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 and approve the Plans relating thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Stephen P. and loan M. Birkeland. Section 2. Findings for the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1. Modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1-1 throueh 1-14 and the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. L:1. 2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. I-1 through 1-14 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15, all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, is intended and, in the judgement of the Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-15. 2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 does meet the requirements of an Economic Development District in that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which does not meet the requirements found in the definition of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district, or soil corrections district, but which the Authority and City finds to be in the public interest because: 1) It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or 2) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or 3) It will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. 2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. I by private enterprise. -3 2.05. The Council further finds, determines and declares that the City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons and supporting face for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2.06. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-14 are hereby modified and that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 is hereby adopted, contingent upon the execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland. Section 3. Adoption of Respective Plans. 3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date are hereby approved, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Administrator. Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelonment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans. 4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advisor, underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary to accomplish this purpose. -4- Cl The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator. Dated: April 12, 1993 Attest: City Administrator (SEAL) Mayor EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 as required, pursuant to Minne ota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are as follows: 1) Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 is an "Economic Development District" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 consists of one parcel which does not meet the requirements of a redevelopment district, mined underground space development district, housing district or soils correction district. The Authority and the City find Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 to be in the public interest because: 1) It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; and 2) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; and 3) It will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. 2) Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary. City staff has reviewed the available financing costs for the development. Due to the high costs of site development, the project would not be financially feasible without the City's assistance. 3) Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. I by private enterprise. 6 �\ The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15, consists of an 9,320 square foot office/manufacturing facility. This facility is to be constructed in the summer of 1993 and completed by January 2, 1994. The company currently employs 1 l people. It is anticipated that 2-3 additional full- time positions will be created as a result of this project. 4) Finding regarding the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if applicable. The Council does = elect the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b). 5) Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 will be eight (8) years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment or ten (10) years from the original approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, whichever is less. Pursuant to Mennespta Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value for current expenditures. SECTION XVI TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-15 Subsection 16.1. Statement of Objectives. See Subsection 1.4 of the Redevelopment Plan. Subsection 16.2. The Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.1 through 1.20. Subsection 16.3. Description of the Project. The project, located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1- 15, consists of the construction of an 9,320 square foot office/manufacturing facility. This facility is to be constructed in the summer of 1993 and completed by January 2, 1994. The company currently employs 1 l people. It is anticipated that 2-3 additional full-time positions will be created as a result of this project. Subsection 16.4. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. The following property is located in the City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota. Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park PID Number: 155-018-002060 Subsection 16.5. Parcels in Acquisition. The Authority intends to acquire the property listed in Subsection 10.4, which property is located within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. Properties identified for acquisition will be acquired either by the City or the Authority in order to accomplish public improvements listed in Subsection 1.1 l of the Redevelopment Plan hereof. XVI- I O Subsection 16.6. Development Activity in Tax Increment Financine Dictrict No. 1-15 for Which Contracts will be Signed. The following contract(s) will be entered into by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the person(s) named below: Prior to the certification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15, a Development and Assessment Agreement will be executed between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello and Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland. Subsection 16.7. Other SI&c0fic Development ExI&cted to Occur within Redevelonment Proiect No. 1. (As specific development is expected to occur, it will be inserted into this Subsection.) Subsection 16.8. Estimated Public Improvement Costs and Supportive Data. See Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan for estimated costs associated with Redevelopment Project No. I. Subsection 16.9. Sources of Revenue. Public improvement costs, and other costs outlined in Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments. Subsection 16.10. Original Tax Capacity. Pursuant to Section 469.177 , Subd. I, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the original tax capacity value for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.15 is estimated to be 51,302, based on the tax capacity value of all taxable real property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 4, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the County Auditor of Wright County (the "County Auditor") shall certify in each year the amount by which the original tax capacity value has increased or decreased as a result in a change in tax-exempt property within Tax Increment Financing District No. 1- 15, reduction or enlargement of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current tax capacity value of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 declines below the original tax capacity value, no tax capacity value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Authority. Subsection 16.11. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Value. PursuanttoSection 469. 175, Subd. I, and Section 469.177. Subd. 2, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the estimated captured tax capacity value in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 at final completion will approximate $9,688. This estimated annual captured capacity value is determined in the following manner: XVI -2 1 �u1 Estimated Tax Capacity Value at Final Completion $10,990 Original Tax Capacity Captured Tax Capacity Value' 1.302 3 9,688 Please refer to Exhibit XVI -B for the year-to-year expected tax increment for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. Subsection 16.12. Tvoe of Tax Increment Financing District. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15, is pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 12, an Economic Development District as described below: "'Economic Development District' means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any project, or portions of a project not meeting the requirements found in the definition of redevelopment district or housing district, but which the authority finds to be in the public interest because: (a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or (b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or (c) It will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality." Subsection 16.13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.15. Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. I, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.15 will be ten (10) years from the approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, or eight (8) years from receipt of the First tax increment, whichever is less. Subsection 16.14. Proposed Development Analysis. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 1(7), specific findings and analysis relating to the proposed development in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. Additional relevant documentation relating to the findings and analysis will be on file and available for review in the City Administrator's office. XVI -3 / C!, Subsection 16.15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. Test No. 1: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdic-tions assumes construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. If the construction is a result of Tax Increment Financing, the impact is 50 to other entities. Test No. 2: Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occured without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 would be as follows if Test No. I (the "but for" test) was not met: XVI -4 1 IMPACT ON TAX BASE Original Net Future Net Captured Net Tax Base Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Tax Capacity District % Entity Payable 1993 Payable 1993 Payable 1993 Payable 1993 of Entity Wright County 545,591,255 $1,302 $10,990 $9,688 .021% City of Monticello $15,489,640 $1,302 $10,990 $9,688 .063% I.S.D. No. 882 $18,174,450 $1,302 $10,990 $9,688 .053% Hospital District $23,400,486 $1,302 $10,990 $9,688 .041% IMPACT ON TAX CAPACITY MILL RATES Entity Gross Tax Rate 1993 Potential Taxes Wright County 31.179 $ 3,021 City of Monticello 16.313 1,580 I.S.D. No. 882 57.150 5,537 Hospital District 2.685 _& TOTALS 107.327% $10,398' Please refer to Exhibit XVI -B for the year-to-year expected tax increment for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. XVI -4 1 Subsection 16.16. Cash Flow Assumptions and Analysis. A. Future Tax Capacity. The estimated future tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 at final completion as determined by the City Assessor is $10,990, payable 1995. Please refer to Exhibit XVI -B for the year-to-year expected tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. B. $oiected Timing. The payment of the first full tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 will be received by the Authority in 1995. C. Original Tax Capacity. The County Assessor's records show the original tax capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 to be 51,302 for taxes in 1992 and payable in 1993. D. Gross Tax Capacity Rate. The gross tax capacity rate is 107.327 percent. E. Tax Increment. Total tax increment at the completion of all redevelopment activity has been calculated assuming a static gross tax capacity rate and a valuation increased by zero percent (0%) compounded annually. F. Capjtal Expenditures. Capital expenditures are a summary of the items associated with the public improvement costs set forth in Subsection 10.8 and are to be financed from the proceeds of the Bonds and tax increment revenue. Subsection 16.17. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated that $90,000 of bonded indebtedness will be incurred with respect to this portion of the Redevelopment Project. Subsection 16.18. Tax Increment Financing Account for Tax Increment Financine District No. 1-15. The tax increment received with respect to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 will be submitted by the Authority to the City and segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the "Tax Increment Account") on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the City to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the Bonds. Subsection 16.19. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. As of April 12, 1993, there have been no modifications made to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15. XVI -5 C� Astrict No. 1-14 (As adopted August 10, 1992) Land Acquisition $22,500 Grading/On-Site Improvements 47.075 Subtotal $69,575 Administration 7.500 Subtotal $77,075 Capitalized Interest 11.925 TOTAL $89,000 The $69,575 of assistance will consist of a grant for 550,000 and a loan for $19,575. Tax Increment Financin¢ District No. 1-15 (As adopted April 12, 1993) Land Acquisition $48,000 Public Improvements 19.500 Subtotal $67,500 Professional Services 7.500 Subtotal $75,000 Capitalized Interest 13,000 Discount 2.000 TOTAL $90,000 The company will be receiving the tax increment financi ng assistance on a pay-as-you- go basis. However, the budget has been structured so that the City can issue bonds, if necessary. (As adopted November, 1982) Subsection 1.11. Land Use. All new and/or existing development on land identified on Exhibits I -C through 1-F as "property to be acquired" or "possible acquisition" will be subject to the following uses and requirements: Uses Permitted in Designated Areas. 1-36 7 EXHIBIT XVI -A BOUNDARY MAP OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-15 XVI -6 1 Tl WAS 1 -67 L. 1 L / PAF l nen NOW W -A wl M w In son 11"A" 161 lrW 111/ will ..11t.ulo fr./ef -IYr1•.Iw. +. 1•Nl IYII 111.•.. Nt' Hyl • 1 �-n-�-�.� 1I.rIC91 I.n1--_ '-•. n� 11..1 Nr1. uu• • I . �0014.Oo 41��1p t NIx11 w . I.wll MIS ill•, Ix«Il•11 .�'n' v � 1�' 'w' 81061141w.1 •1 PAN ch l/ MSIT O \\ OJb .f.rlcn Iw1 Nki/in / : .r Kw11 1..y� N.. •»» BO �t�• Ilxl .NIYO.1 •.I. r.Owlwl. TA . t Q 1 ►.0 1 1 ... t. / ..� l'IIST(MI� 1. 1. r.1 I:ANUI'Y _nla p A • 0 V N P � � WAS rrNl.e w„r1.M 0/11 Y or •wJfr 1•..yrin 1"1/0• vl= i 1•.N •.I I.1 r1 . "I” - SIT 1 wl .n r.n r•n«u.• 1 1 � ,\\ Ll1 NI.• s J J • EXHIBIT XVI -B EXPECTED YEAR-TO-YEAR TAX INCREMIENTS RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-15 AND TAX CAPACITY ANALYSIS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR: A. March, 1993 Establishment Date B. January 2, 1993 Base Year Capacity Date C. $1,302 Base Year Capacity Value D. January 2, 1988 Fifth Preceding Year Capacity Date E. 1.039 Annual Base Year Adjustment Factor Base Adj. Adj. Future Net Cap Annual Year TC Factor Bax TC TC TC Rate TI 1992/93 51,302 1.039 $10,990 1.0733 ( 1993/94 $1,353 $9,637 $ 0 1994/95 $1,406 $9,584 $10,287 1995/96 $1,460 59,530 $10,228 1996/97 $1,517 $9,473 $10,167 1997/98 $1,576 $9,414 $10,103 1998/99 $1,638 $9,352 $10,037 1999/2000 51,702 $9,288 $9.969 2000/2001 $1,768 $9,222 $ 9,897 12001/2002 $1,837 $9,153 S9.823 Average Annual Tax Increment: $10,064. XVI -8 EXHIBIT XVI -C DISTRICT CERTIFICATION FORM Date Prepared: March I - 1993 Name of District or Modification: Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-15 Date of City Council Approval: -April 12. 1993 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CERTIFICATION At the time of district creation or in"ficution. the following cotidiiions apply: _X_ The project does not meet the requirements found in the definition of a redevelopment district, housing district, or a mined underground space development district. X The project was created after August 1, 1979, and was designated an P economic development tax increment district, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, because: _X_ a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state. _X_ b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality. X c) It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. Sunnortina documentation on file: Land Use Plan Map City Council Resolution Project Objectives Other: This Form Prepared by: Business Development Services. Inc. Original Building Condition Data Collected by: N/A 1 Documentation in support of District Certification is on file at the City offices. XVI -9 OLI APPENDIX B Chronology of Resolutions Establishing the Development Program, the Development District, the Tax Increment Financing Plans, and the Tax Increment Financing Districts DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-I5 Dgle AStiQn March 10. 1993 Letters sent to Wright County, Independent School District No. 882, and Hospital District. March 22. 1993 Resolution of the City Council calling for a Public Hearing. March 31/April 7. 1993 Notice of Public Hearing is published in the local newspaper, calling for a Public Hearing on April 12, 1993. April 7. 1993 HRA approval of the Modified Redevelopment Plan. April 12. 1993 Resolution of the City Council modifying the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and modifying the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-I5. Appendix B -I i 7 l Council Agenda - 4/12/93 5. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) Loan No. 006 (Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland. Jr., dba Custom Canovv) for compliance of the GMEF Guidelines. (O.K.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The EDA requests that City Council review GMEF Loan No. 006 for compliance of the GMEF Guidelines. The GMEF Guidelines state: "The EDA shall have authority to approve or deny loans; however, within 21 days of EDA approval, the City Council may reverse a decision by the EDA to approve a loan if it is determined by Council that such loan was issued in violation of the GMEF Guidelines." On March 30, 1993, the EDA approved GMEF Loan No. 006 for Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr, dba Custom Canopy. The EDA determined the loan application to be in compliance with the GMEF Guidelines. Enclosed as supporting data is the project summary and the outline used by the EDA for determination of GMEF public purpose and policy compliance which will he reviewed at the Council meeting. The loan was approved for $42,500, a reduction of $57,500 from the original loan request, at a 4.516, fixed interest rate amortized over 20 years with balloon payment in 5 years for real property development. Loan fee was set at $600 and the GMEF legal fees the responsibility of the borrower. Equity accepted at $26,575, which is 62.5% of the GMEF (does not include equity for working capital). The GMEF loan will be a second real estate mortgage to the Bank of Elk River's first mortgage. Collateral, guarantees, and other condition requirements to be determined and prepared by the GMEF attorney. The loan approval was subject to total project funding approval, project compliance with the city zoning and ordinance, and execution of the Private Development Contract prior to or on April 12, 1993. The GMEF halance was $86,000 as of July 21, 1992; and with the approval of Loan No. 006, the remaining GMEF balance is $42,500. This does not include 1993 appropriations. Aller review of the EDA outline for GMEF public purpose and policy compliance, the City Council is requested to consider the following actions. Council Agenda - 4/12/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA -approved 1Sp �w GMEF Loan No. 006 for Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr., dba (1 Custom Canopy, was issued without violation of the GMEF Guidelines; therefore, Council supporta the decision by the EDA for loan approval. 2. A motion stating that City Council has determined the EDA -approved GMEF Loan No. 006 for Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr., dba Custom Canopy, was issued in violation of the GMEF Guidelines; therefore, the Council reverses the decision by the EDA for loan approval. 3. A motion to table action until the April 26 Council meeting --would violate the within 21 -day guideline for City Council to review a decision by the EDA for loan approval. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative O1, as GMEF Loan No. 006 complies with the GMEF Guidelines, and the project has received the support of the HRA and the IDC. 1). SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the project summary and GMEF criteria outline; Copy of the preliminary loan application; Copy of the GMEF Approval Form. EDA AGENDA MARCH 30, 1993 Consideration to review a orellminary and formal GMEF application for Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr. (Custom Canonv). Mr. Jim Beyl, marketing manager for Custom Canopy will be present at the EDA meeting. Mr. Beyl represents applicants, Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr., who are on vacation. A. Reference and Background: GMEF LOAN APPLICATION REQUEST: $100,000 at 2% below prime with five year balloon. PROJECT SUMMARY: Custom Canopy, a Minnesota sole -proprietorship, was founded in 1983 by Stephen P. Birkeland, Jr. The company designs, manufactures, and installs quality canopies. The company's structural engineers design individual canopies to meet all structural loading and local building code requirements. They offer a wide range of fascia and trim materials, finishes, and colors that meet or exceed the highest standards of the Industry. Their standard deck panels are of a gauge galvanized steel with a baked enamel finish. Their market area currently is the upper Midwest. Some of their major customs are Pump & Meter, Holiday Station, and others being Cenex, SuperAmerica, etc. Currently, Custom Canopy leases production space in Albertville and office space in Rogers. The proposed office/manufacturing facility will allow the company to conduct business under one roof thereby increasing the company's efficiency and professional Image. The relocation to Monticello will be within a closer proximity to the owner's Buffalo residents and enable a closer commute for many of the company's current work force. The property will be in the name of Stephen P. and Joan M. Birkeland, Jr., husband and wife, and will be leased to Custom Canopy. A Purchase Agreement for Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, was executed between the buyers and sellers, Oakwood Industrial Partnership, on March 12, 1993. The Bank of Elk River has given preliminary approval of a firot mortgage real estate loan for up to 70% of the appraised value of Cuotom Canopy's building and land. Project general contractor is C.I. Conotruction, Inc., Elbow Lake, Minnesota. Preliminary building plans were reviewed by Monticello City Page EDA AGENDA MARCH 30, 1993 Staff in January. It is anticipated that final building and site plans will be submitted to the City for approval the week of March 29. The annual $5,000 pay-as-you-go TIF assistance will be confirmed through the execution of a Private Development Contract between the HRA and the Birkeland's. The Birkeland's will construct a 9,320 sq ft metal facility, including 1,320 sq ft of office space and 8,000 sq ft of production/storage space. The back of the facility will be designed for future expansion. All materials, supplies, and equipment will be stored inside the new facility. Construction anticipated to begin May 1, 1993 with completion In October. Existng full-time employment is 6 (52 weeks) and full-time seasonal employment is 7 (11.175 weeks) with projections of another three full-time within two years. Starting wage is $8.00 per hour. The uses and sources of funds for this project were estimated as follows: Oriqinal Uses of Funds Land $ 77,000 Construction $290,000 Working Capital ,9100,000 TOTAL USES $167,000 Uses of Funds Land $ 63,600 Construction �313,/j5 TOTAL USES $377,075 Sources of Funds Bank (up to 70% of appraised $308,000 value, appraisal $440,000) GMEF $ 42,500 Equity S 26,575 TOTAL SOURCES $377.075 Page 2 EDA AGENDA MARCH 30, 1993 The pay-as-you-go TIF assistance is not accepted by lending institutions as equity; however, the amount may be considered In the cashflow of the company's projections. This project will be structured as a participation between the Bank of Elk River and the GMEF. Funds will be disbursed by the Bank of Elk River upon receipt of lien waivers supplied by the general contractor. The GMEF will be secured by real estate, guarantees, and an assignment of the lease or as per the GMEF attorney. GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF) GUIDELINES PUBLIC PURPOSE CRITERIA: Must comply with four or more of the criteria listed below, criteria xl being mandatory. 1. Creates new jobs: 6 immediate new full-time (37.5 hpw) jobs, 7 seasonal (41.175 wpy) full- time (37.5 hpw) or 5.75 full-time (37.5 hpw) jobs, and 3 additional (37.5 hpw) jobs within two years. 2. Increases the community tax base: Estimated Market Value of $273,118 or estimated Tax Capacity of $10,990. 3. Factors: Will assist an existing industrial business to expand and relocate their operations. The business and proposed project is compatible with the comprehensive plan and existing zoning policies. The company's product is not available within the city and no potential adverse environmental effects are anticipated. 4. Used as a secondary source of supplement conventional financing: The Bank of Elk River gave preliminary approval to finance a real estate mortgage of up to 70% of the appraised value for Custom Canopy building and land. 5. Used as gap financing: The bank's preliminary approval was for up to 70% of the appraised value with an anticipated loan amount of $235,000. Since the appraisal Page 3 EDA AGENDA MARCH 30, 1993 came in at $460,000, the Bank Senior Vice President (3-26-93) Is recommending the Bank of Elk River approve a loan of $308,000 with a 2% flowing over -prime rate for 15 years. In addition to the $26,575 equity, the business will finance their $100,000 working capital need. 6. Used to assist other funds: No Federal, State or Regional Funds are being sought. GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND POLICIES I. BUSINESS ELIGIBILITY: Industrial business: Yes. Located within city limits: Yes, Zoned I-2. Credit worthy existing business: Yes, letter from Bank of Elk River. $10,000 loan per each job created or $5,000 per every 520,000 in property market valuation, whichever highest: $117,500 (11.75 jobs) or $68,500, respectively. Recommended and approved by EDA: $42,500 GMEF loan. II. FINANCING METHOD: Companion Direct Loan: Such loan may be subordinated to the primary lender(s) if requested by the primary lender(s). The GMEF loan will be the second real estate mortgage. III. USE OF PROCEEDS: Real property development. Page 4 0 EDA AGENDA MARCH 30, 1993 IV. TERMS AND CONDIT IONS : Loan Size: Maximum not to exceed 50%4 of the remaining GMEF balance. Balance 7-21-92, $ 85,000. Maximum loan size, $42,500. Leveraging: Minimum 60% private/public non-GMEF. Maximum 30% GMEF. Minimum 10% equity of GMEF loan. Bank $308,000 (81.7%) GMEF $ 42,500 (11.3%) Equity $ 26,575 ( 7.0%) (62.5% GMEF) Loan Term: Real estate property maximum of 5 -year maturity amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years. Recommended and approved by EDA: Amortize over 20 years, balloon in five years. Interest Rate: Fixed rate not less than 2% below Minneapolis prime rate. (First Bank reference or prime rate 3-30-93 was 5%) Recommended and approved by EDA: 4.5% interest rate. Loan Fee: Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 1.5% of total loan project. $42,500 x .015 a $637.50. Recommended and approved by EDA: $600. Prepayment Policy: No penalty for prepayment. Deferral of Payment: 1. Approval of the BDA membership by majority vote. 2. Extend the balloon if unable to refinance, verification letter from two lending inotitution0 oubject to Board approval. Page 5 0 EDA AGENDA MARCH 30, 1993 Interest Limitation on Guaranteed Loans: Subject to security and/or reviewal by EDA. Assumability of Loan: None. Business Equity Requirements: Subject to type of loan as determined by the EDA. Recommended and approved by EDA: $26,575. Collateral: Mortgage deeds, securities, and/or guarantees as per the GMEF attorney. Non-performance: The approved GMEP loan shall be null and void if funds are not drawn upon or disbursed with 120 days from date of EDA approval. Recommended and approved by EDA: Approved GMEF shall be null and void on July 30, 1993. GMEF legal fees: Responsibility of the GMEF applicant. B. Recommendation: Recommendation Is to review the enclosed information prior to the EDA meeting for discussion and potential questions of Mr. Jim Beyl. Consideration to approve GMEF is the next agenda item. C. Su000rtina Data: 1. Copy of the preliminary GMEF application from Mr. Stephen Birkeland, Jr. 2. Copy of the purchase agreement for Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. 3. Copy of site location. 4. Copy of preliminary financial approval from Bank of Elk River. 5. Copy of the executed Release of Information form. Supporting Data On -hand: 1. Personal resumes; summary of company oaleo, coots, and profits; buaineoo plan. 2. Copy of the General Contractoro contract. Page 6 0 EDA AGENDA MARCH 30, 1993 Copy of Company and Personal Financial Statements as prepared by a CPA. Final building and landscaping plans (no drainage plans). Executed TIF Preliminary Agreement between the HRA and the developers and $5,000 check. The Private Development Contract under preparation by Holmes & Graven (Must be executed by or prior to April 12, 1993). Final approval of TIP Plan for District No. 1-15 scheduled for April 12. Verbal preliminary appraisal of $440,000 for land and building (Pat Dwyer, Bank of Elk River, 3-23-93). Page 7 0 GREAT=4 MCNT:CELL0 ENTERPRISE 250 EAST BROADWAY MCNTICELLO, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY APPLICATICN FOR LOAN FIRM OR TRADE NAME:( BUSINESS ADDRESS: ! , � <T r, nr�� 1 1 c (0 6 Street) (CTc" Stacey lZip Co el TELEPEONE: BOSi`rms (ice A.�,-Sq7R HOME ued) (IIB;-�5 ? DATE ESTABLISHED:__F kRSH EMPLOYER I.D. }:y'- 1!5-OSgjq SOLE PROPRIETOR CORPORATION _ PARTNERSHIP MANACL-0NT NAME TITLE OWNERSHIP t �cAG,\A \C (7(,-'m ( 1(-oq,� 01 nV 6, SL'KP PROJECT LOCATION: NEW BUSINESS EXISTING BUSINESS TOTAL PRO�07. CDS': ESTIMATE: $0 Jb-7, OOO PROPOSED USES: LAND s -7-7,c,00 ES:S":NG BUILDING — CJNS IUCTI ON MACHINERY CAPITAL - WORR:NG CAPITAL /OCD. 00 0 OTHER TOTAL USES $ $(� 7� ()a Ci PROPOSED BEGINNING DATE:: - ESTIMATED CVTLF%ON DA -.E: R-lrUEST: AMOUNT OF LOAN00 0UU MATURITY & TERMS 2a. br • Pe,,. -e REQUESTED y r a b a 11 APPLICANTS EQUI^! 0/32-1000 LOAN PURPOSE /J r w 5 . , ct , . S Ali.- . Loc -4,a. TITLE TO \/ PROJECT• ASSETS TO BE HELD BY:rr_ OP^E0G �RATING ENTITY 7t ALTER 0 PART:CIPAT:NG LENDER: (`t Name(A reaa) (C:ontact Person) PRESE7T I OF LITLOYEES: ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION: (Telepnone 0) PROJEC_•ED 1 OF VISLOYEES (L— APPLICAN SiC21ATURE:J�� - DATE S:GNED: -)I�� / APPROVAL OF GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUNDS BY ECONOMIC DEVELPML•NT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Preliminary Loan Application Approval. 2-19-93 with loan amount modi:ic3 ion. Loan terms negotiated and agreed upon betweeen the developer, the lending institution, and the EDA Executive Director. 3-1-93 Formal Loan Application and Financial Statements analyzed by the lending institution, 3ZM=AkxxA=XnM*UWNM. BANK OF ELK RIVER Building and Site Plan Preliminary and/or Final Review. PRELIMINARY REVIEW IN JANUARY '9% PORTION OF FINAL PLANS SUBMITTED Building Permit approval or construction 3-24-93. commitment. Loan documents reviewed and/or prepared by the City Attorney. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL: LOAN NUMBER GMEF LOAN NO. 006 LOAN APPROVED YES BORROWER STEPHEN P. AND J CAN M. BIRKELAND, JR., dba CUSTOM CANOPY ADDRESS 12903 MAIN STREET. SUITE 203 LOAN DISAPPROVED LOAN AMOUNT $42,500.00 * ROGERS, MN 55374 RATE 4.55 FIXED INTEREST RATE DATE MARCH 30, 1993 TERMS AMORTIZE OVER 20 YEARS, BALLOON IN 5 YEARS. FEE $600.00 TO BE PAID AT CLOSING. GMEF LEGAL FEES RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BORROWER. ** OTHER A motion was made by EDA Commissioner AL LARSON to (approve - diX 81A) Greater Monticello Enterprise Funds in the amount of FORTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS --- +dollars and cents to developer STEPHEN P. AND JOAN M. BIRKELAND, JR., HUSBAND AND WIFE this 30TH day of MARCH 1993 Seconded by EDA Commissioner PATTY OLSEN YEAS: AL LARSON CLINT HERBST NAYS: NONE ABSENT: PATTY OLSEN HARVEY KENDALL BOB MOSFORD RON HOGLUND BARB SCHWEINTEK GMEF disbursed 19 _ by Check No. EDA Treasurer REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO DISBURSE FUNDS FROM THE UDAG ACCOUNT. CITY COUNCIL MAY REVERSE AN EDA LOAN DECISION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS OF EDA APPROVAL. APRIL 12, 1993 GMEF Approval Page 2 ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS —e(We) hereby accept the terms stated above as approved by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Monticello. DATED: STEPHEN P. BIRKELAND, JR. JOAN M. BIRKELAND • THE APPROVED $42,500 GMEF LOAN IS FOR REAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. •+ OTHER: THE APPROVED GMEF LOAN WILL BE A SECOND REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE LOAN TO THE BANK OF ELK RIVER'S FIRST REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE. THE $42,500 GMEF LOAN WILL BE DISBURSED AT THE BANK OF ELK RIVER AND EDA CLOSING. COLLATERAL, GUARANTEES, AND OTHER CONDITION REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AND PREPARED BY THE GMEF ATTORNEY. APPROVED CMEF LOAN NO. 006 WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING APPROVAL, PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY ZONING AND ORDINANCES, AND EXECUTION OF THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE HRA AND THE DEVELOPERS PRIOR TO MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1993. IF APPROVED GMEF LOAN NO. 006 DOLLARS OF $42,500 ARE NOT DISBURSED BY JULY 30, 1993, THE APPROVED LOAN BECOMES NULL AND VOID. �s� Council Agenda - 4/12/93 Consideration to authorize transfer of UDAG Funds for GMEF Loan No. 006 disbursement. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: REVIEW OF FUND BALANCES (FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY) Due to concerns raised by both the EDA and City Council regarding future funding sources for the GMEF, I have enclosed a summary of the Urban Development Action Grant(UDAG) and State Economic Recovery Grant (ERG) funds, and GMEF approvals and disbursements. The concerns were raised upon receiving the annual financial reports of the GMEF and the liquor fund. The reported amount available in the liquor fund was approximately $280,000, which was earmarked for the revolving loan fund and completion of the public works building. Additionally, the EDA, IDC, and City Council all agree with the need to increase scrutinization of GMEF applications for the true need of gap financing and to he conscious of the general public's image of the GMEF program. In addition to the liquor fund and the GMEF loan paybacks, two other fund sources tare available fur the GMEF program. First, the City of Monticello received the UDAG, federal funding, for the Fulfillment Systems, Inc. (FSI) development pmjcct. With federal funding, the City is able to retain 100'X; of the prinicpal and interest loan payback. The original loan amount was $256,957.71, and the UDAG payback balance as of January 31, 1993, is $77,780.48. The anticipated annual payback through January 2000 is $27,971.40. Within the grant application, the principal and interest loan payback wits earmarked for economic development; therefore, City Council authorization is necessary to transfer funds from the UDAG account into the GMEF account prior to GMEF loan disbursement. Second, the City of Monticello received the h:ItG, state funding, for the Aroplax Corporation development project. With shite funding, the City is able to retain the first $100,1100 of principal and interest loan pnyhack. The original loan amount wits $170,000, and the I,RG payback balance as of March 17, 1993, was $7,460.35. The anticipated annual payback through April, 1997, is $29,801.40. Within the grant upplicatiun, the principal and interest loan payback was earmarked for the revolving loan fund (GM EF); therefore, City Council authorization is not necessary to transfer funds from the ERG account intra the GNIEF account prior to GMEF loan disbursement. Semi-annual Council Agenda - 4/12193 reports are required and prepared on the number of jobs created, amount of loan payback received, and accountability of loan payback re -used for both the federal and state programs. The third report summaries the GMEF loans approved and the sources of funds used for GMEF disbursement. This is to clarify the difference between annual appropriations (meaning funds are available) and actual sources of funds used for disbursements. AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER UDAG FUNDS With the approval of GMEF Loan No. 006 by the EDA and supported by the City Council, City staff requests that Council consider authorizing the transfer of $42,500 from the UDAG fund to the GMEF for disbursement of approved Loan No. 006. The Bank of Elk River and the GMEF closings are anticipated for the week of April 12. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion authorizing the transfer of $42,500 from the UDAG fund to the GMEF for disbursement of approved Loan No. 006. __a r 2. A motion authorizing the transfer of $42,500 from the liquor fund to the GMEF for disbursement of approved Loan No. 006. :3. A motion denying authorization to transfer any dollars. C. STAFF ItECOMMENDATION: Since it was staff (Wolfsteller and Koropchak) who requested the Council consider authorizing the transfer of $42,500 from the UDAG fund, the recommendation is for alternative q 1. Recommendation was made because of the current UDAG balance. D. SUPPOI(TING IATA: Copy of the UDAG and ERG funds; The GMEF approval and disbursement summary. UDAG FINANCIAL REPORT March 17, 1993 PAYBACK BEGAN IN JANUARY 1988 FOR 12 YEARS ENDING IN JANUARY 2000. ANNUAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYBACK TOTAL IS $27,971.40. ORIGINAL Principal $256,957.71 Interest $ 78,699.09 TOTAL $335,656,60 REVENUES Principal Payback Interest Payback Interest Income - Investment 1990 1991 1992 TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES 1991 Transfer to GMEF 1992 Transfer to GMEF PAID REMAINING $ 98,953.68 $158,004.03 S 43.234.27 S 35,464.82 $142,187.95 $193,468.85 $ 98,953.68 $ 43,234.27 $ 3,562.62 $ 8,593.59 S 8,436.32 $162,780.48 $ 65,000.00 S 20.000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES S 85,000.00 FUND BALANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $ 77,780.48 January 31, 1993 9 STATE ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT March 17, 1993 PAYBACK BEGAN IN DECEMBER 1992 FOR 7 YEARS ENDING IN NOVEMBER 1999. ANNUAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYBACK TOTAL IS $29,801.40. FIRST $100,000 PRINCIPAL PAYBACK ENDS APRIL 1997. ORIGINAL PAID REMAINING Principal $170,000.00 $ 5,327.90 $164,672.10 Interest $ 37,969.92 S 2.122.45 2 35,847.47 TOTAL $207,969.92 $ 7,450.35 $200,519.57 APRIL 30, 1997 GMEF STATE Principal $170,000.00 $ 99,400.23 $ 70,599.77 Interest S 37,969.92 0 31,803.44 S 6.166.48 TOTAL $207,969.92 $131,203.67 $ 76,766.25 REVENUES Principal $ 5,327.90 Interest $ 2,122.45 Interest Income - Investment $ 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 7,450.35 EXPENDITURES Transfer to GMEF ,9 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 0 FUND BALANCE FOR GMEF, March 17, 1993 $ 7,450.35 0 GMEF LOANS March 17, 1993 Economic Development Authority (EDA) was created in 1989. APPROVED LOANS Tapper (1990) $ 88,000.00 Muller (1990) $ 50,000.00 SMM (1992) $ 50,000.00 Aroplax (1992) $ 85,000.00 TOTAL APPROVED LOANS $273,000.00 LOAN DISBURSEMENTS Liquor Fund 1991 to GMEF $ 73,000.00 1992 to GMEF $115,000.00 Total Liquor Fund $188,000.00 UDAG 1991 to GMEF $ 65,000.00 1992 to GMEF S 20,000.00 Total UDAG $ 85,000.00 TOTAL LOAN DISBURSEMENTS $273,000.00 Co Council Agenda - 4/12193 Public hearing improvement. proiect 9.9-02C. Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition. and consideration of a resolution awarding oroiect. (J.S./J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The bids were received for the Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition project at 10 a.m. on Friday, April 9. The project consists of utilities, street construction, drainage pond construction, and grading for a 50 -lot addition to Cardinal Hills. Also incorporated with the project is slightly over 1/4 mile of 8-R bituminous walkway located on the nurth side of School Boulevard. The Engineer's estimate for the construction cost was approximately $555,000. On Friday, the City received 19 bids ranging from a low of $513,280.20 to a high of $793,739.15. The apparent low bidder is Ryan Contracting, Inc., out of Burnsville, Minnesota. OSM will be analyzing the bid information and have a recommendation for Monday evening's meeting. The bid itself includes $12,431 for pathway construction, $120,000 for site grading, and $380,849.20 for utility, street, and pond construction. PROPOSED SIDEWALK INSTALLATION AND FINANCING As directed by City Council, City staff met with the developer and the School District Superintendent to determine the best design and a potential method for financing it pathway along the north side of School Boulevard. After discussion, it was the recommendation of the group to present the following proposal to the City Council for review and consideration. Pathwav Design and Locution As noted to you earlier in it Council update, the plans were designed to show an 8 -ft wide bituminous off-road nat.hwav at two locations. One location extended the pathway 600 R from Eider Avenue to the Little Mountain School. The second location extended pathway as distance of 8110 ft from Pelican Avenue to the Middle School. In discussing the matter with the School District and the developers, we came to the consensus that the first pathway connecting little Mountain School to Eider Avenue should he constructed with this project; however, the second segment lending to the Middle School should he deferred until a later phase of the Cardinal Hills subdivision. It was also concluded at this meeting that it would he acceptable to place hike traffic on School Boulevard, which would allow us to reduce the width of the bituminous pathway from 8 ft to a 5 -IL Council Agenda - 4/17193 concrete sidewalk; however, after further staff investigation, City staff discovered that it will be unlikely that the School Boulevard speed limit will ever be allowed to he reduced below 40 mph. Therefore, it is our view that the 8 -ft bituminous pathway design which provides the wider width for two-way bike traffic is the proper design. Furthermore, the cost to install an 8 -ft wide bituminous path is about the same as the cost to install a 5 -ft wide concrete path. Please note that the decision of this group to recommend completion of only one segment of the two segments bid was made before the bids were opened. The bid amount and overhead is slightly more than half the expected cost; therefore, it is very possible that this group would now recommend that both of the segments he completed. Pathwav Financing It was the consensus of the group that the sidewalk will have some benefit to all three parties. For the City, as noted in the proposed pathway plan, School Boulevard will become a major corridor for pedestrian traffic moving from one area to another. For the School I'isty ict, the path when fully constructed will allow school -to -school pedestrian traffic. For the developers, the path enhances the value oftheir land by providing pedestrian access to the school/playground. It was the consensus of the group that the pathway provided approximately equal benefit to the three parties involved; therefore, the proposed distribution of cost culls for the developer and the School District to pay 65% of the cost, with the City picking up 351A of the cost. The total cost of this aspect of the project would be distrihuted as follows: Total cost, including 28% overhead: $15,911 School pays $ 5,171 Developer pays $ 5,171 City pays $ 5,568 The pathway development schedule prepared in conjunction with the 1STEA Grant application calls for paths developed in previously undeveloped areas to he financed primarily by revenue from development. The proposed plan for financing the School Boulevard path segment is consistent with this philosophy. It is important to install sidewalks simultaneous to development of other utilities and assess the cost accordingly because it is difficult to assess sidewalk installation expenses at a later date. 10 Council Agenda - 4/12193 R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to award the project to the low bidder, Ryan Contracting, Inc., of Burnsville, Minnesota, based upon an amount of $513,280.20 or the corrected amount contingent upon receipt of the signed development agreement and securities from the developer. Under this alternative, both pathway segments would be constructed. Award of the contract with one or both pathway segments requires 4/5 vote of Council because neither the School District or the developers petitioned for this part of the project. 2. The second alternative would be to award the project, but remove one or both of the proposed pathway segments. 3. The second alternative would be not to award the project at this time but to delay award until the development agreement and securities are in place. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council select alternative #1. The overall bid is within expected ranges, and the pathway costs are very favorable. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of bid tab; Copy of drawing of bituminous pathway; Copy of resolution for adoption. eA M Orr Q SX SMen = April I2, 1993 307 Para Place Cerner P 5775Wayzata Bouleearo Minneapolis. MN 554161228 612.595-5775 i -nuw- FAX 595-5774 Mr. John Simola Engineers Architects City of Monticello Planners 250 E. Broadway Surveyors Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Grading, Streets, Utilities, and Appurtenant Work Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition, City Project No. 93-02C Monticello, Minnesota OSM Project No. 4892.20 Dear Mr. Simola: Bids were received for the above -referenced project at 10:00 a.m. April 9, 1993 and were opened and read aloud. A total of 19 responsible bids were received. Ryan Contracting, Inc. 1534 E. Cliff Road, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $513,280.20. The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and tabulated. The Engineer's Estimate was $563,110.00. We recommend award of the Contract to Ryan Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $513,280.00. Attached is the bid tabulation. Sincerely, ORR-SCHEI_EN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 34� lj;, Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Project Manager/Associate jme Attachment r4ud cvpon" io*uw BID TABULATION FOR GRADING, STREETS, LJ7I71-ITIES AND APPURTENANT WORK FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT NO. 93.02C BIDS OPENED: April 9, 1993 10:00 A.M. ORR-SCHELEN•MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTRACTOR ADDENDUM NO. I BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Ryan Contracting, Inc. X X $513,280.20 Richard Knutson, Inc. X X $517,874.65 Annadale Contracting, Inc. X X 5535,074.78 LaTour Construction, Inc. X X $548,326.60 Northdale Construction X X 5550,659.06 S.M. Ilentges & Sons, Inc. X X 5556,650.00 R. P. Utilities X X $557,922.50 BarBarossa & Sons, Inc. X X $560,493.50 R. I_ Larson Excavating, Inc. X X 5570,109.68 Imperial Developers, Inc. X X 5587,988.50 ,zndwehr Heavy Moving, Inc. X X $599,439.50 S. R. Weidcma Inc. X X $610,877.56 Brown & Cris, Inc. X X 5617,332.42 S.J. Construction, Inc. X X 5619,971.00 Arcon Construction, Company, Inc. X X $623,053.92 Kadlcc Excavating of Mora, Inc. X X 5649,795.50 Bonnie Excavating, Inc. X X $695,383.96 Minn -Kota Excavating, Inc. X X $736,015.00 R. D. Mclean Construction Co., Inc. X X 5793,739.15 Engineer's Estimate S563,110.00 1 IIEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A 'TRUE AND CORRECT TABULATION OF THE BIDS AS RECEIVED ON: DA'Z'E: April 9, 1993 11y: WAA Bret A. Weiss, P.E. rOSM Project No. 4892.20 • Denotes Corrected Figure Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION Friday April 9, 1993 10 00 AM OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 DENOTES CORRECTED AMOUNT CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO 4892 20 SC"EDULF A %ANITANY SI WI H 1 7621 511 r PVC PIPE SEWER SDR 24 1 76] I S t l e' PVC %'rt 6k W(R blX1 Jb ] 2421 Sol rw PNC wn _ • ?671 511 4• PVC POE SEWER SDR 26 SERVICE PIR S ?621 S06 STANDARD 4SANITARY SEWER MH 10.101 6 ?b21108EXTRA 46' INA M H LAPTHOVEH 10' 7 2WI W5 CONST e• TYPI •A' OU7SIOk DF40P ID -41 •12671 MM k X T RA DROP Sk C Z ION IX PTH OVER 4' 611DIVIt CONN( Cl TO EXISTING MANHOLL1bTU8 /OON S G' PVC CLEANOUT 11 2106 543 GRANULAA FOI MDA I ION WTI HIAL TOTAL SCHI DIII I A SANIIANY SI Wt N SCHEDUItO WAIIHMAIN 12All SO]6• WATER MAIN DUCT IHLACL S7 13.2611 b016- WATER MAIN MN I IHONCL 52 14 76111q?HYORANT 1S 2411 w4r GA71 VAI VI AND 610X 16.2611 606' GATE VM VE ANO BOX 1 7.2411 570 DUCTXE IRON E ITTiNu6 1 e 241 1502 I' CORPORATION STOP 19 ?611 602 1 • CURS STOP S box 70.24 w 11 ] 1 • TYPE X CO4Y R P PSR 71.7611 6000W&CT TO LXIST910 WATER MAS16 ?]•2611 q3 VAL VE SOX EXTENSION ?3,Se11 w4 FW011ANT tx7L NSK]N ONM`d" IAM 1400 I IN FT 1750 LIN FT 51 EACH 21W LIN FT 1: EACH 175 LIN FT 7 EACH 20 LW FT I F ACH 2 F AGM 100 TON 7650 LIN F T 470 LIN I1 6 EACH 0 EACH 9 LAC" IMX) LO %' EACH 61 kACH 2160 LIN FT I E ACH 4 LW FT 4 UN FT tINUINttH J LUVV CAUULH ;eNu tlIUUtH $HU t11UUtM 41 M DIUULM RYAN CONTRACTING, RICHARD KNUTSON ANNANDALE LA TOUR ESTIMATE INC INC CONTRACTING, INC CONSTRUCTION, INC TUWuW 6567.11000 TOWIIq is172W 70 TOW f6a 6117,!)4N IoW810 •53SOT476 T9161ew 6S45.3LAw I -P— 11—Ta146 UM Prc4 U.Prc'4 .—T-. 1-p— —T— X 00 42 000 20M 71.000 50 00 2 $SO S 50 11 625 110000 12100 bs 00 5125 910 00 2160 0000 1700 Sw 00 600 121 00 2w goo 600 11120 I4w ]9900 1200 S 150000 12.000 41,000 INC 15000 11w 50 27w 71 w 17ro Sb w 2 bob 600 12 Iw 40000 400 w w I69 7/6 00 1 UX 12 s6 22.+I 2000 1 t. 550 11,". 11osw 12.1. 5800 7.7 1.500 w 4.'. w00 N• 2 e 00, 2.- 106 w 001 11 w 6 I 660 w 7 Hn 42400 3 1„ 11600 P m N P I. 1600 4600 2:• 61$ 13. ve w, 1 2b Imm 2w00 9mw Pogo 1 of 12 P.- .,4 low le: 3045 1,5'... 630 U.S. 1 026 00 11, J.+ be w e %. W400 1,1 ". 111100 1 �. 17000 17500 900 9 1110 10 70 IIS IN, "3100 3]6 w 166 2] w 14w 2 20 ebw 22 w 240(m) 0 N 00 17w ww 5w 100 w 7S w 950 w 45M 2M1 w Iww 9 w lI W 1000 I.7w w 476 w 736 w I w 0000 66M 600 IWw 30w 2w w 1160. IS 7[I 40.211111 29 VV 1600 71,6001 25% 1600 2.7M1 110.' 670 127151 It.100.. 1196 00 13 1.51 9,31:. . r100 9.1711 26% 101000 3O] YUI. .600 600 7%. 5N 00 NII k.� •. Iw 00 240 W.. 9 W Soo 17]]11 mm oc 1]90 Mrw 4700 111 II 16 S.7w Sew '21b 00 10.790 3mmat 47000 3.]10 10160c 3w 00, 2.700 ?710 IN 7 76 3.116 1.040 09 w ' 1 r9 1.316 1000 3.010 17900 660 14.110 110 I M6 00. 3N 170 WIND 700 Ow M6 00 00 Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION Friday April 9, 1993 10.00 AM OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02.93 DENOTES CORRECTED AMOUNT CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 IINrn 504. No OP—rP`— %'�� PT�OTM Sfllf MllF R WATf "MAIN SCK DUI I C 5TO14M SI WE H 24 2507 641 12- RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V 2S 750.3 541 16' R(: PIPE SEWER DESIGN 7006 CL V 26,2W3 54116' FIC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 7006 Ct V ?F.2503 54170' RC PIPE. SEWER DESIGN 3006 CE III 28 7503 541 A' RC PPE S1 WE R Of SIGN 3006 CE III ?9,2U* "CONSTRUCT MANHOLES DESIGN46.4070 30,2606 "CONSTRUCT MANHO1.E5 DESIGN 54 4070 31 2606 S08CONbTHM I CATCH SASIN 32 2511 $01 RANOOMI P PRAP CLASS III WITH F A04S- 33 7501 66212- PIC SAI F 3V APR E GMT E 34 7501 56718' FTC SAF E TY APRON A GRATE 3S 7501 My 33- RC It TY APRON A GRATE M 7506"E X TKA "' INA M M W PTH OVE R 10 372S06SME NIRA M'( NA MH OE PTH OVEN 10 u 2611 S' IURANULAH Fit It R FOR POND ICOMPLE I E E 3o ENV 11 PVC 62/0 04 MN AL3 UIV II PLACE Fif 1 D STONE TOTAL SCHE LNNE C ST,�HM 51 WEA SCW AA F U SINE t I CONSTRUCTION 41 ,2117 601 SLOCU A PHI PAATION 42 21056225ELE CT U04ANULAA IIOR/K3W (CV) IPI 43,2111 Sol A(N1W GATE NASI LAAS6► " 233, 611 TYPE 31 RASE COURSE WXIENIE 4S 7331 508 TYPE 41 WE ARING COURSE MIX I URI LINUIINLLH a LUVV L'IIUUCH 7:INU tl1UUCH JHU UILIULH 41 71 011JULH 560 LIN F1 35 LIN Fl 6L LIN Fl 760 LIN FT 176 UN FT S EACH 7 EACH t0 EACM 14 CU YE) 7 EACH 1 EACH 1 EACH 13 UN EI ISLIN Fl 7 EACH 200 UNIT 400 so YD lam 10.000 2000 720 2400 "1112 40 00 14.400 64 00 0.604 1 100 00 5.500 1.350 00 2.700 77500 7,760 Sow 7M 400 00 Low 70000 700 I'Woo 1 160 7000 010 00W 1,440 2 600 00 6.000 10 W 2000 low 4000 87 4M 17AD1 6.666 o 16 bo _ 660 41 72 70 10,66' 1: 3610 12 fr. 491$ e l 1.04000 "ISIS 00 72000 40 00 SW 00 boom 1.256 o0 be 00 Bow 100000 7W I4 b 31 $ R S RYAN CONTRACTING, RICHARD KNUTSON ANNANDALE LA TOUR ESTIMATE INC. INC CONTRACTING. INC CONSTRUCTION. INC THAI RW $567,11000 To101EW 6613,28020 TuwtLa ' $51767466 Tail Bl6 '536.07478 ToW Bid $540,32660 UUrN Ung I -I P— II— Tdy UM Fi— III ll.ut 1'nrw It— Tdr. UM P— bwm TM, IMI P-. N— TAN, low 71 PS 160 od 7/_227 W. 60 600 (a 76.784 04 84 016 5t1 560 LIN F1 35 LIN Fl 6L LIN Fl 760 LIN FT 176 UN FT S EACH 7 EACH t0 EACM 14 CU YE) 7 EACH 1 EACH 1 EACH 13 UN EI ISLIN Fl 7 EACH 200 UNIT 400 so YD lam 10.000 2000 720 2400 "1112 40 00 14.400 64 00 0.604 1 100 00 5.500 1.350 00 2.700 77500 7,760 Sow 7M 400 00 Low 70000 700 I'Woo 1 160 7000 010 00W 1,440 2 600 00 6.000 10 W 2000 low 4000 87 4M 17AD1 6.666 o 16 bo _ 660 41 72 70 10,66' 1: 3610 12 fr. 491$ e l 1.04000 "ISIS 00 72000 40 00 SW 00 boom 1.256 o0 be 00 Bow 100000 7W I4 b 31 $ R S 10000 31 M 12600. 6300 CU VU alb 14175 200 lr � flow TON b EO 23,000 A Do 1460 TON 11100 27, MIT low 71 1100 ION 20 50 22 "It 18 IF h Paas 2 of 12 20M .11_366 a 2000 112W 70 SS 776 oc 2000 120 2030 17,011 oc 21 SO 18.017 3500 12 960 3150 11'340 4300 7,566 42010 7.707 1 M200 5410M wow 4 S00 I S63 w 3.106 1-00 ?am woo SAW a MSOo 6650 37 o0 blam 4S 00 a30 51000 10200c woo aa0 S00 00 500 a 140 0o 640 I SS00 I Imm 2,06201 2067 Y w aN IN lib 00 846 10200 1.4,112 OF 11600 1940 1130 00 7.700 1780 00 2. 780 700 1 SOD 10 00 2.000 740 7M0 800 32M m 1m n Tee 10000 3 150 1114111. 7.670 4 /b T a7► 1 7,pe 4 Y now 4 P3 34.360 ,aft 73.780 16 be 24.012 n It 20,647 12 w 80,866 24M 1 ].440 2620 607 2660 22,456 30 so 14,220 40 So 0.712 121000 polio 1."600 2070 006 00 0 uW .00 476 46500 030 slow 670 7,32100 2770 7600 076 11000 1.780 2,32600 4860 8 W low 6 So 7 Tao al aM 18600 blal 100 6.300 4 /A A b00 676 747x1 1900 71123 0 Page 3 of 12 Extension of Olds CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION Friday April 9, 1993 10:00 AM OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 DENOTES CORRECTED AMOUNT CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 ENUINELKS LUW k31UUEH 2NU81UUEH 3HU kIIUUEH 4 1 H klIUUEH RYAN CONTRACTING, RICHARD KNUTSON ANNANDALE LA TOUH ESTIMATE INC. INC CONTRACTING, INC. CONSTRUCTION. INC Tauri 04 6563.11000 Tama 1513.280201DI.i Btl •1511,8146s haled •SS.07418 Ia61010 168.31660 A— Si— PIO D.—p,m 0--mv LAM IIM TI -A Ann T —P— K4r0 TOW UM Rt Bun I - l IM P— h— Te1A IM P.. — T014 Y 2357 50201TUMININIS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 636 GALLON 1 00 615 O 50 311 So 050 31750 0 51 32385 050 311 So 4/ 2531 501 CUW W 11 CURB 6 OUTTt R LN SIGN D4 6atD l IN I T 4 S0. 27.01)(10. 3 90 2.1"00 195. 2070o 3 W 23.V40 4 OS 24100 "'h54 SO5 W MDVI AND NL MS 141 OAHNA.ALX S 2 PAIR 250 00 I 600 10000 200 'A 00 loom 100 00 200 'woo 160 YISS4 %CIP( MANLN7 HARRICAMS 2.1`1 SOO OD 1000 4SO W YID 4WOO 900 N 5000 900 oo 41000 WO oc 50 2104 'At RI MOVE CURB AND OUT71 H 100 LIN FT 150 ISOM ISO 100 100 m 00 10000 404 404 00 3 6S 165 Ol TOTAISCN[DUIIn STRiFIC.ONSTRUCTION 129710 m 6182 OQ I To fim V 11. IN S7 MI. SONY (1111! I SIT[ C.IIAINN4 S12,M 501%III(.RADINU COMP1111 IIS ,]1'A000 11, wom 17000000 120000 1]1(0000 111"m1/661/00 11661] 12854400 17Aw IOTAI SCHI TRY I Mitt (,,"01N, Il/S00 I?0Qwm 127000 11K 617 ,M 544,1 6� %(.HI Wit / 011 UMININIS WAI AWAY W.7WI 5119 &LUMINOUS WAI KWAT IIN(:LU OL 5) 114110.541 11 125 14 AA 090 10tH 065 /410 OBO 6140 071 6ONa Sl 2104 501 W MIMI CONI, HI TI I. Uq! 6 OU 771 R 42 DNF 1 100 N 100 0 1 O0 47 2S3 IN 256. 1011, N 7531 S01 CIXK:Rf 71 cow 6 Gum H 42 LN F1 '000 420 1200 t04 100 2W /02 1116 720 1024( U 7516 50SMNNIIW. 660 60 VU 1 00 1100 7 SO 162$ 200 1 11]0 2 S0 1826 7 ON I I V 4 IM At Y:NI[KAI F PITOMINOIIS *At KWAV II 17411 908 6W 66M RMNO TOT AI SC.NI INA 1 S A I Sill 110 611260 5, / 614 6 1 N 014 1 W 176 0 Page 3 of 12 Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 b in DIuutH 1311-1 tllUUtn ! I in FAUUtH D l n HIUUtH d 1 In CAUUtn NOHTHDALE S. M. HENTGES 6 BAHHAHOSSA 8 H L. LAMSON CONSTHUCTION SONS INC. H P UTILITIES. INC SONS INC. EXCAVATING. INC --. "04 $550.651)05 To141 LW $S56.660 00 I" BO +557,Y27 50 I d4I BIU SSW.490 W 7 d6I BNl $51.,10061 N4T yA[ N" Q.MM -11 1- Ildt P- Ilam 1M� I inn p- 66m Td lion P- 11- Td Unll Pm. IU- 7d6 lln l PM• 11- 1.. IH ISC6i0ULE A- SAMIAHY SF WI N 142161f1•PVCPPESEWER SDH 26 14001.14 FI 7375 47JWW 1500 25.7,+ 1600 25700 w A? 00. be swoo 2611 40.71401 2.2621 St I6• PVC PPE SE WER SDR 35 1 750.1. IN 17 14 74 25.1V5 ou 1595 27 1 � 17 00 2V ?W w 71 00 A, 750 Do 1197. 20947 N 11621607P119' PVC WYE SIEACH 33 So. 1,106 bo 3500 11, 4100 2,091 4000 2,040 00 4900 2.4900 4.16216114' PVC PPE SE WI H SUN 16 SL HVKA PIPE 2150 LIN FI 575- 12.3112160 700 /S, 7l3, 16.19 So 600, 129MM 671, 17.495 5267150E6TANDARD4' SANITARY SEWER MH (0 IT) 11EACH IIWx0 t2§WOO 110000 1. 1.50000 WSW 00 110000 12,100 00 1,23!00 175410 62WI 506EXTHA Or DIA M H DEPTH OVER IO 1251-INFl 7000 175000 7000 61'- 9700 12.125 oc 7500 9,]75 ou 6300 7,4760 71671502COINST 111- TYPE W OUTSIDE DROP 1041 ]EACH 75000 2,2$000 SW 00 1 160000 4000 150000 4. Soo IN !]600 1 60111 12671 S06EXTRA DROP SECTION DEPIHOVLR 4' 20.1. IN 2T 6000 1600 oo 'woo 4000 1990 7500 lbw 14000 29400 V UIV II C(3#"CT TO L XWINU MANHOLL'STUB ILACH I.1w 00 11w m 17000 570 a 35000 350 IN 41900 4190 101XV It rPVC CLEANOUT 711 -AC. 12500 2bo w 250 00 44000 mom 25000 wom 29700 b90 11210SS4]C.fk*JILARFOLINUAYON61ATFRIAI 100 TON 001 Im 640 1000 10000 400 ACK)a 001 10 TOTAISC:HIIMAI A SANITARYSIWIR 1117167oc 179215 Id 0910 SA:HI IRA I0 WA IT RMAIN 1226115076+ WA7LH"IN DIN: 7 IRON Cl W 7960L04Fl 1646 "072 W 1600 451.+ 1100 77060 ou 1700 37940 129/ 79,9{45 I]„116016' WATL R MAIN 0- 71NOF41 U 4/01,04 FI 1700 4110 w 1]00 I, 1100 6170 w 1100 b.t pm to be. 4.911 142611 S02HYDRANT /E. ACH 106000 6400 OU t7w 00 11.+• 1.]0000 1040ow 1,30000 1001XICK IWIT 00 17990 15211 bo7r GATE VAI VE AND Box {EACH "500 3.1111 00 boo 00 $7000 4690 on SIM)W 4.400 41700 7.7040 162611 b02{' WTE VN VL AND BOX SLAC. 1]600 1016 11000 l,• 46000 4.140 Am W. 4060 31000 7.7900 11,21111 S70DUCTAE IRON FITI6VOb 1500 La 1110%. 2016m 1 76 21 19 2 ?Ww 200 ]000 200 7.0000 1/ 7611 "I- COIPORAI ION STOP 61.11 ACH 12 00 1 1711. .00. I r U00. 2 701 W 00 1.090 IN Y OD 1,991 19.7611 "1• CUIr {TOP { Box LI LACH 7900 71/11. 'Soo 1 N. M W 33" 76 00 7 {25 6600. f.6M6 ?0,26, 1 6071' TYPE K OOP" H PIPI 2150 LI141 T 6610 12 40 1. 900 1. Soo. 17)110 100 15 060 "o 16,4196 R1.21111 "CONNECT TO L XISIIN1r WATLH MAIN I LACH 75000 /wt. -00 $1000 610 10000 100 74000 7000 22.201 1 601 V. A VE BOF EXTE hb-A 4 L9r n 48010. 1661. 00 2700 9 0 I W 00 400 2100 "2, 032611602HYONANT EXTENSION 4LOA F1 75000 10001. .1500 222 Do 99 160a 1970 74090 1040[ Pap 4 of 12 CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 11.00 SDK No E1MCHp — aW1� LAIN TOTAL SCHE CIA FR WAIF HMAIN 10 640 , SCFE I" IF C STORM %f WEN ' 71760]' 54111' PC PIPE SE WE R ut s10N IO06 mV 660 LINFT 1600 16,08401 75 7603 66/ tr NC PIPE SF WE H O( SIGN 1011/ CL V _ 36 LIN FT 24.2503 54116' PIC PIPE SI WI H IN "1(,N ]006 CL V 6M'L1N FT • 71.2503 64110' PIC PIPE SE WE H N SIGN ]0_06 CL Ill 760 LM FT )• 7503 54/ 1TPk PIPE SI W i H (N SIGN ]006 Cl 11, 17O'LA FT 71150650600NSTHI977 MANHOLESDE66114464020 6EACH ]07506506CONSIRUC:T MANHOLE60E610_N644020 T EACH 11 760E b01COM6TM7CT CATCH DAWN tO EACH U 7611 WE RANDOM M_ IN► CLASS IN WITH FARRIC 14 Cu ro D 7601 Yi tr PC SMETY AM L amit 2 LACH M 2601 M71r RC MPETY APRON A GRATE 1 EACH 36 7601 MI? Ir RC MFETV APRON • GHAT[ 1 EACH 36 7506 SME ATRIA 46' DIA M H Lx PTH OVER 10 1 ] L.N FT 317606 "EXTRA M' DIA M 14 OLPTH OVER Ur 16 LIN FT 0 7611 1II IQKANIN AH E 11 11 H FOR POND (COMPI. I It I 7 • f ACH *DIV 0 PVC St*U"N 200 LIN ET aENV 6 PLACE EN ID 611NN 40060 VU "TOTAL SCK DIA FC, STORM bl WI H Gal SCHE Du1 F 0 STIIF F T CONSTRIIC 7ION 1 400 41 71 12 W I M70O/MDE P10 PARATION 31 6 N '. 42 7106 6726ELt CT OMNIAAA WMOW (CV) IPI 6]00 LU TU 4371110 AOOIIEOATE RAW PLANS 6000 TON M„E .:123 61 i 31 IIIA" COULD 6inUft 1460 TON 417331 TMIE 41 WEARING COMM IQT[III[ 1100 ION Extension of ©Ids 51 H 13IUULH 5 1 H 8IUULH /1 H lSIUULH 81 H HIUULH 41H k9UULH NORTHDALE S. M. HENTGES 6 RAHRAHOSSA 6 R. L. LARSON CONSTRUCTION SONS INC. R. P. UTILITIES, INC. SONS INC EXCAVATING, INC TOW BG. $660,666.06 =aW RIG. N66660 00 ," EM '557,M SO '" OM $560,403 50 '" LIM 6510.100 Y Loot Pit- IIMP Tol6 INN Rin N T016 LNN PI1c. 6.00 Td LIM P— A -1a1 IMII Ph. IMn TM. 67,746 b4 W SOS 001 M.-11� M 10'. apt M, 37. N 77100 _ 12,320 7176 _ 610 2660 _ 11.70 37.70 _ 1],677 67c!!-- _10,0]2 1.D60 00 6_2W 160 00~--1,600 00000• --6000 6]00 654 676 00 1,060 626 00 676 110000 1,700 ,.oil 610 •...-5 00 1 600 —00 ]ODD I1 DD 7.200 • 50 1 600 Y 100 7M1 m 7 W 111 11114 4.60+ M.6m 1450 6.120 X low 10 640 , 1600 6760c 2000 120, 1600 16,08401 2000 24,302, 3200 11,520 46M 16,2001 4300 7.60 $100 10.032 1.26000 625001--I.Y000 6.000 2.00000 4,OL10 01 1.60000 36100 75000 7.SOOOC 01000• 2.100 4600 630 ot 7000 600 60000 100001 50000 1.160 60000 600 60000 Gal 1 40 m 1 400 2 GW 00 2 600 70M 9100 6700 1261 11000 1.760 01 12700 7.032 60000 "0000c 2.2W W 4.400 7b0 1,600 IX Itm 2.2m ,so 600 goo 32M 70076 a 101317 6000 7636 17600 3037 110 6,93001 126 1676 470 36A004 Y » 000 1660 tlA66 1600 23.700 1660. O_YOOq . 1900, 20.9m Popp 5 0112 71 DD 11,760 22 DO 762 2400 20.117 %004 14.040' 4600 _ _6,00 1 10000 6.50 I II(M m 6.100 70000 7.000. 5000, 700 1000 00 1,000 6m 00goo 2boo m cbm 76 00 676 Im 00 1,6m T ODD 00 4,0m goo 1.600 Sao 1.100 67a 1TO N} 4AY 1A6t 7Aft 4 •t MOb 16 40+ AM 16 77 90.047 I/lp 1636 2336. 1740 64 75 131100 1.54400 776 00 b3 W. 665 00 0700 14600 6300 Y oo' No 00 1200 7) 00 13,461 9,636 6,666 3.60 7,)60 742 ,.tro 661 I,IY all 1 bag I.om 6600 — D54 Woo Ibn 700 17,600 454 n 1640 M700 1 16 74 111."1 Pape 6 of 12 Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 489220 51 H 81UUEH i 1 H HIUUhH / I H bIUUEH 81 H 1311JULH 91 H blUUEH NORTHDALE S M HENTGES& BARBAHOSSA( H LARSON CONSTHUCTION SONS INC H V UTILITIES. INC SONS INC EXCAVATING, INC Taw Bd. 6550,65005 ToW6d 6556,65000 It1lw 04 'Sb/.67250 I" d 65W.46]50 IOW Bd 6510,10666 nun SPw Na TM4av— 0—dy UM L" P— 6Mn TLhla P- AwO TOW INN Pnt1 IMIn T. IIM P- Mem Tal. 1lna Pnce Gem Iofw a623SI SWEID VINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 635GALLON ___.!_63 716. 050 1176` 060 717 050 711 Stt 040 717 so 41 2S)1 SOI CONCRI 11 CURB 6 GUTTI R UL SKIN D4 x100 LIN FT 4 16 '2.600 400 14 000 M 396. 23.700 J 6S - 1m u: a 71 A 100 REMOVE ANDRE INSTALL BARCADES ".2S.SO�RI 7 PAIR 10000 _ 700 ]5000 . 70 001: 15000, 700 S000 S, 1, Im. 00 100 200 462SS4104PE RNIANE NT BARRICADE 5 2PAIR 41000 660 45000 000 45000 600 50000 IOWIX .00 600 00 60 7104 401 RE MOVE CUMAND GUTTE R 100 LIN FT 160 1W 400 400 3w ]50 Soo 9110W 2 00 700 TOTAL SCHEDULE D STREET CONSTRUCTN K] 115.667 106,66/ w 106560 0c 277 SCF41 DALE F SITE ORADWO %I 71M SOISITE GRAZING COMPL F tF ILS 13500000 116.000 IN 177.60000 177 l00 W 1]600000 1]6000 12100000 1210001« --00 1674011 TOTAL SCHE DILL F) SITE GRADING 1%000 ot 177 Soo w 1]6000 or 171000 Ia 167"1 SCFKLMILF F NIIIMAINOUS WALKWAY W.Ml bll6 ENTUMINOUS WALKWAY I6aGtD Cl 61 1140060 FT 067 1.112 OC 060 GWA 054 6.126 0c 100 11"m 016 6176 00 572104 WINE MOVE LONCRE If CURB 60UTTER 42 UN FT 21S 115 sc 100 264 a 105 a 400 21000 700 N00 $4 2611 60tCONCRLTE CURB 6 GUTTER 42 ONE 1 I t UO 462 6 00 )/e N 100 204 a 700 761 00 am ]]6 SS 2676 6016000640 660 SO YD 2w 1AM 710 1 466 700 1 660 200 1300 2 00 I w (TOTAL 61CFKIRII I F OnA1IINKIMS WAI KWAY 9w 6001 6075 1]704 a4 'ORANDTOTAI SCIQTXAISA F 650668 641650 M 56/622 SM 467. 5MIN Pape 6 of 12 CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 1Am Sp- No O94[OCN1n SCHE (Alit A SANITARY SI Wt $4 1 2621 511 r PVC PIPI FA WER SDR 26 2 7671 H 141' PVC PIPE SEWER SDR 36 3r7a71 _6p3-}rxP PVC WYE ---- - 4�7El161 114- PVC PPE UVER SDR 2b SF RVICE PIPE 5.2121 606 5TANDARD 4- SANITARY S[ WEER MH (0 10 • 7671 EOE E X T RA M' DIA M H DEPTH OVER 1(r 7,M1 "CONST 6' TYPE -A' OUT SIDE DROP 10 4') • 7671 SOEEXTRA DROP SECTION DEPTH OVER 4' 9 DIV II CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLEISTUB 10 DIV b 6' PVC CL.EANWT 1 17105 543 GRANULAR FOUNDATION ANTE RIA, TOTAL bCHE0XF A SANITARYSFW[R SGHIDIALE M WATERMAN 17 7611 SO7r WATLN MAINUIICT IRONCL b7 1 ] 7611 b0] r WA1 [ R MAIN DLICT IRON CL W 14 7611 "HYDRANT 116 7611 S44- GATT VAL VI AND MOX 16 7611 5076' GAI[ VALVE AND MOX 17 rill "DUCTILE IRON FI11WGb 18,2411 402 1' CORPORATION STOP 19 7411 "V CLIFIM STOP 6 Box 20 7411 503 1' TYPE x CONY H WPI 21 7611 502 CONN[ CT TO 1 XISIINI. WA t l N MAIN 77 7611 6q VALVE NOX 1 XTE NSX]N 73 ?611 143 HYDRANT LXTL NSION Extension of Bids lU 1 n uluutH I i I H uluutil 1c I r1 uluutH I011'1 uluutn 141 I'1 D1UUtr1 S.) LOUIS IMPERIAL LANOWEHH HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPERS, INC MOVING. INC SH WEIDEMA INC BROWN 6 C[i15. INC INC. luta Gtl 6567.1166 50 "Do 65911419 50 IoW OO •610.677 So IoW MIO 6611,13742 IoW om $61997100 OI lh' UM 0.1 P— X4n11 MIy INVI p— IIHn TdN LIRA P— 11— Tot 11nq P— Nom 1M. Unit PM Own 7- 1400 LIN FT 7100 29 400 at 3V 00 M 600 1 17SOLIN FT 2000 7•.000 OC 2000 350001 b1 EACH 1000 LAM 9000 25101 7150 LIN FT 600 17.600 17 00 26.6001 11 EACH t -Woo 11200 1,70000 13,7001 175 LIN FT S6 00 7,000 _7000 _ 1.7601 3 EACH 130900 2,217 1,00000 30001 20 LIN FT 00 00 600 oc 7000 1 4001 1 EACH 5000 60 100000 10001 7 EACH 10000 200 01 20000 4001 100 TON 1 00 100 CK 100 7001 370 74200 101117 15000 IM 4001 7650 LIN E T 16 w 47 026 H 00 30. Tom Oro LIN FT 1400 6600 1700 6640 6 EACH 110000 o6a)(10c 100000 1000 9 EACH 46000 1660 01 40000 1200 4 LAC. .24000 324001 x24 W 7.700 1100 EM 2 00 3.00001 1 b0 7?60 bt EACH 4500!,l66 4000 7040 61 EACH b700 E,666 al 6000. 769.0 71SOLIN P1 100 16060 1200 8600 1 EACH wall 360 rW 00 700 4LW FT 5000 100 1 ?0w 200 4 LIN FT 11600 900 110000 1200 Papa 7 of 12 IL 30 00 1? 42,01K) 3600 4.=w 7500 105 900 !6 00 45.500 1600 20 000 00 2000 15 00(i 12 10 647 7 3000 Imm 3000 1.330 61b;' - 16,617bC b30 11,396 600 12900 116700 17,0]7at 1.14000 17 560 1,00)(10 11.000 M 00 6250 7000. 6.730 w 1500 9 71b 1 1 1 5 00 3 365 67300 2424 mix) m 1600 60 00 12W 41 00 " 45 00 600 2 690 00 2 e110 3n 00 377 7.00000 2,000 16600 370 74200 leo 15000 3100 1100 1100 001 1 1000 ILxxl 40 00 1m 7S2 31 00 I"— 10 00 I- M 1111. 17 70 10 44b 01 700 04wa 04w 1100 31 obo 11 61 6.311 N 1b W 101,40, 1100 5,640 1 I W OD 9.200 OK 9^00 1411 m 1 .300 W 10 400 43000 7.110 4,141 OD 3war MOW 4 400 32200 2.911 ]AM 2NIM 00 1900 120 1900 01 104 2,91001 700 1000 1200 sisal 7100 1177 500D T.660 N 00 7,724YOU 7111 MOD ) 311 6 A 70.966 6 11 11.717 6 W 11.900 1 bb 00 lob 190 00 110 3w 00 160 40 00 190 31 00 174 10 00 240 220 00 9110 23300 717 IDD OD 1 200 CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 Il.n� Spr K, 114wrrt0114r1 Ouwnlry IMM TOTAL SCHFOUI F H WAIF HMAIN 13 120 ( %(',I*DIA FC STOHM 'A V01 1 ] 1N) 24.2503 54112' RC PIPE SL WE. H UE SIGN 3005 CL V 560 LIN F T ♦ 75 7507 }4115' RC PIPE SEWER DI SIGN 3005 CL V 36 1 I VT 26 2503 14115' RC PIPE 5E WE R DESIGN MW CL V 6]6 LIN FT 2/ 150] 641 m' RC PIPE MINI, R Of SIGN ]006 CL 111 360.4. IN FZ 20.7$03 64131' RC PIPE FF WI R L* SIGN 3006 CL III 115 l IN FT 797506 SO6CONSTRUCT MANHOLES OE SIGN 494020 SEACH m 7306 SO6CONISTRLICT MANHOLES LH SIGN N 4070 7 EACH ]1 7506 SOXCONSTRUCT CATV. BASIN 10 EACH v 7311 SOIMNDOM RIPRAP CLASS 111 WITH FAHHK: 14 CU VD 31 2w1 S9/1r Rc SAFETY APR • ORATE 2.1 ACH v 2501 661 Ir RC SAFETY APRON A GRATI 1EACH ]S 2501 SG13r RC WtTY APRON 1 GRATE 1 EACH 17606306FXTRA6r CIA MH DEPTH OVER W 1111N FT 37.21h(36 S09I xT RA W DA M H DEPTH OVI R 10 le l IN F I y 7611 611t111RAMAAR 4011 H FOM POND ICOMPt7 TI) 2 EACH >t m K /VC NJ►ORMN 200.1 IN F T 40rON M 1, RAGE FIF LO SI ON1 4m SO YLI ITOTAI SCHFIAK I C STOHAI SI 401 H 25]6 9CWDUFD OTWFTCONSTRIK7K 0.000 x 41 7117 901 RIDOMOF P1lPARATION 11 S R S 42 7105 %21u L E Cl DRANIL pNgM ICV I IP) 6]110 CU YD 4) 7711 601AOUFKGA1F"PLA 6 6000 TON ".2331 61 f TYPE V MSA 001010E 6!T6�__ _ 140 TON .6 7311 6o6TYP11 41 MIEAl10q OOUME 1ORL11�- __A, , 1100 10N Extension of Bids 101 H UIUULH 111H HIUDLH 121H UIUULH 131 H UIUULH 141 H UIUULH Sl LOUIS IMPERIAL LANDWEHR HEAVY CONSTRUCTION. DEVELOPERS. INC MOVING. INC. S . WEIDCMA INC BROWN 6 CHIS, INC INC T01AI Dr0 "1.9114 50 T4 E d &50.43950 1040&d '61 OA77 bW A&I W 661 7,117 42 'IoW G10 6619.911 m 1111113111 Prow 64P,7111 UM Prt4 Nm Td IMI P-- 6400 T01�l41 11tH Pn w — 71A. � I - p— ".Y— M 917600 101 174 5t1� .1 46•, 11 M.S a IB 00 14 I+� 1900 t,1. 7600 FI.)rr. 41 00 14 5200 4 1 060 m b.- '54, !lw m 7• .000 41m 650 00 700 a, 37 m 90 m Sm m 600 600 1000 10,040.W 2450. 13 120 ( 2400. 1 ] 1N) 1900. 664 W 2160 vo m 600. 9m _7700 26,8160U 1410 70.]6] C AW 73,464 u 00 16.200 00 14.10 11,161 M 4100 14.160 6000 6.400 00 4.00 1.14 m 4700 6,111 1,000 m SOWN 1.006 00 S040a 1.010 m 6 060 1500 m 3=m 1.190 m 7 140 u 1 low 25]6 60000 0.000 x m5m 6650 /1000 7.im ]G m 420 SO m 7mm M /e 600 .0000 400111 400 m 600 m 4m m Soo 600 m 600 490 00 490 Sm m Sm IA0000 ..7000 I 30c,C)OI Ilmm 1100 m Ixem 1165 9119 7000 910 elm 611 11000 1,740 100.00 Lem a 10700 1667 1,00000 9.000 66000 1190 97400 1,6" 16 00 0.1700 � �� 1.170 6 10 I'M 9m 3200 14001 5ema 1M 1,471 M 470 6S 19926.430 26.410 Tw 00 7.415 10000 ] 150 176 00 1950 60 00 two 7 M) 16.750 1 N 10 710 1 31 \ 133 147 14.151 4 64 now 4 64 15.050 6 V .000 4 66 79.090 1640 ]] 790 1940 23 790 2019 10 146 1640 21 790 19 71 20 "1 19 11 70 647 1240 24 71 15 77 70,641 Pop 8 of 12 6 7000 117001 7500 owl 3000 25.%WI 4000 144001 4600 /9701 1 000 m 5 000 1.4mm 2Ami !w m /SOU ]3 m 490 eoo m 12W 700 m /m 2500 m 26W Mm 9A 170 .0 1 420 200000 4000 6 00 1000 too 7000 99 MS 17900' 6►1t 120 YD 4 70 26 700 16w 71160 low 70600 Pap 9 of 12 Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 '1U 1 H HIUULH 111H BIUUEH 121H tlIUULH 13TH UIUULH 141 H BIUULH SJ LOUIS IMPERIAL LANDWEHR HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPERS, INC. MOVING, INC 5R WEIDEMA INC. DROWN 6 CRIS. INC INC Tar Ela 5567.96650 TuW fAO "W UV SO raIN BM 1610.677 54TMw B.1 $611.17442 T9IAI IAO $619411 W n.n, Spr I.n (1..c0Pllan QMn111Y IAM -.1 Pnu n- 1b MI Vn4 -, I—, Ilnl P— R..11 Ta lion P-. h- T IRM M-. nom 114. .62367 SO2lYlUMINOUS MATERIAL FON TACK COAT 63SGALLON 060 317 0.50 317 OM 570 050 71/ bc 0WO 317 .1 7531 501 CONCRE TE CURB A GUTTER DESIGN D. 6000 LIN F T .20 21,200 766 23.7W OC 431 45.660 oc 3% 2], 7W M 3 95 WIMIX -.2Y- S06 FLEA" AND REINSTALL BAHH3 AUf 5 2 PAIN 2W 00 _ _600 III 10000 6000c 10500, 210 --866 100 00 2W 200 0D 4W 4925E S05PERM1AIIENT BARRICADES _ 7PAIN 50000 1,000 45000 100 .72.50, oc - - 45000 600 15000 400 1G 210. V01 F9 MOYE CIMM AAD GUTTFR _- 100 101 F T ] 00 100 111 150 3500c 5 16j 516 2 00 200 350 lNo TOTAL SCNFDIAE O STRE ET CONSTRUCTION 121.4N N 117.236 126,666 W 12. 725 m 111620 01 SCHEDULE E SITE GRADING S121M Sol SITE GRADING COIAPIFTE I IS 17500000 1750000M'1.100000 141000 a 11191400 1]1.91. IN WS V0 164 WS 14S 00000 145000 TOIAI SCAM IK11 f l %III GKAOIN( 17S 000 DC monam 11] 914 W, 1. -1 Y. 141 a1G IW SCHI'GUIf F &TUA*"IS WAIKWAY 62 2621 611 Ir BITUMINOUS WALKWAY (INCLD CL 5) 11400 60 F1 0 75 6. b60 W 0 W9 6126 00 131 14,934 0 79 V 006 m 0 W 5 bw ot Sl 710. 501 W MOVE CONCRE TE CURB A GUTTE R 42LW FT 100 176 7 SO 105 00 203 "044 7 00 M m 3 SO 141III 5412671 1(`1 CONCPA TE CURB A GUT -TE N 42'L W FT 7 00 204 100 294 low Mt oc 00 29M OC 7 00 2" oc SS 7115641 SUDD 65080 Y0 74D I W5 300 ]1S 1 So 1 T707AA SCHIDIAE F SITUMANOUSWNKWAY 10 Sri '0950 1)S]22 10lSV 1 62M GRAN(1TO1A1 15CHFOULF6A F 697 V14 MIN 43W 61 610677 Sj 7 I 619911 Pap 9 of 12 Pape 1 U of 12 Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 151 H tiIUULH 161H HIIJULH 1 P 1 H UIUULH 181 H bIUULH 191 H UIUULH KADLEC H U MCLEAN ANCON CONST. EXGAVATING OF 3ONNIE EXCAVATINC MINN KOTA CONSTHUCTION GO, COMPANY INC MORA. INC. INC. EXCAVATING, INC INC I WAi 010 662705] 92 100004 W V.7W. lO I" (610 -59S.363 96 70041 e10 6736"51S 00 I" Ua 6793, 739 IS KNIn Spw W ONNc6plbn O1,Nna7 Ilnp 1!,221 Pm.4 64m Toll LIM P— — TMM IIM Pnv 11— TM 11M P— .-1— IIM P— Kim 1 44 SCHEDULE A SANITARY SEWLR 1 7611 111 r PVC PWI SE WL R SIM 26 14M LIN FT 40 25 54,3bo w -S OO 63.000 0C 4589 64.746 OL 4700 61,60. N SO 62.30 U1 7.2611 S1%r PVC PIPL SEWER SOR 36 1150LIN FT 1V 67• N.777N 1600, 26.000 W 2761• ]956/ 54 2000 7S,OW W 16 M. 29.222 7MI1,0j41*XP PVC WYE bl EAC1, 33 DO, 1.683 OC 750 1 27500 2257 1,166 76.00 1,775 OU Ilse. 3446 4262151 it PVC P_ME SEIVL R SOF1265LRVX:E PIPE 2150 LIN FT 632 116660E 493 10 M2 SO _ lw L.Sw SIC _ 600 12,00000 660 Ila 490 5,2621"BTANDAND4' SANITAHY SEWER MH IO 10l 11LACH 141500 16723 IX 100000 11000 W 1,36000 16.160 OC 12M 00, 13,200 110261 IV1709 6267160BEXTM 4r DIA M H UL PTH OVE R IO 125LIN FT 6S 40 1173 7$00 9375 OC w26 10,781 2t 6000 7,500 w 200 7. Sooa r W 1107CONST r TYPE 'A' OUTSIDE DROP IO 4.1 ]EACH 110!00 7711 a 00000 3000 13w00 4146 M 50000 IS(XIM 1.169 W. NIw4 /7621506 E MTM DROP SL C TIDY DE PTH OVE R 4 20LIN FT 490 926 12b 00 2500 00 Sl SO. I, 'woo 10000 2,00000 15000 30000 4 DIV It CONNECT TO EXISTING MANIKX F,STUB IEALM 77.00 770 100000 I omm 1,39000 1,126 M Nw 00 400w WS 00 WS0 10 DIV 0 r PVC CLEANOUT a EACH 120 w 24001 aw 00 Nw M "160 I'llbw 20000 Nw ou 442 93 16b 2 11 7105 M] GRANULAR FOUNDATK)N MATF NIAL 100 TCM/ 970 110 1200 1,700 GO 1125 1 r7b 00 900 9IM 1000 1 Ow O TOTAL SOrr OULFA SANITARY SEWER 141269 U I'll 1102 Sc 17902S ?I 1-61S.1 14S 579 • S .F*DULE 0 - WATERMAM4 17AI 1 S07r WATER MAINDUCT ION CL b7 16501IN V 1400 42771 bi ]7392 N 11 40 Y/ 1]0 7r 0lO 00 1697 w2"b 132611 S076' WAT E R MAIN DUCT WON CL v 4?0LIN FI 130 1.346 a 1715 SAI. 111Y b1S1 X 1000 4100 M 1326 6,2216 14.2611 SO7 HYDRANT 6 EACH 1 00 00 4,240 a I wo 0 1000 a 1.170 40 9.643 1 70 00 960000 1.42100 11,300 1526116wr GATE VAI VIAND BOX (EACH blow 4.112 01 44000 7.670 42!]6 4.707 bw0 400 47972 2.6137 11 7611 1,14W aATE VAL VE AND MOX / E ALM .1400. 31241 326 0 2U 01 IN 40 3.b04 & Nw W. 300 aro 46 r 3.3340 1r261167ooucrXtlROFNrinuvos lbw le 126 2190 :1w ioa 226 4.726 aDo ]ow 176 41roo 19,2611 6071' CORPOMTX]N STOP S'.( ACH 30 w 1S30 )Soo. 1 716 31 w 2 019 ex w 00 1 S]0 ot 6430. ].7 /• ] 19 7611 60j 1' CURB STOP 1 BOX 61 E. ACH 6300. 3,213 70001 ?0 l! w• 1 r69 Iw Go b Im 10161 6264 1 26261160.'!1' TYPE K COPPER PIPE a1NLINFT 617 70039 b7f 1717 126 16111 100 1720 3a 6.1]10 71,2611"CONNECT TO EXISTING WAT L H MMN "EACH 12000 120 111 2600 Iw 3960 326 Nw 00 410a 0200 Iwo 22261169VALVE BOX EXTE NS. IN NIM FT Lw. 126760 326 4]42 In 4000 lw "SO Iwo 73 7611 "HYDRANT Ex TENW NN 4 LIN FT 221 0 264 254 0 1016 3970 1 br, 400 I M 10 76 171 0 Pape 1 U of 12 hp 11 x112 Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 rat in oKUUrr1 701n OnJUtn a In oaUUcn 7u1n uKUUr-rI '1'tlI n r71UUrm KADLEC R.0 MCLEAN ARCON CONST EXCAVATING OF d3ONNIE EXCAVATING MINN-KOTA CONSTRUCTION CO., COMPANY INC MORA, INC INC. EXCAVATING. INC. INC Ta BId 667].0&]97 Taaltlld 6610.79150 11OW9M '601,363.9{ O161B1d. 67]601600 T"Ibd 673,736IS SMA Mt 166D�ONpbn UAM P— Mm 11— 1745P— %— Tao 01 P— Ria Td"-IAM Pd- 96m 1,1*,An 1" P Xwa TM6 IVOTAL SCHE DALE B WATE RMAIN .��/�{\LM I a3mrsif 7.776 - ".'a iq 6709000 9'161111 'SGE0161 r STORMSEWER N1760766v7 RC RPE SEWER DESIGN 3000 CL V 560 LW FT 71]0 14,14400 1600 {960 0E 7361 13,236 40 7000 11 2W 00 ?100 11.1600 25 2503 641 IV RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 7005 CL V N LM FT 2390 2000 720 2S35. 91? 2200 72 2256 all* t__ _- - _ _ 25 7S03 64E 19' RC P1PE SEWER DESIGN 3005 CL Y _ . ♦ — j, 645 LMR _ 3013. --!!040 661116 64 70 S0 19 6V3 2004 23 467 62 3000. 75 11000 26 00 70,960 0 27 ?SO] 1613V RC PIPE SEINER DE SKIN 3006 CL 111 360".745 FT 1] 7 16.7{0 K 3700 13 in a 4690 16,86400 sow 16 000 m 4211 1 S.1 S9 6 t M 750316133' RC PIPE SEWER DEMON 3006 CLW 176.1.104101_ ♦ __ 645 afimal 46m 0 096 66 66 9.745 44 60 00 10.160 69 A6 6.77 5 29 2M* &05 CONSTRGCT MANHOLES DEMON 454070 6 EA 1 26& 00 6. 376 m 1 10000 S. S00 a 1 700 00 64000c 1 700 00 6 000 w 1 660 60 44030 307506 SOSCONSTRL)CT66ANHOLLS DEMON 641010 7EAC16 • 1.0.500 1050 160000 322 ],77000 SAW oc 100000 0.000 00 ?A79 18 6,9503 31 2UM 506 CONSTRUCT CATCH SAMN 10 EACH 935 W 9 3b M 050 00 1100 ac NO 00 46000c 900 W. 9000w 976 31 92631 32 7511 601 RANDOM A~ CLA" W WITH FABRIC 16 Cu VD ♦ 1600 670 10 W 660 IX 10696 1.407 S000 ymm 26M 3640 D 7601 56717' RC SAFE TV APR 6 GRATE 5SACH ♦ _ .I — 67 00 -- 960 m 600 000III VA 17 1,0922, 60000 1.7W w 161 00 1 0117 0 36 .501 60P R 7 1C SAFETY APRONS, ON ORATE EACH 676 M Sn HM 00 SIM IX 707 77 77 2i 000 W 000 645 W 6!6 0 I _� M 7501 66777' RC SAFETY APRON 5 /RATE If EACH ♦ a— 1 14S010. __1.14601 1 92000 t 100 1,761 22 1 111 ? 7 S00 00 7 f 1 11600 1 4160 ]6 7545100 L XTRA W DIA M H DEPTH OVE R IO 13.0101 FT 6510 Nox 76 W. 97500 M 2S 1 1? 1 25 60 00 790 m 90 SI I N I 0 317506600 EXTM 64. OM M H DEPTH OVE R IO 16 LIN IT 9660 IjQ4c 11000 1,700 cc 70760 1600 oc 12000 1.970 a 12SN 2ONa 707511611 ORMAAAR FE TE R FOR POND(COMPUE TE I TEACH 1MO 00 11,1111111110C 100000 2wom 0/600 6.760 oc 70000 1400a 679 W. 10790 39 DIVN PVC 0164)IV114 200 LMR 1700 BAN 01 1700 7.600 1700 2.600 000 1600 m 645 W0 W IXN P1 AL:11010 STOVE 10050V0� 1600 {000 t?00 6600 at 1176 {920 oc %M 41"a 600 7nfDU TOTAISCHE(XA1 l: 61O11W60WLA 1.1mc 631- m 0116034 105997 116 11116 Y.HI TANK Il 5764172 1'.I1NhTR1If TXtN 11 7112 601 SE111OW31 PIY PARAT KX6 71 6.04 1 t!0 006.17! 100 00 1 110 102 60 3,770 / 600 00 19 900 11000 3 666 C 42.2106 6775E LE. CT GRAhM AN BUHRUW ICV)(P) 66NCD VU 110 10.11G 560 46660 I- 11.562 700 17900 760 IS r500 13 2711 601 AGGIBOATE RASE C1A56 6 am TON 6 GS 75.640 976 31,500 6 40 32600 600 36000 9 N 60 340 C ".2"1 61,TYPE 11 BASE COURSE MW TDNL 1164 TON 1140 64,660 n 00 37.770 77 00 " 000 7s a1 36641 1 44,0331 "TYPE 61 WE ARIN4 C0tR6A MIXTl1NE 1100�TON 15 271._ _ /817 ■.M 64200 77 76 26 126 76 00. 26 600 3030 !1679 hp 11 x112 Paps 12 of 12 Extension of Bids CARDINAL HILLS 3RD ADDITION OWNER PROJECT 93-02C REVISED 04-02-93 CITY OF MONTICELLO OSM PROJECT NO. 4892.20 35 1 H BIUUEH 161 H BIUUEH 1 / I H bIUUEH 181 H BIUUEH 191 H BIUUEH KADLEC H D. MCLEAN ANCON CONST. EXCAVATING OF DONNIE EXCAVATINC MINN-KOTA CONSTHUCTION CO. COMPANY INC. MORA, INC. INC EXCAVATING. INC INC IOWIN0 SQ3,06]97 1-010 6649,710660 7OW10110 '60531U OG lOW 010 6136,01600 I_kW 6169.1]015 64In %P- NO I144cr1p11nn 0—"y N_ TI Ilnll Pn Nm T'A' UM Pn-.4 Ilan T W UM POa — TOM t I- PI — T M41 N 7367 S07 INTUMWUUS WIF HIAL FOH TACK COAT 673 GALLON U 60 317 W 1 So 0%29 106 NS ft 7 m 1,21000 1 36 616 477511 SO1CONCRE TE CUKB A GUITL H UL SIGN D4 6o00LIN Fl 3W. 73 70000 450 210110 OC 450 27 OW OL Sib 11.500 4m. 79160 92554500I4IILMOW AND ILINSTALL HARNN.AIAS TPNH 10000 2w 00 10000 200 lmm 200 01 6w 1,700 m 21000 400 IN 27154307 PL RMAWNT 6AILRICADE S ?PAIN 4W W. wo 00 50000 '"m 17000 760 No 00 1,200 00 65000 1,30001, 5o 71 M 501 RF MOVE CLM AND GUTTI R 100 LIN F -T 200 20000 7 m 200m low 1000 oc 7 0. 20000 1000 1 000 IOTALSCHFDIAFD STRFLTCONSTRtWIILIN 113759 151,602sc 135241 S1 161170 on 1..' 41.1 SCM DOLE E - SITE GRADING 517105 Sol 5171 GRADING COMPLE IF IIS IN -00 162000 W 16000000 IN 000 00 16/400m IIIII"loom 777 mom 727 ow OIL 2!.S9mm 755000 NOTAL SCHE LIMI 3 SITE. GRADING 162000 00 166000 ou 167,1000C 771000 7SS 0n1n 50*DLiLk F INIL/MNOUSWALKWAY 572671 SI t6011UMINWS WALKWAY IINCLO CL 61 U400SUF1 0Mi 6.776 Do 176 M260 00 106 12317 LK I II No IX W I/606 M,2104 501W MOVL COIKRL TE CURB A GUTTF R 42LIN P1 700 4400 300 A. tom 420 200 M low. 470 ou 647531 Sol LONCHL I L L,uW/ 6 GUTTER kLIN hI lm 160 ou 0w 0- 635 3507 170. 504 01 660 369 55 7675 UA SOLXANG 680 SO YD 3 W 2,271,00 22S 1 462 x 175 1 137 200 13DDM 7 So 1 675 IOTAL SCHIUCILI F &TUWNOUSWALKWAY 0119 15KM� 14]70 /379 M1122 GNANDTOTAL SCMD4AI5A F 623053 M9 rw 6M N3 7uoM 761/161 Paps 12 of 12 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET Drawing Tide Comm. No. BITUMINOUS PATHWAY 4892,20 CARDINAL HILLS Figure 3rd ADDITION MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA E 7; I I FALLON AVE. Irown By: 3oAelen Scheer • Assoeietes.lne. [ylenn . tr C-11 . Plaenm . -1.- �o.wrwn W114M.r12US-57" Date 2/8/93 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET Drawing Tide Comm. No. BITUMINOUS PATHWAY 4892,20 CARDINAL HILLS Figure 3rd ADDITION MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA E 7; RESOLUTION 83 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IIID & AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR PROJECT 93.02C, CARDINAL IIH LS PHASE III WHFREAS, pursuant to all advertisement for bids for the improvement of Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition with sand uy sewer, water main, storm sewer, bituininous paving, 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: (See attached bid tabulation) AND WHEMAS, it appears that is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THMiE ORI,, 131, IT RESOLVED 13Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNI,SOTA: 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 improvements to Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Administrator. 2. The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to Lill bidders the deposit made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest, bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted this l2th duy of April, 199:1. Mayor City Administrutor ( D7 Council Agenda - 4/12193 e. Consideration of aouroval of the final plat of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. ohase I11. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Attached you will find the proposed final plat in its reduced form, which outlines phase III of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. The plat as proposed is consistent with the previously -approved preliminary plat and meets all city requirements with regard to lot requirements and easements, etc. There are no issues to resolve specifically with regard to the design of the final plat; therefore, it should be approved if the improvement project is within budget and acceptable to the developers and if the associated development agreement and financial guarantees are in place. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to grant approval of the final plat of phase III of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision contingent on the following: 1. Execution of the development agreement, which includes C^S the developer providing all financial securities associated therein. 2. City award of the improvement project. (This is subject to #1 above.) II q �. . I �A-,rt Ali —ItO /�q '�Y `°�b�" It i—, �i.1 Qw,c.J This alternative assumes that the developers continue to be interested in developing the project as proposed and the public improvement project bid amounts are within the original budget amounts projected by the developers and, therefore, the project is a go. 2. Motion to deny approval of the final plat of phase 111 of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. This alternative should be selected if it is determined that the project is not to proceed due to unexpectedly high development cost or due to problems with agreeing to terms outlined in the development agreement. C, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 111. SUPPORTING DATA: Reduced copy of final plat. 12 o roo e•ca..00 .... C��2DINAL ILLS 3 �dde •p r•wrto w u, w lerar +ow roalwrwT rol,.o ae 1 Al ^,,war• d .M ,Mrawlr :erww ;Y rl,f ao.rK•f � CplMrw P• C.1w.wLL .R., xcao enl"rww � / .arrw ue or rK x ..{ or rlw lr .. .. uc l .w ai ern /SCHOOL - 5 9 " 68'329 W 1123.17 / BOULEVARD �♦ - + � S 86'39'00" W 29477 1 ... W . I r _ fer w _ � er s . oo al _ � w-- _ w m eo x w" ' ' m r lo� ro ae ^ , rl .-r -, 1 x l., n ,l H{1, 11'i0lf'l )ell0 t. � * I(I • ,+ ' e i3 ' tt 16 t' 17 !I R fo Ott � � -lll � !_ •: t_ t R R R •R. A � 11 pl �II .�A �J m I� 'M N� ° p _, IC«' R 13 K•. •. ,^ee'"a' pnry n rnlr I n 5 17.00!56'W 0 0� r l r 2 Y 1 I 6 I 7 I 6 �9 r0 1I ° 12 " I ." r Z 15 * I..t�I°, e•pr• i'. II 2 •II ' I �'�"i °.,wrr•�,l I�a�« �ba i�-wu'. %,rp{ i+ ;, ; �,r r rr r ! O20 ti{ v I� i ra Z i11�S�ro+•�i y , r 1 eo a�.� �w.w.y wao �iv ii wt bil ro oaf ily -1 1 wM f ` 40: w°•l,{w i 70 A 2/ ,=I t -N e ?nom•' e.rsw gag 19 -. , : . w.ti 6 a to I � 1 r I�I r2 iI a' IJP 11 rd • 16 a 17 are ° • - I l 5,� • N 8690 25'f 3 � tt 1 s 1 7 ' = 1L� 1� * E 50 r5o.11 .>j• � 8 �" 3 ^i, kj ^ J � �9 � L 1 :....o� N 12'�OoS.. '� •M Ie wverr °I` ,r,' .��"~•'�lerr"liww li-x-'�wrL3p N88.36'08"E M66 ,,►' N ♦l4�Jl�fJ g �y Ie r ; • 1 '� 3 It 2 �P, it t A 't Rwfi'" , 'e {ten '°•arwr �` l S 88.36'08' IN ;n3i-�1r ,^" 1 J l I► 2 ' 31.99 ' +° !L.—.__!LLL! r 3 + I 4. t r««DRIVE ! hnitC�t>t=••e'qM�' 8a°, i�...`...��uw� 'i„ ..� '�,1t'tn0 ■.! rf C 1• s a t eet I 8 N ri N� j?°s• i'3r.r r4:...' ., 6' 7- N 86.36'08.. E • • {aua `l.�=e, ,, °1 r' i w.. I nn i wee I I e{et •; 19J.JJ \�'�7M N 09*0332" E 669?6 r� N � v N „ t. � Z Ilk Council Agenda - 4/l?J93 Consideration of adontion of Cardinal Hills develooment arreement (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Attached you will find a copy of the development agreement governing terms and conditions associated with phase III of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. The development agreement as proposed is very similar to the development agreement governing phase I and phase 11 of the Cardinal Hills subdivision. On your copy I have highlighted items that are different that previous development agreements or items that merit special attention. You may remember some weeks ago Brad Fyle mentioned his concern regarding the quality and size of trees planted with phases I and 11 of the development. I believe I noted to Brad that this item will need to be taken care of at some point in the future in conjunction with phase III of the development. After reviewing this matter with Paul Weingarden, Weingarden noted that enforcement of this provision should come through enforcement of the previous development agreements and should not be addressed in the development agreement governing phase III. He did note, however, that the phase III agreement could be redesigned to include a financial guarantee which would require that trees of a certain type and dimension be planted. As you will note in the development agreement, phase III does require an additional letter of credit which the City can draw upon in the event the developer does not put in trees as outlined per the agreement. As noted earlier nlso, the agreement does include a provision which requires that the developer pay for the site grading expenses as the project is completed. As you know, the City project includes site grading of the private properly. Council ituthorized site grading on private property only if such costs were not to be included in the assessment roll but rather paid directly as the grading is completed. As you will note, the development agreement is structured this way. In fact, a letter of credit guaranteeing the cost to complete the grading must lie in place before the final contract can be awarded. 13. AI,'I'ERNA'I'IVE ACTIONS: I. Motion to approve development agreement governing terms and conditions associated with development of phase 111 of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. 13 Council Agenda • 4/12193 This alternative should be selected if Council is satisfied with the development agreement. If Council approves the development agreement, the stage is set for awarding of the public improvement project and approval of the final plat. Unfortunately, Paul Weingarden was not able to complete the agreement in time to allow the developer to thoroughly review it before Council consideration. Therefore, if the developers have any objections that require significant changes to the agreement, it may need to be brought back to Council for reconsideration. 2. Motion to deny approval of the development agreement governing terms and conditions associated with development of phase III of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Council should select this alternative if there are major provisions within it that are unacceptable to Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt the development agreement as prepared. City Attorney, Paul Weingarden, has had a hand in producing this document, and he recommends that it be approved. D. SUPPORTING DATA: itLc co � Copy of the development agreement. 1, /1 14 512 X25-`_6 9 aSO 1. USSET P. P. 933 P02 APR 09 '93 15: 11 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT CITY/DEVELOPER INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS CARDINAL HILLS PHASE III THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 1993, by and between Value Plus Homes of Monticello, Inc. referred to herein as "Developer," and the City of Monticello, a municipal corporation in the County of Wright, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer is the fee owner and developer of a parcel or parcels of land described in Exhibit A ("Subject Property"), which is proposed to be developed bearing the plat name Cardinal Hills Phase III; and WHEREAS, the City requires that certain public improvements be installed by City at the sole expense of Developer to serve the subject property including, but not limited to sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, streets, and site grading, (hereafter referred to as "Petition Items"); and WHEREAS, the City requires that certain on and off -site improvements be installed by the Developer at the sole cost of Developer to serve the subject property consisting of boulevard sod or seeding or landscaping, (hereafter referred to as "Developer Items"); and WHEREAS, City and Developer are willing to agree to the platting and development of the Subject Property under tho terms and conditions as set forth heroin. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AND HEREIN MUTUALLY AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein the partite, agreeing to be mutually bound, agree as follows: 1. Reausst for plat Approval. Developer hereby petitions City to approve the platting of the Subject Property described on Exhibit A to be known as Cardinal Hills Phase III, under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 2. Conditions o! Plat Approval. The City agrees to approve the plat on the following conditions: (a) The Developer executes this Agreement and complies with the terms contained horoinj and (b) The Developer provides the nocoosary letters of credit required by this Agreement in order to Ire:=ET F. �. g1,:. FUS i4pr QB '9- 10:01 assure payment of special assessments to be levied against the Subject Properly, pay dssociaLed costs of the development, and guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement; and (c) The Developer obtains approval of the final plat in accordance with City rules and ordinances and files the plat in the office of the Wright County Recorder no later than August 1, 1993. Use..arld Density. The plat shall allow a maximum of 50 single family residential lots. The plat must show all necessary street and roadway easements and shall be subject to the review and approval of ttre City Engineer and, if applicable, the Wright County Traffic Engineer. The plat shall further provide two 30 -ft trail/walkway easements, the location of which are identified on Exhibit A. The Ueveloper agrees to develop Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, and Lots 1, 12, 13 lots in a manner that places the garage on the side of the property adjacent to the traJl. No building permits shall be issued for site plans that do not meet this requirement. Grading of the trail/walkway casements shall he performed by the City and paid for by the Developer in accordance with the provisions of paragraph U. Pavinq of the trail/walkway eauements shall consist of an 8 - foot wide bituminous or concrete surface. The Doveloper may pave the trail/ walkway eaoaments at any time at its own cost and oxponso. The City may, at Its discretion pave the area and assess the cost against the balance of the undeveloped portion of the Cardinal Hills subdivision, the terms of which shall be incorporated into a future Jovelopment agreement at such time as the area 1s developed. Effect Q -f- Approval. For three (3) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development, density or lot size of the subject property, unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the City may require compliance with any amnndmonto to the City's comprehensive plan, official controls, platting or dedication raquirmmnntn onacted after the date of this Agreement an it pertains to the subject property and may require submission of a new plat. 612-9--5-5379 CL'3fJv1-9SET F.R. 806 P03 APR 08 '93 16:11 Exhibit B Petition Items (City installed Items). Upon compliance with the conditions of paragraph 2, Developer shall be deemed to have petitioned City to design, construct and install those Petition Items described on Exhibit B attached hereto. The plans and specifications for said items shall be kept on file in the offices of City and are incorporated by reference herein. Provided the Developer is not otherwise in default under this Agreement, City agrees to construct and install Exhibit B Petition Items subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) City shall commence work on Exhibit B Petition Items within 30 days of the date a contract to perform the public improvement is awarded by City, and shall use its best efforts to complete the improvements in a prompt manner, subject to delays beyond its control. (b) Developer hereby waives its right to notice and public hearing to be held on said Exhibit B Petition Items pursuant to M.S. S429.031 and 5429.061. (c) Developer agrees that the total cost of Exhibit B Petition Items shall be specially assessed against the Subject Property in accordance with City's special asses:saent policy, it being acknowledged by Developer that the Subject Property is the sole benefitted property from the proposed Exhibit B Petition items and that, but for the Developer's project, City would not construct said public improvements. (d) Developer ack:nowledgem that the estimated cost of the improvements hereinabove described are $ for construction and $ for engineering, planning, capitalized interest, bonding costs, legal and other contingencies for a total estimated const of 8 Developer understands that this is an estimate only and that the actual figure may be higher or lower, depending on various factors. Nothing contained herein shall prevent City from assessing a higher or lower figure if found necessary and appropriate by City basod on actual coat disbursements. (o) The assessment shall be deemed adopted by City on the date that construction is commenced. The assessments shall be assessed equally against each lot in the p1at. The assessment shall be paid —3- 0 612 -ate -5r.7.. FtS1:01 USSET P.H. GCQ PO_: LPF, tDs 'a3 16:1= over a five year payment without deferment, tnnnthev with int -rant At a rate get by City. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Developer from prepaying the assessments in whole er in part. (f) Assessments as to each lot, including principal and interest, shall be paid in full at the time the lot is conveyed to a subsequent purchaser, at which time the City shall release the assessment as to that specific lot. In addition, Developer shall pay to City at the same time an additional amount equal to one-half the per lot assessment which shall be maintained in a separate surplus fund. Amounts hold in the surplus fund shall be released to pay assessments against the remaining lots at such time as the accumulated fund balance is equal to the total combined balance of assessments against all remaining assessed lots. (g) Developer hereby waives all rights of appeal that it has by virtue of Minnesota statutes S429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of amounts or the procedure used by the City in levying the assessment, the benefit to the Subject Property or lack thereof by virtue of the improvements or any other defense available to Developer either at law or equity to the assessment of the Subject Property as contemplated herein. Developer hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the levying of said assessment. (h) Nothing contained herein shall prevent City from assessing the Subject Property for public improvements other than those specifically described within this Agreement, all an provided by Minnesota law. 6. Grading ding and Drainage Plan - (City Installed Itemsl Upon compliance with the conditions of paragraph 2 and provided the Developer is not otherwise in default under thin agreement, Developer requests and City agrees to provide initial site grading for the plat in accordance with tho grading and drainage plan on file in the offices of City, the terms of which are herein incorporated by reference, subject to the following terms and conditions: 012-92-5-5879 OL'3Ni -O:SET P. N. 808 P05 PFP 08 '93 lo: 1 (a) All costs and expenses incurred by City for initial site grading in accordance with the grading and drainage plan, including grading of the trail/walkway easements described in paragraph 3, shall be paid by Developer. City shall provide copies of invoices for said expenses to Developer who shall remit the necessary amounts to City within thirty (30) days of receipt. (b) Through completion of initial site grading any drainage, flooding and/or property damage or personal injury on adjacent properties resulting from development of the Subject Property shall be the responsibility of the City, including total costs of correction and compensation to those properties affected. City agrees to indemnify and hold Developer harmless from any such claims. (c) After initial site grading has been completed, responsibility for drainage, flooding, or adjacent property damage or personal injury shall be the responsibility of Developer, including total cost of correction and compensation to those properties affected. Developer agrees to Indemnify and hold City harmless from any such claims. (d) The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they are necessary to prevent damage to adjacent properties or to prevent unreasonable erosion. The Developer shall comply with any such additional drainage and erosion control plans and with any such additional instructions it receives from the City. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operation shall be reseeded forthwith by Developer after the completion of the work in that area. Seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seed areas shall be mulched and disc anchored as necessary for send retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. 7. Exhibit C Develaanr Items (Developer-Inetniled Itsmsl. The Developer shall be responsible for the construction, installation and payment of the improvements described on Exhibit C attached hereto. Except for unavoidable delays, Developer shall complete construction and/or installation of these items no later than , 1991, subject to the following terms and conditions: 612-925-5879 0LSU,1.1FSE7 P.A. 808 P06 PFR 08 '93 16:1� A. Boulevard seed/sod. The Developer shall sod or seed all boulevard areas within the plat. Sodding or seeding shall be done upon completion of the Exhibit a Petition Items. Maintenance of the grass in the boulevard areas shall be the responsibility of the Developer. B. Private Lawns. Sodding and seeding of yard areas within the plat shall be the responsibility of the property owner. C. Tree Planting. Developer shall plant trees as follows: (i) At least one tree shall be planted in the front yard of each property located entirely on a cul-de-sac. For all other lots, at least two trees shall be planted in the front yard; (ii) Trees shall be planted inside the front property line at a distance not greater than four feet (41) from such line. (iii) Trees must have a trunk diameter of at least two inches (211) at one foot (11) above the ground; (iv) Not less than two (2) or more than three (3) spocies of trees shall be planted in any block and neither less than twenty percent (20%) nor more than fifty percent (50%) of the total trees planted in a block may be of the same species. Species proposed by the Developer shall be approved by the City Tree Inspector; (v) Trees must be protected and supported by tree guards of approved type; (vi) No required subdivision tree shall be planted in soil too poor to ensure the growth of such tree unless twenty-seven (27) cubic feet (1'x3'x3') of soil is removed and replaced with suitable loam; (vii) Trees shall be planted on individual lots after a building permit has boon issued and before issuance of the occupancy permit. This requirement shall not apply to homes that are constructed and otherwise eligible for certificates of occupancy between the C,12 -925-S879 CLSU 1. V:=.ET P.A. 603 F13 "-F D3 '93 1A: 1-1 months of November and April or from July 1 through Aiimict. 15, Ir. such Developar warranta that the requirements of this paragraph shall be completed as soon as reasonably ponnihle after expiration of the applicable moratorium period. a. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of one (1) year after its completion and acceptance by the City. All grass and sod supplied or planted by Developer shall be warranted to be &live, of good quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after planting. Any replacements shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. All trees purchased by Developer shall be warranted by the supplier for a period of twelve (12) months. Developer shall assign said warranties to City following the purchase thereof. The warranties and securities required by this paragraph shall terminate as to each parcel at the time of conveyance of said parcel to a bona fide purchaser. 9. License. Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers, and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the grading and landscaping phase, installation of Exhibit B Petition Items by City, Exhibit C Developer Items and construction of single family residences by Developer. lo. Ownership of Im2rovemnnts. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, Exhibit B Petition Items lying within public easements shall become City property without further notice or action. 11. __Cm4ot Trunk SewerFee. The Developer agrees that in addition to responsibility for all public improvements described herein, Developer shall be required to pay $119 par residential lot as and for a trunk sewer fea. Payment of the $318 fee shall be made concurrently with application for s building permit. This amount has been calculated using the formula below which Developer acknowledges as fair and reasonable: 612-925-5,379 GL•KN i. USSET F. R. 8U6 PR]8 APR 08 '93 16: 15 Phase II oversizing expenses $33,600 Credit against phase II Trunk assessment (49 x $500) 24,500 Balance of available credit S 9,100 Trunk charge phase III (50 x $500) $25,000 Available credit from previous phase 9,100 Balance of area assessment fee phase III (25,000 x $9,100) $15,900 Individual lot fee ($15,900 + 50) $ 318 12. Security fpr jmmrovements. As and for security for the payment of labor and materials required under the terms of this Agreement, partial security for the estimated unpaid assessments contemplated herein, and to insure compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Developer shall furnish the City with four (4) irrevocable letters of credit to be issued by a financial institution acceptable to City. All four letters of credit shall remain in full force and effect until released as provided herein. In the event the letters of credit must be renewed on an annual basis, Developer shall cause the financial institution issuing the letter of credit to advise the City no less than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the stated renewal date that the bank will renew the lott,or of credit under the same terms and conditions. In the event City does not receive such aneurances from the bank within sixty (60) days of the date of its renewal date, such occurance shall constitute an event of default entitling the City to avail itself of the remedies provided in paragraph 16. (a) Letter of Credit 01. City acknowledges receipt of a letter of credit in the amount of $20,000 to be utilizod for all expenses incurred by City associated with preparation of plane and specifications for construction and installation of Exhibit B Petition Items. In the event the Developer fails to satisfy the conditions of paragraph 2 by August 1, 199), which occurrence shall constitute an event of default, City may draw down on Letter of Credit /1 to reimburse City for said expenses and may, at its option, thereafter declare tho within agreement to be null and void, at which time all further obligations of either party pursuant to this Agreement shall torminate. 612-925-5875 CLSCOL-i-;SET P.A. 808 P10 "*- 06 '9-1 16: 1E On the date of the commencement of the work on Exhibit B Petition Items, provided the Developer is not in default under the provisions of this Agreement, the letter of credit shall be returned to Developer. These expenses shall be incorporated into the total cost to install Exhibit B Petition Items and assessed against the platted lots in accordance with paragraph S. (b) Letter of Credit 12. On or before August 1, 1993, the Developer shall provide the City with an Irrevocable letter of credit in favor of City in the amount of One Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Sixty and 00/100 ($173,060.00) Dollars, which amount represents 40 percent of the estimated total cost to construct and install Exhibit B Petition Items, which shall be specially assessed against the plat as provided in paragraph 5. If any installment of special assessments as to any lot is not paid in full when due, which occurrence shall constitute an event of default, in addition to any other remedies it may have, the City may draw down Letter of Credit 02 to pay the balance due on the delinquent installment. With City approval, provided Developer is not otherwise in default, Letter of Credit 12 may be written down, from time to time, when the total remaining balance for all assessed lots lees the accumulated surplus fund provided in paragraph 5(f) totals leas than the balance of the letter of credit. The City Administrator shall determine, in his sole discretion, the amount of reduction in the letter of credit if any. (c) Lotter of Credit 13 and 14. On or before August 1, 1993 the Developer shall provide the City with two (2) irrevocable letters of credit in favor of City in the amount of $ and $ Letter of Credit 13 shall be utilized to insure payment of the coat to complete the initial site grading and drainage plan described in paragraph 6. In the event Developer fails to pay bills submitted by City in accordance with paragraph 6, which occurrence shall constitute an evont of default, in addition to any other remedies it may have, City may draw down on Letter of Credit 01 to pay any unpaid bills. 9 612-925-55:9 OLS01 USSET P.a. e0s P09 APP 08 '93 16:16 Letter of Credit 14 shall be utilized to insure complete performance and payment of Exhibit C Developer Installed Items. In the event Developer fails to construct and install Exhibit C Developer TtPma in accordrnnn with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which occurrence shall constitute an event of default, in addition to any other remedies it may have, City may draw down on Letter of Credit /4 to pay and and all coats and expenses necessary to complete, construct, install or correct the event of default in accordance with the plans and specifications of the project and this Agreement. With City approval, provided Developer is not otherwise in default, Letters of Credit 13 and /4 may be written down from time to time upon completion and/or payment in full of the specific obligations as detailed in Exhibits B and C. The City Engineer shall determine at his sole discretion if the obligation has been completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The City Administrator shall determine at his sole discretion if the obligations have been paid in full and the amount of reduction in the letters of credit, if any. 13. Surety Deficiency. In the event that any letter of credit referred to heroin is ever utilized and found to be deficient in amount to pay or reimburse the City in total as required horoin, the Developer agrees that upon being notified by the City, Developer will pay the deficient amount within thirty (30) days of notification of the deficient amount. Failure to reimburse the City shall constitute an event of default entitling City to avail itself of any and all remedies provided under this Agreement. 14. Responsibility For Contn. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costa incurred by it or City in conjunction with the approval and/or development of the plat, including, but not limited to, legal, planning, engineering, inspections during development, the preparation of this contract, and in enforcing the provisions of this Agreement, including reasonable attorneys fees and costa incurred by City. -10- O 9 612 -?25-S371? OLSO11•IJ5SET P.A. Soo p11 AFP. OB '93 17:17 The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. Except as otherwise provided herein, Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and/or third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred to public or private property or injury to persons resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. This indemnification shall not extend to costs attributable to the City's own negligence or that of its agents or employees. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all damage to property of City incurred in connection with the Exhibit C Developer Items performed by Developer. 15. &= to of Default. The following Shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context othsrwiao provides), any one or more of the following events: A. Failure by the Developer to observe and substantially perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed hereunder, after written notice to the Developer as provided in this Agreement. B. If the Developer Shall admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due, or shall file a petition in bankruptcy, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall consent to the appointment of a rocsiver of itself or of the while or any substantial part of the Property. C. If the Developer shall file a petition under the federal bankruptcy lawn. D. The Developer falls to provide the letters of credit required by paragraph 12, fails to pay any special assessment when due for Exhibit B City Petition Items, falls to pay bills for initial oito grading expanses when due, or falls to 612-925-53"9 OLS1311ASSET P.P. 8ne P12 RPP. 08 '93 16:1e commence, complete and pay for Exhibit D Developer Installed Items as provided by this Agreement. E. The Developer shall, after commencement of the Exhibit C Developer Items, abandon or substantially suspend construction work, and such act or actions is not due to unavoidable delays and any such default, violation, abandonment, or suspension shall not be cured, ended, or remedied within the time provided in this Agreement. F. Any other occurrence defined as an event of default within this Agreement. 16. Notice: Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, the City shall give written notice of the Event of Default to Developer by United states mail to the Developer at its last known address. If the Developer fails to cure the Event of Default within thirty (70) days of the date of mailed notice, in addition to any other remedy provided in this Agreement and without waiver of any such right, city may avail itself of any or all of the following remedies: (a) Draw down on the appropriate letter of credit; (b) Halt all plat development work and construction, including, but not limited to, release of lots upon sale, the issuance of building permits or certificates of completion, until such time as the event of default is cured; (c) Apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin continuation of the event of default; (d) Perform the work or obligation required of Developer. In the event City acts to perform the work obligation, the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by City, or the City may, at its option, draw on the appropriate letter of credit. 17. Clean Up. Developer shall promptly clear from public streets and property any soil, earth, or debris resulting from construction work performed by the Developer, its agents or assigns. The City shall promptly cloan debris from city streets and from the plat any soil, earth, or debris resulting from construction work performed by or on behalf of the City. 512 -?25 -SB 9 OL'A1 i, VSSET P.:,. 808 P13 FaPP. 08 '93 16: 1S 18. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay to the City no later than , 1991 a certified check in the amount of $4,000 which represents 10% of the raw value of the Subject Property, as and for a park dedication, which Developer acknowledges is fair and reasonable. Both parties acknowledge that this amount together with accrued interest may be used by the City to purchase property from the Developer for park purposes in conjunction with development of subsequent phases of the Cardinal Hills subdivisions upon-aueh— t.aa 19. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. B. Third parties shall have no recourse against any party under this Agreement. C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason hold invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. D. So long as the City uses its best efforts to construct the Exhibit B and C Petition Items, Developer shall have no cause of action for damagon attributable to delays in the construction and completion of said Petition Items. E. No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until sanitary newer and water lines have been installed, hooked up, tested, and approved by the City, and until the streets needed for access have boon paved with a bituminous surface. P. The action or inaction of the City as to the exercise of any of its rights or remedies upon an event of default shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement as to future events of default. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or releaoo as to any event of default. -13- O 612-925-5879 OLS01,1_6SET P.A. 908 P14 PFR 02 '93 le: t'' G. Future residents of the plat shall not be deemed to be third -party beneficiaries of this Agreement. H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title of the orooerty. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release which shall be in recordable form. I. Both parties to this Agreement acknowledge that they have been represented by counsel, or are aware of their right to counsel, and have entered into this Agreement freely and voluntarily. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Kenneth Maus, Mayor By: Rick wolfstellor City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA) CITY OF MONTICELLO ) SS COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) VALUE PLUS HOMES, INC., OF MONTICEI.LO By: Thomas Holthaus By: Stephen Holker By: Matthew Holker On this day of , 1993, before me personalrypeared Kenneth Maus and Rick Wolfstellor to me known to be tho persons described in the foregoing instrument and who did say they are respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the municipal corporation named therein and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Kennoth Maus and Rick Wolfateller acknowlodged said instrument to be the free act and dead of said corporation. Notary Public -14- O 9 612'925-58"9 OLSD I/US;E7 P.A. BOB P15 APP. 08 '93 16: Xi STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) SS On this day of , 1993, before me persona y appeared to me known to be the persons described in the foregoing instrument and who did say they are partners of the corporation name therein, and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its partners and said partners acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public a• r.w�_ ua F \ • • r l . wcw..oa r.er /ILLS Y ba•..wr,a•,o wawn,r•,r cafr�r > :•wr.0 .w.. u.,ao •a.ra.. \ ..-.. 056wfn g .uJ1LNtJL1r#a_Jlsa»_llan I '3 197.73 N 8910!'8!" [ "920 H % rN SCHOOL BOULEVARD I" i 5 88'36'08" W 74.99 t ; Ng N in J ru.nsr,. <ww.•� �, .\/ S 68.39'00" W 291.77 I /I ;IHM�r'�11i11f'� ,alfa I �I 13 A ,19 C /6 •� 17 {IQ m n •..N' rlJ� Ike ° !' Y = n 7i� �g :. al NI2 0l 1'I 'NN 7 20 Z 21 yl�f �� f•InM N 6910"25" E� . E 3 y5 15014 612-925-5879 0.Sal,LSSET P. A. BOB P16 APP 08 '93 16:20 EXHIBIT B City Installed Petition It= -- Cardinal Sills Phase III Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Road/curb and gutter 612-925-5679 0.SOf VUSSET P. A. 808 P17 GFT? 08 '93 16:21 EXHIBIT C DEVELOPER ITEMS Cardinal Mille Phase III Boulevard Seed/Sod Tree Planting 0 Council Agenda - 4/12193 io. Consideration of a resolution dectarina intent to reimburse oroiect cost throuHh future bond sale•-Proiect 93-02C. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Assuming that the bids were acceptable and the Council has awarded the contract for improvements to Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition, City Council should consider adopting the resolution stating that it may reimburse itself through a bond sale in the future. New IRS regulations require this official resolution if any expenditures are made for engineering or construction prior to an actual bond being sold. From a financial standpoint, there is not an immediate need by the City to proceed with a bond sale prior to the actual work commencing within Cardinal Hills. The City does have sufficient cash flow funds available to pay for some of the engineering costs and also some of the contract amounts before needing to involve Springsted, Inc., in selling a bond for this project. It should be noted that the City has up to a year after the project is completed to sell a bond if it wishes to reimburse itself for any costs associated with the construction. This is true provided the City Council adopts the resolution indicating an intent to reimburse itself through a future bond sale. Since the City does have funds available for allowing this project to start without an immediate bond sale, it may he beneficial to wait a while before involving Springsted in that there may he other projects that could be combined into one bond sale later on. For example, the Council may be in the future looking tit an improvement project for storm sewer from Hart Boulevard to the Mississippi River in conjunction with the Monticello Clinic expansion. This project would qualify to be combined with the Cardinal Hills improvements under one bond issue, thus saving issuance cost. Since we can sell nn improvement bond anytime within one year after completing a project, the timing will depend on whether other projects are on line to be constructed or depending un cash flow needs of the Com. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first, alternative would be to adopt the resolution indicating an intent to reimburse ourselves through a future bond issue for the Cardinal Hills phase 111 improvement project. Adopting this resolution does not require the City to sell a bond, only that it may do so in the future if it desires within one year after completion of the project. Without adopting this resolution, the City does not have the ability to sell a bond to reimburse itself for any cost it incurred prior to die date of the bond sale. 15 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 Do not adopt the resolution. The only reason you would adopt this option is if you have no intent of selling a bond in the future to reimburse yourselves for any costs incurred associated with this project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to comply with new IRS regulations, it is recommended that the resolution be adopted allowing the City to sell a bond in the future if it desires. Again, this resolution does not require the City to sell a bond, it only allows us to do so and reimburse ourselves for all costs associated no matter when they were incurred. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution. 16 RESOLUTION 93 - RESOLUTION RELATING TO FINANCING OF CERTAIN PROPOSED PROJECTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council') of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") as follows: Recitals (a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued Section 1.103-18 of the Income Tax Regulations (the "Regulations") dealing with the issuance of bonds, all or a portion of the proceeds of which are to be used to reimburse the City for project expenditures made by the City prior to the date of issuance. (b) The Regulations generally require that the City make a prior declaration of its official intent to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of a subsequently issued borrowing, that the borrowing occur and the reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of such borrowing within one year of the payment of the expenditure or, if longer, within one year of the date the project is placed in service, and that the expenditure be a capital expenditure. (c) The City desires to comply with requirements of the Regulations with respect to certain projects hereinafter identified. 2. Official Intent Declaration. (a) The City proposes to undertake the following projects described on Exhibit A attached hereto. (b) Other than (i) expenditures to be paid or reimbursed from sources other than a borrowing, or (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed pursuant to the transition provision of Section 1.103.18(1X2) of the Regulations, or (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures as defined in Section 1.103.18(i)(2) of the Regulations, no expenditures for the foregoing projects as identified on Exhibit A have heretofore been made by the City and no expenditures will be made by the City until after the date of this Resolution. /0 Resolution 93 - Page 2 (c) The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for costs of the designated projects out of the proceeds of debt (the 'Bonds") to be incurred by the City after the date of payment of all or a portion of the posts All reimhurgpd exppnditures shall be capital expenditures as defined in Section 1.150-1(h) of the Regulations. (d) This declaration is a declaration of official intent adopted pursuant to Section 1.103-18 of the Regulations. Budgetary Matters. As of the date hereof, there are no City funds reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the projects, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is determined to he consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof, all within the meaning and content of the Regulations. Filin . This resolution shall be filed within 30 days of its adoption in the publicly available official books and records of the City. This resolution shall be available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk at the City Hall (which is the main administrative office of the City) during normal business hours of the City on every business day until the date of issuance of the Bonds. Reimbursement Allocations. The City's financial officer shall be responsible for making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally the transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment of the prior costs of the projects. Each allocation shall be evidenced by an entry on the official books and records of the City maintained for the Bonds, shall specifically identify the actual prior expenditure being reimbursed or, in the case of reimbursement of a fund or account in accordance with Section 1.103.18, the fund or account from which the expenditure was paid, and shall be effective to relieve the proceeds of the Bonds from any restriction under the bond resolution or other relevant legal documents for the Bonds, and under any applicable state statute, which would apply to the unspent proceeds of the Bonds. Adopted this 12th day of April, 1993. Mayor City Administrator _ /D Resolution 93 - Page 3 EXHIBIT A Proiect Description Estimatcd Ccst to be Reimbursed From Bond Proceeds Sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, $721,300 bituminous streets, curb & gutter, & appurtenant work within Cardinal Hills 3rd Addition - Project 93.02C 0 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 11. Consideration of a reauest to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by rescinding section 20-2:I0 which reauires that planned unit development or000sals must include an area of at least three rnntiWnnua arrwa. Annlirant. Amwririnn/1'arn Lipll. 0.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: See report submitted by Steve Grittman. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: S Po 1. Motion to approve request to amend the zoning ordinance by rescinding section 20-21C] which requires that planned unit development proposals must include an area of at least three contiguous acres. 2. Motion to deny approval of the zoning ordinance amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance amendment with or without the related PUD request. D. SUPPORTING DATA:Vi, d City Planner's report; Site plan. Q Z 17 I�VA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 10 C U R B A N PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING KEPOK'17 TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 9 April 1993 RE: Monticello - Taco Bell/Americinn DUD PILE NO: 191.07 - 93.03 BACKGROUND The developers of the proposed Taco Bell facility on the Americlan property have requested that the City permit the construction of a convenience restaurant which would effectively remove the public street frontage from the AmericInn motel. In addition, Taco Bell would like to place a sign on the existing pole adjacent to 1.90. The sign, which would technically be off of the Taco Bell site, would also exceed the maximum height allowances for freestanding siynn. The applicants bad originally sought variances to pursue thio development. Zoning variances are to be utilized where a particular parcel has a unique physical condition where strict enforcement of the ordinance performance standards vould cause a hardship in the use of the parcel. In the case where a parcel is already being used in general conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, such a hardship would be difficult to imagine. In discussing the proposal further, we have suggestod that the uao of Planned Unit Development be considered. Under DUD, the City may negotiate for certain performance standards and site improvements, the theory being that as a result of giving a little in certain areas, it receives improvements in others which result_ in a superior planned project which could not have been achievod otherwise. The applicants have pursued this approach for the eubdivieitin of the property and the location of the Taco Bell eiyn, we are treating the height of the sign as a regular variance application, however, as it has impacts beyond the scope of Planned Unit Devol opniont . Cr� a779 lnra„7otn P�rk MN 5416 LJL2) 595.9636'Faz. 595.9837 F• F' - _ - =3 F F• I F 0 A final note regards the use of DUD on this site. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a minimum three acre site for PUD application. It is our opinion that this standard is an antiquated one which no longer applies to contemporary development. A PUD should be able to stand or. its own merits, regardless of lot size, or it Should not be approved. As a result, we are recommending that the three acre threshold for PUDe be deleted. ANALYSIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEUT The proposed PUD is being requested to solve two primary Ordinance constraints on this development. First is the subdivision request which would remove the AmericInn from public street- frontage. The second is to permit the sign location for Taco Bell on the remaining AmericInn property. we are concerned that the site plans, as submitted, do not provide the positive trade off which would justify the use of PUD in this case. Following is a brief discussion of what ouch improvements might include. 1. Several existing parking stalls appear to have been eliminated for hotel parking which need to be replaced in association with new plana. The required parking standard for convenience food establishments is: 1 space/40 square feet of dining floor area, plus i apace/80 square feet of kitchen area which necessitates that approximately 24 total parking stalls be provided. The site plan shows 34 stalls (including the two handicapped). This appears to meet the Ordinance minimum, subject to required motel parking. Processing of this request as a PUD allows flexibility in site design but should not be used as a means of circumventing Zoning Ordinance requirements. Approval of a PUD within the City requires that higher standards of site/building design and creative use of the land be implemented. This may be achieved using one or more of the following: Enhanced Landscape Requirements. The detailed and specialized use of plant and site materials should be required through unique plantings, increased quantity of materials, flower beds, varying levels, theme design, fountains, sculpture, gazebo, oto. S) b. Design for People. All site and landscape design should focus on pedestrian interaction and patron/e..nployee uuage of the site. Areae for sitting, eating, and relaxing should be provided for shared use between Taco Bell and AmericInn buildings such as a courtyard or "mini-Fark•. Coordinated Site Design. visual and physical integration of buildings, parking areas, and landscaping should be required. Architectural continuity should be promoted through the use of similar materials, colors, paving materials, signage, etc. Connection between the two buildings via a walkway would be very desirable. The Americinn building and surrounding areas should be enhanced to coordinate with any new design. SXGN BSIGHT VARIANCE The proposed Taco Bell sign is designed to be added to the existing AmericInn sign pole. The current Arnericlnn sign exceeds the maximum 32 foot height for such signs, and the proposed location of the Taco Bell sign would as well. we believe that the use of a single pole is positive in that it would reduce the clutter of poles on the site. However, the height issue must be measured against the uniqueness and hardship criteria for variance eons iderat ion. Tine situation does not appear to be unique. There are a number of signs in the corridor which are non -conforming by height. Approval of this proposal could be seen as an endorsement of existing sign conditions. If the existing sign conditions are acceptable to the City, then this is much lees of an issue, however, it is our understanding that a sign height variance was recently denied to K- nart. Approval of Taco Bell's request could be viewed as a •special privilege" which is specifically prohibited under the variance language. In any case, if the City believes that higher signs are appropriate, we would recommend looking at the City's ordinance standards rather than treating them individually. Such a process can lead to concerns over consistency in the application of the Ordinance, as well as difficulty on the parte of both staff and potential developers in preparing and reviewing development propouale . ,=,F P. - y- 9T F R I .t ._• O P . O!T. RECONIIOMNDATION Planned Unit Development is a process under which the City adopts a flexible approach to certain performance standards in the expectation that the resultant project will be more creative in its design and generally superior to that which could have been accomplished under the strict enforcement of the performance standards. We do not believe that, as submitted, the applicant's plane meet that expectation. A more thorough treatment of the AmericInn site should be accomplished, and the site plan should better integrate the uses than it does now. As designed, the two uses appear to ignore each other, rather than act as a *planned unit If a site plan can be developed which more closely meets these objectives, we believe the use of PUD would be appropriate and approvable. This request should be tabled pending a more enhanced site plan. With regard to sign height, we do not believe that a finding of hardship, uniqueness, or avoidance of special privileges can be made. We recommend denial of the sign height variance and encourage the applicant to pursue alternative identification methods, if the 32 foot height is deemed to be inadequate for its advertising purposes. Finally, we recommend the City adopt an Ordinance which deletes the three acre minimum lot size for the application of PUD. This standard unnecessarily ties the hands of the City in negotiating a development proposal which may be desirable to the City, but which cannot otherwise be processed due to this restriction. 60 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 12, Consideration of a conditional use Dermit atlowinc a camzaercial PUD (alarmed unit develoument) in a B-9 (hiahway business) zone: and a variance reauest allowing avlon sign height in excess of 32 -ft maximum. Annlitant., TACO Belil/Willard Murohv. {d.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: See report from previous agenda item submitted by Steve Grittman. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: IA. Motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing a commercial PUD in a B-3 zone. 113. Motion to deny the conditional use permit allowing a commercial PUD in a B-3 zone. 2A. Motion to approve the variance to the sign height maximum. 2B. Motion to deny the variance to the sign height maximum. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See planner's report from previous agenda item. Planning Commission recommendation will he forthcoming after the Planning Commission addresses the item at a G p.m. special meeting immediately prior to the Council meeting. D. SUPI'ORTING DATA: City Planner's report and site plan from previous agenda item. cw ,e Council Agenda - 4/12193 !s. PublicHearine--Considerntionofvacatin geascmant--Old Cedar Street right-of-way. Aaalicant. Taco Bell/Willard Murohv. (1.0.1 A. REFERENCE AND 13ACKGROUND The owner of the Americinn property, Willard Murphy, requests that the City Council consider vacating 18 R of a 40 -ft easement, which is a portion of the former Cedar Street right-of-way. Vacation of the easement is necessary to allow development of the Taco Hell restaurant as proposed under the site plan submitted with the planned unit development request. If the PUD is denied or tabled, this item should also be denied or tabled. According to John Simola, the City does not need the entire 40 -ft easement for City utility purposes. However, a major telephone line is located within 2 feet of the proposed east wall of the Taco Bell. To the east of this line lies a major gas line. According to Bridge Water Telephone, the proposed construction should not be allowed without first moving the phone line. Any motion to vacate the easement should, therefore, he contingent on the applicant paying the cost to move the phone line to a better position along the remaining easement. Attached is a letter from Bridge Water Telephone that addresses the topic. Council should also he aware that the City sold the original Cedar Street at a reduced price ($.39 per square foot) due to the presence of the easements. Attached are meeting minute excerpts. In light of previous action to sell at a reduced price due to the presence of the 40-f1 easement, Council may wish to require a cash payment in exchange for vacating 18 R of the easement It is suggested that the amount equal the price per square foot that Taco Bell is paying Murphy for the land. The easement area proposed for vacation is 1,575 square feet. If the selling price of the land is $3/sq fl, then the value of the easement would be $4,725. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve vacation of 18 ft of the 40 -ft casement along the Cedar Street right-of-way contingent on the following: Bridge Water,relephone relocation of the telephone line at the expense of the developer. Cash payment to the City equal to the square footage of the easement vacation area (1,575) X the price per square foot paid by Taco Bell. 19 Council Agenda - 4/12./93 Preparation of a document which makes the Taco Bell pror_rty owner responsible for paying all potential costs associated with repair or removal of driveway surfaces that would be necessary in the Pvvnt. rerairg ars needed to existing underground utility systems. 2. Motion to deny approval of the vacation of 18 ft of the 40 -ft easement along the Cedar Street right-of-way. This alternative should be selected if Murphy and the City cannot come W terms on price or if a plan for relocating the telephone line cannot be worked out between the developer and Bridge Water Telephone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the PUD is approved, staff recommends alternative # 1. D. SUPI'ORTING DATA: Letter from Bridge Water Telephone; Council meeting minute excerpts; Map from agenda item N1 l shows the easement area in blue. 20 .41 Bud" ?v .h Gia tl .a` Moptk:ello,Minnesota5362,+' �'• I Phone 612 295.2974 April, 8, 1993 Hr.Jelf O'Neill Assistant City Administrator City Hall 250 E. Bdwy Monticello, HN. 55362 Dear Jeff, John Simola hes brought to my attention, the cities possible plan to vacate a portion of the old Cedar Streets Easment. This Easment contains several utility facilities. Depending on how much of this aasm ent is vacated, will determine our costs of moving our facilities. If we would have to move the cable on the most western half of the easment, my estimated cost would be approximatly $5000.00. This cost assumes that our ..In duct facility remains where it is and in an easment and undisturbed. I plan to attend the meetings Honday night but, if you have any questions earlier please call me at Bridge Nater Telephone Company at 295-2970. Thank -You Ronald E. Yage Outside Plant Hanager Bridge Meter Telephone Company C/3) �l 4 �.*. 7 � 4 �J4 GRTE T30 _�� M3-24 C44 c,� - — C+ IV 1 COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 2. Public Hearing on Proposed vacation of Public Street Southeast or and Abuttingg Block 31 Upper Monticello and the Proposed Vacation of 8th Street lyinq Southwest of and Abuttinq Block 3, Upper Monticello. Purpose of this item i s to consider the vacation of the above two segments of streets in Monticel lo. Mr. E. C. Bunday, who is selling lots 4,5,6 & 7, Block 3 of Upper Monticello, for the proposed ScotWood Motel, is requesting that these streets be vacated and deeded to him or his assigns at the determined price of $1 2,000. It should be noted, however, that the Sc otWood Motel, although interested in the entire portion of the street lying east of Block 3, understands that the other half normally, under City Policy, is offered to the other abutting property owner which in this case would be the VFW Club. In regard to 8th Street, the proposed vacated portion abuts Lots 4 6 5 of Mr. Bunday's property, and Lots 1, 2 b 3 abut Perkin's Cake 8 Steak . It should be noted that the streets within the former City limits of Monticello are owned by the City, so it is not only necessary to go through a vacation of the streets, it is also necessary to transfer title since the City still owns the streets after vacation. Mr. John Sandberg, who had previously appraised the street east of Block 3 in 1976 at $12,000, was asked to reappraise the same street along with 8th Street, which lies south of Block 3. Mr. Sandberg appraised the entire area for $1 2,000. On the appraisal performed in 1976, Mr. Sandberg had not discounted the value for the easements to be retained, and this resulted in the same appraisal price despite an inflation factor. It should be noted that the entire area constitutes 30,720 square feet. This would appraise out at approximately 394 per square foot. If the portion of 8th Street abutting Perkins were sold to them and a portion of 8th Street abutting Mr. Bunday's property were sold to him along with dividing the street east of Block 3, one-half to Mr. Bunday and one-half to the VFW Club, the following would be a breakdown of the square footage: Mr. Bunday (ScotWoo d Motel) - 17,010 square feet VF14 Club - 10,420 square feet Perkins Cake 6 Steak - 3,290 square feet At the public hearing portion of this item, City Administrator Gary W ieber indicated that he had talked to Bob Rierson and Vince Mayer with Bridgewater Telephone Company and that the telephone company did have cable within some portion of the streets proposed for vacation, and in fact, Bridgewater does have plans in the future to put additional cable in a portion of the proposed vacated Streets at the same time it completed installation of cable in the future on that portion of Cedar Street between the railroad tracks and 7th Street. Mr. Wieber also noted thatiNSP did have utility lines within a portion of the proposed vacated streets. s a resalt of these utilities and future utilities, any vacation should be contingent upon an easement being retained for existing utilities and also for future utilities. Any liability for restoration of the property to its original condition would be the respibility of the property owners if the street was, in fact, vacated and deeded 0 COUNCIL MINUTES - 2/25/80 l Mr. Jon Petters, with Brutger Companies, reviewed the site plan for the ScotUnod Mntel and indicated that his company would be agreeable to the contingencies mentioned in the above paragraph. Mr. Petters indicated that the only portion of the vacated street that they would actually be using, other than for landscaping, would be a concrete pad, which he indica- ted they would be willing to assume the liability for its restoration if it had to be torn up. At this point the provision for the parking for the motel was discussed, and Mr. Petters indicated that there was room for approxi- mately 43 cars, which would meet the City of Monticello ordinances relative to Motels. It was pointed out to Mr. Petters that the City does have restric- tions which prohibit on -street parking during certain months, and that this could become a problem with trucks. Mr. Petters acknowledged that this, in fact, could become a problem, and indicated that their company would have to make arrangements in the additional area owned by them on the north side of the motel if this, in fact, became a burden on the area. Leonard Fellman, with the VFW, indicated that the VFW might possibly be interested in the portion of that half of the vacated streets that would abut their property, but that he would have to get official action from the board of directors of the VFW. There was some concern relative to the appraised value, and a motion was made by Ken Maus, seconded by Dan Blonigen and unanimously carried to obtain a second appraisal on the property. A motion was made by Phil White, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to vacate the public street southeast of and abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello, and the street lying southwest of and abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello. CThis vacation would be subject to utility easement rights being retained for al utilities with liability for restoration rights to be the responsibility of the abutting property owners. (It should be pointed out that the vacation of streets does not, in fact, convey title to the property; however, the contingencies are listed as a matter of record. At a later date, the City Council would have to take action upon the actual conveyance of those seg- ments of streets vacated, and the contingencies would be written into legal documents jl Council Minutes 3/9/8l 2. Cuusidcration of Con•:cyance of VnrntPd Strect Southeast of and dbuttlag_ Block 3, Upper Monticello, and the Street Lying Southwest of and Abutting Block 3, Upper Monticello. At a previous Council Meeting held February 25, 1980, the City Council voted to vacate the undeveloped portion of Cedar Street lying south of Seventh Street and 1-94. Also vacated was a portion of 8th Street abutting 1-94 and also abutting the south portion of Block 3. These streets were originally vacated due to a request by the owners of Lots 4,5,6 6 7, the site of the proposed ScotWood Motel development. Plane for the proposed ScotWood Motel are now proceeding, and the property owners requested that the City consider actually conveying title to these streets. The City previously had obtained two appraisals on the value of the street property in the amount of *10,000 and $12,000. if the vacated streets were to be sold to the abutting property owners on an equal basis, based on the highest appraisal amount of 39C per square foot, the following breakdown would occur: ScotWood Motel 17,010 sq. ft. $ 6,645 VFW Club 10,420 sq. ft. 4,070 Perkins 3,290 sq. ft. 1,285 The Council discussed whether the two appraisals received in the amounts of $10,000 and $12,000 were actually comparable to the true market value of similar property. It was noted that although similar property has been sold for approximately four times the appraisal values, the vacated street would also have utility easements running through them, which limits the use of the property to parking or green areae only, and could not be used as a building site. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Kan Maus to offer the cat d streets to the abutting property ownero at an appraised price o 39 per square foot, with a 30 -day time limit to let the City know whoth they are intereoted and also a 90 -day time limit on payment of the appraised value. If the VFW Club or Porkina Cake 6 Steak indicate they are not intereoted in purchasing the vacated street, the balance of the property would be offered to Scotwood Motel property owner at the same price of 39C per aq. ft. Voting in favor: Ken Mauo, Fran Fair, Arve Crimsmo , Phil White. Oppooed: Dan Blonigan. Council Agenda - 5/24/82 B) Continuation of Public Hearing - Consideration of the vacation of the Westerly 15 feet of City Easement Lying Over Previously Vacated Cedar Street. Mr. Willard Murphy, owner of Americ-Inn, appeared before the Planning Commission on May 11, 1982, to request a vacation of the westerly 15 of the city easement which lies over Cedar Street which was vacated on February 25, 1980 and sold to W. J. Murphy and the V.F.W. Club on March 9, 1981. They contend that since they purchased it, they would like to be able to use it. The final proposal states that the building would still be 7 feet from an under ground telephone cable. While this was a point of contention, Loren Rlein has informed me that this matter has now been resolved by Bridgewater and Mr. Murphy. Mr Murphy will be inattendance on Monday evening. There are no city lines in this portion of Cedar Street. The currently maintains the easements for Bridgewater and NSP. NSP has indicated that they have no objection. Letters from Bridgewater and NSP are forthcoming, but may not be here by Monday. 0 Council Minutes - 5/24/82 UContinuation of Public Hearing - Vacation of the Westerly 15 feet of City Easement Lying over Vacated Cedar Street. Mr. Willard Murphy, owner of Americ-Inn, appeared previous- ly before the Planning Commission to request a vacation of the westerly 15 feet of the city easement which lies over Cedar Street which was previously vacated on February 25th, 1980 and sold to Mr. Murphy and the V.F.W. Club in March of ��"C, of 1981. Mr. Murphy would like to be able to use a portion �% f of the vacated street for his proposed motel to be situated on. The proposal calls for the building to be situated approximately 7 feet over into the vacated portion of the (10 7 street which currently has easement rights by the City, ,J� NSP and Bridgewater Telephone Company. In order to allow 4 ` this, the City would have to release the easement rights a 0 over the portion of the street that the building would be situated on and Northern States Power Company has indicated that they would have no problem with releasing the easement rights up to 25 feet of the east portion of the street. Br:.dgewater Telephone Company has indicated that they do presently have a telephone pad located in the east 15 foot of the vacated street and would be willing to only release the easement over the portion of the street that the building would actually be situated on plus an allow- ance for the building drip line at the present time and in the future would not object to releasing their easement rights over the entire eaotorly 15 feet of the street once they have moved their tolophone pad. It was noted by the Building Inspector, Loren Klein, that letters from NSP and Bridgewater Telephone Company indicat- ing their agreement with tho reloaoing of the casements will be forth coming and as a result, a motion was made by White, seconded by Blonigon and unanimously carried to approve vacating the easements ovor the approximate 7 foot area that the building proposed by tho metal will be located on, logal description so follewo: Beginning at the northeasterly corner of Lot 6 - Block l: thence southwesterly along the eactarly lino of Lot 6 - Block 1 for a distance of 130.0 foot: thence easterly 90 degrees from the easterly lino of said Lot 6 - Block 1, a distance of 18.0 foot: thence aouthwootorly parallol to the eactor- ly line of said Lot 6 - Block 3, a diotanco of 185.0 foot. thence wootorly 90 dogr000 to the aaotorly line of said Lot 6 - Block 1, a diotanco of 18.0 foot to the easterly lino of said Lot 6 - Block 1. thence northwesterly along the oaotorly lino of said Lot 6 - Block 3, a diotanco of 315.0 foot to the point of boginning. Council Agenda - 4/12/93 14. Consideration of public works ohase 1I facility studv and cost estimates. W.S. ) A. RF,FRRRN(I.R AND BACKGROUND As I updated the City Council at the last meeting, the building committee met with OSM to discuss various options for phase II of the public works facility. Phase II in its entirety consists of sand salt and salt storage, a connection between the existing maintenance shop and vehicle storage building to include a wash/paint bay, and oil and lubricant storage area. Phase If also included reroofing the existing shop, evaluation and remodeling of the interior of the shop building, and an addition to the front of the building which is expected to include a meeting and training room and restroom facilities for men and women. The last phase, phase III, would be accomplished sometime in the distant future and would include either the remodeling of the existing NSP office and water department or its demolition and the addition of a new building section. Based upon our meeting with USM, they have prepared a proposal for a feasihility report for the second phase of construction of the public works facility. Their proposed study would break phase ll into at least three sections and discuss the merits of completing the different sections separately or as a whole. Their study would also include a cost analysis. The original study and cost analysis done by TKDA for phase I I set the construction cost at $380,000. OSM has indicated they will complete this phase 11 study and cost analysis for a price of $2,100. Should the City wish to look further at how phase 111 could he constructed with the NSP building left in place or how modifications to phase II would affect phase III, this study could be done for an additional $4,100. If we assume we are staying with the same ultimate look of the building as prepared by TKDA and further expanded by Winsor Faricy and OSM, we could prohahly proceed with phase 11 based upon the original exterior concept plans and would nothave to do the phase III study at this time. If, however, the Council feels that. we may need tA) look at how the NSI' building would fit into phase II I and look at other ways to accomplish thut, we should then also do the phase I11 study for on additional $4,100. B. ALTERNATIVE AUMONS: The first alternative is to authorize a feasibility study and cost analysis for phase If for the public works facility at a lump sum cost of $2,100. 21 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 The second alternative would be to look at only the feasibility study fOr phase II and not include the cost analysis. The feasibility portion would cost $1,100. 3. The third alternative would be to do the feasibility study and cost analysis for phase 11 as well as do a new master plan utilizing the existing NSP building (previous plans show it being demolished). The cost of this entire study would be $6,200. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order for us to proceed with the development of phase I1, we need to complete the phase 11 facility report and cost analysis. We must look at how the plan will integrate if broken into sections to allow us financing flexibility. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that we move ahead with alternative #I. Should the Council feel that we need to have answers today as to how the NSP building will fit into our master plan, then alternative #3 seems most appropriate. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the master plans from TKDA with the original feasibility report; Letter from OSM dated April 5 for proposal for feasibility report for phase 11. 22 O /W\ ---�__--_--__-__ -------------- — ftY '•1. PROPOSED SI if PIAN JTKDAv YR — I ..r. .r �o.r.uu, a. I .......... I-rl O O O O O O O O O /W\ ---�__--_--__-__ -------------- — ftY '•1. PROPOSED SI if PIAN JTKDAv YR — I ..r. .r �o.r.uu, a. I .......... I-rl O O O 7 Cl .. O O / .C..Y 7T \\ \ %• SAI I'Jl� Rei f Y•y.i 3 MY ..1'.7 f7 d� � \\\. G ! MIASE 7 T rrf f'•Aa THDA —•— ,�I �r '�! '- -s`'r I e�.. er •errw.a.. .r •'!er• ..re.Ane.e °. M— •�l PHASE f 1 PHASE ] MNSE 1 4Mi10�440 ►Y1►Iq „M A SOUTH ELEVATION O 9 r� 1RS1 RCVAf IqN ■-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- i wa.x t h1Ax 7 rMrA�f I to r� T Ir TSDA IMM 14, I, f f Al ", F. • iwt tw AMY w�Mn►a1NMA — L T en 6 IeS, inc. 0SK� . r � 300 park Place center 1775 %val2ala 9w"'d - aWn pcib, KIN 55016-1778 - 117-595-5775 - 1-8W-753-5775 FAX 595-5713 - Enginett! April 5, 1993 Architect! N:.-- surveyors Mr. John Simola Qty of Monticello P. O, Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Feasibility Report for Phase 2 Construction For Monticello Public Works Facility OSM Proposal No. 0069.93 Dear Mr. Simola: We are pleased to submit this proposal for a feasibility report for the second phase of construction at the Public Works Facility. Phase 2 Proposed Expansion: 1) Schematic design(s) would be prepared showing how Phase 2 could be completed in 4 sub-cumponems. The actual funds available would determine which sub -components may actually be constructed. The project for sub -components could be outlined as follows: 1A Add salt/sand storage building to north side of new Vehicle Storage Building. 1B Add infill building between existing Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Buildings containing wash/paint bay and oil storage room. It is understood that painting Is done on an occasional basis only, and therefore design of this space will not be to the level required by code fur a typical painting bay. The storage room for used oil will have a floor grate with pit below for containment. Reroof existing Maintenance Building and make changes m required for code conformance. This may Include such items as, a. Enclosing the Machine Shop Area. b. Enclosing the Pans Storage Area C. Unclosing the welding area with a fire resistant curtain or the equivalent, ventilate as required. d. Evaluate the mezzanine. e. Making other revisions u may be required by OSRA and other codes. f. Iaatalling skylight in existing rout uw ccorn�--�, neap rr ' 'f sod a0SMV woo• Ivdrro Mr. John Simola April S, 1993 Page 2 1C Provide south expansion to Maintenance Shop to include the following: a. Meeting/Training Room b. Mens and Womens rest rooms, ADA compliant c. Kitchenette NOTE: The above program items require that the pickup truck vehicle storage shown in the previous master plan be located elsewhere. The fee to provide the services outlined in #1 above would be a lamp sum of One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($1,100.00). 2) Provide a cost estimate for subcomponents IA - 1C above with each phase considered separately. Fee cost to provide this service would be a lump sum fee of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). 3) Develop new/revise existing Master Plan of entire Public Works complex. 3A Revise existing Master Plan with existing NSP building removed. This plan would also provide a schematic plan for Phase 3 to indicate the program elements to be contained in that phase of the project. 3B Generate new Master Plan with NSP Building left in place. This study would also consider what program elements would be contained in future phase 3. It would examine how the NSP building Itself would be utilized and what would be contained in the area between the 3 existing buildings. Both Master Plan Studies would also include massing studies of the building elevations for the purpose of determining how the buildings would be tied together. It would examine whether the parapet heights would be constant or step in accordance with the various building heights. It would also consider exterior materials to be used and what techniques could be employed to give the complex a uniform aesthetic appearance. If you desire that elevation studies be done showing how only Phase 2 and the new vehicle Storage building tie together, that can be done as an additional service. The fee to do this Phase 3 schematic design and the Master Plans would be a lamp sum of Pour Thousand One Hundred Dollars (54,100.00). In addition to the above fees would be our normal reimbursable expenses. Each pan of the Phase 2 proposed expansion can be performed individually for the fee stated. The time frame to complete each pan Is as follows: Past 1 - 1 week (`P 1 o», ri .n o : -. t rn .14 11 1bn Mr. John Simola April 5, 1993 Page 3 Part 2 - 1 week Part 3 - 2-3 weeks Assuming that answers from the City allow continuous Dow of the projea, the total time required including field visits for meetings etc. would be 45 weeks for all 3 para If it became necessary to expedite the process, this schedule may be able to be sboruned to some extent. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this interesting project. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES Gunnar F. Unger, Jr. AIA William J. Zerfas, P.E. Director of Architecture Project Manager Ernest E. Fenton, P.E. Via President C: BAW/File H: %A RCI t\SU\O PL1\00M3. LT Council Agenda - 4/12193 is. Consideration of oreliminary aooroval of the reolat of chase I of the Everareens subdivision. AoalicanL Kent Kiellbers. (J.O.) n nvtor.+�i r.+�r�r; e�rr� nenvn nn..wrr. At this stage in the development process, this item is relatively non -controversial. The proposed replat slightly modifies the plat approved in 19139 by removing six lots in order to provide room for the future extension of School Boulevard from the Kline property through to Highway 215. Once preliminary approval on the proposed replat is granted, City staff will be working with the City Attorney to develop an updated development agreement that would ultimately result in City acquisition of the School Boulevard roadway easement. In addition, the new development agreement would also terminate the previous agreement and would include a default provision which would specifically identify the date by which the development agreement is no longer valid if the development does not occur. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to recommend preliminary approval of the replat of phase 1 of the Evergreens. This is the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission. This alternative is desirable because it could ultimately result in the City obtaining the necessary casements to properly align School Boulevard. It will also result in the phasing out of u development agreement reached in 1988 with a new agreement that better addresses the needs of both the City and the developer. The terms of this agreement will be designed and preliminary negotiations will take place subsequent to approval of the preliminary approval of the replat. Council will be asked to consider the updated development agreement at an upcoming meeting. 2. Motion to deny preliminary approval of the replat of phase 1 of the Evergreens. This alternative should he selected if Council is of the view that the original Evergreens plut design along with the original development agreement should be maintained. This alternative does not make sense given the consensus that School Iloulevard as shown in the existing Evergreens plan is designed poorly and should he redesigned. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 111. �;i� � 1), SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of plan showing replat of phase I of the Evergreens; Map showing original area encompassing phase I and proposed alignment of School lloulevard. 23 Evergreens t� T I � 14 J a a 'y` ��'`\`%��'• '� ~�� a''�'� 4 4 1 �, a /� �1 y f �} u�• t 1 1 ey t 4' r�' / r. y�r Me► 1 aaIV w 00 lb AI Ltv 41 rwr rw I rr 1 � p E i l •'" I mw � w err Nw am ( ,� ISOW ♦w rN l ; II a i t• "1 II rN a� t 1 •►rr Raao it r- ♦ � i S WIN SACIMAr 4 Ikk Council Agenda - 4/12/93 16. Consideration of proposed budget for West Bridge Park warming house/restrooms and authorization to proceed, W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At a previous meeting, the City Council authorized City staff to work with TKDA to redesign the plumbing, heating, and electrical portions of the proposed warming house building. Council also authorized City staff to act as general contractor and obtain quotes for labor and materials for the construction of the new building for West Bridge Park. In an effort to obtain good prices from local contractors, the City broke the labor portion of the building into five sections. Plans and specifications were submitted to many area material suppliers and contractors. The total estimated cost for all materials and outside labor is $55,422.38. A proposed budget is enclosed for your review. The work to be performed by City staff and employees is as follows: 1. Project management and inspection. If. Backfill of footings, installation of sewer and water service pipes, and compaction of the service line trenches. 111. Pouring of the exterior sidewalk around the building. IV. Installation of the tongue and groove paneling in the warning r(x)m half walls and vaulted ceiling. V. Painting of the exterior siding and soffits, doors, and the interior ceilings; and application of a sealant to the burnished block, tongue and groove paneling, and floors. We have obtaiined an alternate quote from a contractor to install the tongue and groove paneling for $1,500 should the need arise or should workload prohibit City forces from accomplishing that portion of the project. The total estimated out-of-pocket expense is $55,422.38. This represents an $18,000 to $20,000 savings over the 1992 low bid, even when the redesign costs tire included. 24 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: `% The first alternative is to allow the construction of the West Bridge Park warming house/restroom building based upon the estimated budget of $55,422.38. BF Sn %4� d C. �� o-p,p a r�- 2. The second alternative would he to authorize the construction of the new building based on a not -to -exceed construction cost of $58,000, thus providing some contingency funds for unexpected costa or allow the staff the flexibility to have the interior paneling installed by a contractor. 3. The third alternative would be to authorize only the original $52,000 figure for the construction of the building and request that City staff make further cute in design of the building and/or provide more in-house labor to achieve the lower cost. 4. The fourth alternative would be not to proceed with the construction of the building. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the City Council authorize the building to proceed based upon the estimated cost in alternative til or a not -to -exceed cost as included in alternative 42. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed budget. 25 WEST BRIDGE PARK WARMING HOUSE/RESTROOMS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Materials I. Burnished block, mortar, sealer & durawall $ 5,969.87 Il. Concrete, rebar, fiber mesh, exterior expansion $ 4,527.50 111. Electrical work & equipment - Double 1) Electric. joint material, anchor bolts $ 3,065.56 III. Light fixtures & lamps $ 1,700.00 IV. Electric unit heaters & thermostats $ 1,400.00 V. Poplar tongue & groove paneling $ 500.00 VL Paint, tissue dispensers & mirrors $ 300.00 V11. Lumber, doors, windows, & roofing $19,000.00 VIII. Plumbing (toilet) accessories --includes carriers (no tissue dispensers or mirrors) $ 1,629.45 SUBTOTAL $33,564.88 Contractor Labor/Lulor with Materials I. Forced air heating & ventilation system installed - It & D Plumbing & Heating Inc. $ 3,140.00 II. Plumbing with fixtures installed - The Plumhery. $ 4,527.50 111. Electrical work & equipment - Double 1) Electric. $ 4,700.00 IV. lilock work, fiwtings, & interior floor work - Puul Hoglund Masonry. $ 4,990.00 V. Carpentry work - Illonigen Builders. $4,500.00 SUBTOTAL $21,857.50 TOTAL $55,422.38 WARMHSE.IiGT: 4/7/93 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 17. Consideration of a request for M day set.up/3.2 beer license for Ducks Unlimited Banauet and one (1) day 3.2 beer license for July Riverfest celebration - Lions Club. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello Lions Club is again sponsoring the Ducks Unlimited Banquet scheduled for May 10, 1993, to be held at the Monticello Roller Rink. As in the past years, the Lions Club requested a 3.2 beer license and a set-up license for the one -day banquet. The license fee for the two licenses would be $35. In addition to the Ducks Unlimited Banquet, the Lions Club also requested a 3.2 beer license for the annual Riverfest celebration to be held in July. The license fee for this event would be $10. There have been in the past no problems associated with the issuance of either license. A certificate of insurance showing the Lions Club has liquor liability coverage will be required before the license is issued. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the licenses. 2. Deny the request for the licenses. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the stairs recommendation that both license requests be granted. 1). SUPPORTING DATA: None 26 Council Agenda - 4/17193 is. Consideration of a_resolution authorizing- application for ISTEA Enhancement funds. IJ.O.) A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Parks Commission requests that City Council consider adoption of a resolution supporting an application for ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Act) funds necessary to build off-road pathways connecting Monticello in an east/west fashion. Please see the grant application for detail. Please note that a landscaping and beautification component has been added to the program submitted to you previously. Adding this component will make the application more competitive. A major point of consideration is what percentage the City is willing to contribute to the project. The City will receive more points for funding a portion greater than 20%. The Parks Commission recommended that the City fund 25%, or $95,000. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve a resolution authorizing application for ISTEA Enhancement funds. 2. Motion to deny adoption of a resolution authorizing application for ISTEA Enhancement funds. C. STAFF HKCOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the resolution. If the resolution is adopted, City staff will refine the application and submit it to MN/DOT by April 15, 1993. Grant awards will be announced in mid-May. U. SIJPPORTING DATA: Copy of resolution for adoption; Copy of grant application. 27 RESOLUTION 93 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR ISTEA ENHANCEMENT FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 11 OF CITY PATHWAY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the (:ity of Mnnt.iralin has adopted a long-term plan for path:^.ay development in the city, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has completed construction of phase I of the plan, which consists of a sidewalk grid system located in the core area of the city, and WHEREAS, construction of phase II improvements consisting of extension of pathways along the CSAH 75 corridor to outlying populated areas is consistent with the long-term plan and is now a high priority for immediate construction, and WHEREAS, off-road pathway development along the CSAH 75 corridor is necessary to provide a safe route for pedestrians and bikers traveling to many various points of destination along the corridor, and WHEREAS, phase 11 improvements are entirely on county and city right-of-way and permission for use of county road right-of-way for off-road paths built by the City has been granted, and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has conducted a citizen survey which has indicated that walking and biking is a leisure activity enjoyed by a cross-section of the population, and whereas the survey indicated popular support for further development of pathway systems, and WHEREAS, development of phase II pathway improvements along with landscaping enhancements will enhance the experience of travelers following the historic and scenic Creat River Road. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED: 1. The City authorizes submittal of an ISTEA Enhancements Fund application for funds necessary to complete phase 11 pathway improvements and associated landscaping. 2. The City authorizes funding of 25% of the total project costs outlined in the grant. Total project cost is estimated at $379,718. City share at 25% equals $95,064. 3. The City shall maintain all improvements constructed for the life of the improvements, which include sealcoating, crack filling, mowing, tree trimming, etc. Annual maintenance expenses are estimated at $24,000/yr. 11 Resolution 93 - Page 2 4. The City of Monticello supports the efforts of Wright County to obtain ISTEA funding, which would enable construction of a paved trail system within Montissippi Park. 5. The City shall develop policies and ordinances that will promote the safe and effective use of the facilities by all citizens. 6. The City authorizes preparation of a feasibility study on phase II improvements to be conducted immediately upon notice of grant award. Adopted this 12th day of April, 1993. Mayor City Administrator 0 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUND APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Monticello requests transportation enhancements funds necessary to complete development of a combination of class I (off-road bike paths) and class II and III (on -road bike paths) that would connect populated areas at the perimeter of the community to points of destination located throughout the length of the community. In addition to serving the local pedestrian and bike needs, it will also serve to enhance the experience of those from outside the community that pass through Monticello while enjoying the Great River Road corridor. Included in the project is a proposal to construct 3.78 miles of class I trail and designate 3.11 miles of class 11 and III trails at a total cost of $379,718. Included in the project are plans for beautification of the Great River Road route through strategic placement of landscape plantings along the trail route. The plan as proposed represents phase II of Monticello's long-term plan to improve pedestrian and bike transportation within the community. Phase I has recently been completed and consists of 4.64 miles of sidewalk. Construction of this phase was funded by a combination of general tax dollars and assessments levied against individual property owners. The pedestrian transportation system now in place is maintained year-round and provides safe off- street access to all significant destination points in the original core city. The City of Monticello requests financial assistance with development of phase 11 of its pathway development plan, which is designed to connect outlying populated areas of Monticello to the existing sidewalk system now serving the core area of the community. Connecting outlying areas to the existing pedestrian system would enable safe pedestrian and bike access for all citizens of Monticello to schools, churches, river parks, playgrounds, libraries, and historic places. NEEDS ANALYSIS The original plat of Monticello is compact and rectangular, which has allowed establishment of it sidewalk grid system that can easily serve the transportation needs of residents within the original platted area. In the past 20 years, Monticello has grown well beyond the boundaries of the original plat in an cast/west pattern squeezed between the 1.94 freeway on one side and the Mississippi River on the other. Large multi -family and single family residential areas, schools, and parks have been developed along the length of this corridor. Unfortunately, the major roadway extending through the heart of the corridor is County State Aid Highway 75, which is a very busy, two-lane highway (ave. daily tragic 8,358). Traffic speed on this highway is 45 mph to 55 mph. Due to the high speed and high volume of traffic, use of this right-of-way for bike and pedestrian access from outlying areas to the core city is not safe. CSAH 75 provides an excellent route for the high volume of tourists ISTEA.NAR: 4/9/93 Page 1 Edi passing through Monticello on their way to and from "the lake" and provides the primary avenue for local vehicular access to all points within the city but acts as a barrier to safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. Following is a wlmmary of points of origination and destination along the CSAII 75 corridor that will be served through development of the project as proposed. Fast. Rapid residential development has occurred in the last 10 years on the east side of the community along the CSAH 75 corridor. A considerable amount of land remains undeveloped on the east side, and it is expected that residential development in the area will continue to grow. it is estimated that by 1995, the total housing units on the east side within .5 miles of CSAH 75 will grow to 450. This development results in a population of approximately 1,200 that must utilize CSAH 75 as their primary access to the central city area. Population growth is expected to surge well beyond 1,200 as ample land is available to support continued growth well into the next century. Unfortunately, the route for bike and pedestrian access to the core area is limited to paved shoulders on CSAH 75, which is a high volume (8,358 ADT), high speed roadway (45-55 mph). In summary, the east side of the community represents a large and growing point of origin of pedestrian and bike trips to the central area. The need for development of a route for safe pedestrian access to the central area is evident today and will intensify as the city grows. Central Area The central section of Monticello is essentially the original plat of the city. This area is just over one mile in length and about one-half a mile wide. It is estimated that the total population of the central area is 2,200. The current city sidewalk grid system and wide residential streets (36 feet) provide the opportunity for safe pedestrian and bike movement within the central city area. Points of eestination within this area include Monticello High School, Monticello Business District, three scenic river parks, the community library, city hall, and five churches. Also within the central area are two major points of interest for users of the river road corridor. These include the Rand Mansion, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, and Little Mountain Settlement, which is a family-owned museum featuring structures and artifacts from the area's pioneer days. In summary, the central core city of Monticello is a major point of destination for residents from the west and east sides of Monticello as well as a point of destination for users of the Creat River Road. ISTEA.NAR: 4/9/93 Page 2 West Side As with the east side, pedestrian and bike movement to the central area is unsafe due to the high traffic volume (6,618) and speed (50 mph) of traffic on the main connecting right -of --way WSAH 75). It, is estimated that by 1995, the total housing units on the west side within .5 miles of CSAH 75 will grow to 675, creating a population of approximately 1,800 that utilize CSAH 75. The west side of Monticello features important points of destination for pedestrian and bike users originating in the central and east side of the community. The list would include Pinewood Elementary School, Magic Kingdom Playground, tennis courts, two community/regional ballfield complexes, and a 177 -acre river park. All of the facilities noted above are located directly adjacent to CSAH 75. In summary, the need for better, safer pedestrian and bike access to and from the west side of Monticello is clear. Citizen Survevs Definine Need for Imoroved Pedestrian/Bike Path Svstem In the past five years, two major citizen surveys have been conducted for the purpose of determining needs for facilities and service development within the city of Monticello. Both surveys indicated a concern regarding traffic within the community and indicated a desire for improved bike and pedestrian opportunities. In 1988, citizens were asked to rate the quality of various services in Monticello. In this survey, street traffic and bike paths received the lowest rating among the quality of life factors measured. In 1992, a more extensive survey was conducted which focused on determining specific community needs in terms of recreation facility development. The concept of developing pathways for walking and biking was very popular. The survey results showed that 70% of those responding indicated that they would be willing to see taxes increased to fund pathways. Seven percent indicated that they did not know, and only 23% said that they did not want taxes increased to fund pathway development. Similarly, 66% rated the availability of paths for activities like biking and walking unfavorably. The perceived lack of these types of facilities was consistent with the high number of residents that indicated that they participate in biking and walking activities outside of their home. In summary, support for pathway development as indicated in the survey has motivated Parks Commission and City Council to complete a city-wide pathway system. Demographic data supports survey data. According to the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, the 25-44 age group will benefit most from pathway development. Coincidenudly, local population growth trends indicate that this is a large and growing age group in Monticello that now represents 35% of the total population. ISTEA.NAH: 4/9/93 page 3 L � PROJECT DETAIL AND NEEDS ADDRESSED The following section identifies specific trail segments in terms of classification, length, cost, and purpose and is designed to show how needs identified above will be addressed via the project. Seement 1AI. Class II Trail - Alone East Countv Road 39 From Citv Limits to CSA_E 75 Servine North-East. Montinelln, :real River Road Users This on -road trail segment is 4,800 feet in length and will require installation of signs only, as shoulders are already in place and striped. The main purpose of the improvements is to identify East County Road 39 as a bike route for users of the Great River Road corridor and for local users living in nearby populated areas. An off-road trail was not proposed for this segment because current traffic volume and user demand did not appear to justify the expense. The total cost to complete this segment through installation of signs amounts to $806. It is proposed that this cost be paid by the County or by the City of Monticello. Seement 10A, CSAH 75 - Meadow Oak Avenue to Hart Boulevard Development of this 6,200 -It, 8 -ft wide, off-road bituminous path is critical to providing safe pedestrian and bike access to the core city of Monticello for those living in the highly populated areas on the east side of the community. According to the Wright County Engineer, the average daily traffic on this CSAR at this location is 8,358. It should be noted that the traffic on this segment is much higher during weekends, as this is a popular route for tourist traffic traveling to and from the northern lakes area. This off-road path will lie completely within the county road right-of-way and, therefore, no land acquisition is necessary. It is estimated that the cost to construct this trail segment will amount to $93,000. In conjunction with pathway development, it is also proposed that the pathway/river road corridor be beautified through installation of landscape plantings at three strategic locations along this segment. Specifically, it is proposed that evergreen trees be planted to mitigate the visual impact of two steel warehouses and one billboard. In addition, it is proposed that tree plantings occur at intermittent locations where no trees now exist. Total funds budgeted for this aspect of the project amount to $26,000. Washineton Street - Brondwav (CSAR 75) to 7th Street This 2,000 -ft segment consists of a combination of an on -street bike route and sidewalk, which will provide a northhout.h linkage between CSAH 75 and 7th Street This route provides safe access from the CSAR corridor to Monticello High School, ballfields/football stadium, Rand Mansion, and to the Little Mountain Settlement. Total cost of this improvement is estimated at $28,000. i ISTEA.NAR: 4/9/93 page 4 L Segment 18A. River Street - Ellison Park to Chestnut Street This segment is a 6,400 ft long class III trail along a residential street that parallels CSAH 75. River Street provides a pleasant neighborhood/liver setting for bike riders not wishing to cnntimie along the heavily -traveled CSP.H 75. River Strcct scr.-cs three river parks which include Ellison Park, which is a Great River Road Park, and East/West Bridge Park. It also features a convenient signalized crossing at Highway 2.i. The project calls for installation of signs only along this segment and includes the possibility of prohibition of parking on one side of the road on River Street. This may not be necessary, however, as on -road parking on River Street is quite uncommon. The west end of this segment connects to Chestnut Street, which provides access to segment 25A. The cost to install bike route signs along this segment is $538. Segment 25A. CSAH 75 - Chestnut to .Jerry Liefert Drive This segment is an off-road path along CSAH 75 which connects the existing core city grid system to residential areas west of the central area. An off-road path is necessary at this location due to the high traffic volume (6,618 ADT) and high speeds (50 mph). This segment length is 4,400 feet and passes alongside major points of destination, including Pinewood School, Magic Kingdom Playground, tennis courts, and a softball/baseball complex. A portion of this segment features a pleasant view of a nature area south of the trail and east of the nearby railroad tracks and also includes a footbridge with a scenic view of Otter Creek. Total cost of this segment, including the bridge, is estimated at $101,000. Segment 24A. CSAH 75 - .lerry Liefert Drive to River Street This segment is 4,000 feet long and is essentially an extension of the segment discussed above. This segment provides trail access to residential points west of segment 25A and provides access to destination points on the extreme west side of town for residents living in the core area and on the east side of the community. These destination points include the NSP regional softball fields and the Montissippi Regional Park. The total cost of this trail segment is estimated at $69,000. To beatify the pathway, it is proposed that trees he planted at intermittent locations along portions of this segment. The tree budget for this segment is $4,500. Sef,"ent. 23A. CSAH 75 - River Street to City Limits This segment consists of u type I I trail on CSAH 75. The major users of this segment will be users of the Great River Road corridor. There are populated township areas west of this destination that would utilize this trail segment when making trips to and from the city proper. The total cost of this trail segment is $269. ISTEA.NAR: 4/9/93 Page g Li 8 Seement 21A - River Street/CSAH 75 to NSP Ballfields It is proposed that this 1,600 -ft segment consist of an off-road pathway along the east side of River Street. This segment would be on city right-of-way and would provide safe access to a regional ballfie!d. The estimated cost of this segment is $28,000. Alongside River Street on the side opposite of the proposed path is property currently heing used as a storage area for abandoned vchicics, machinery, and other miscellaneous items. The use of this property as a junk yard is a legal non- conforming use because it was a junk yard before the City adopted its zoning ordinance. This junk yard is well within view of users of the Great River Road (CSAH 75). The proposed landscaping plan for this segment calls for screening the view of the junk yard from CSAH 75 through planting of evergreen trees at 15 -ft intervals along the length of the junk yard. It is estimated that the total cost to install landscaped plantings will amount to $10,000. See-ment 26A - Elm Street from West Countv Road 39 to CSAH 75 This street (Elm Street) segment consists of a 1,200 -ft off-road pathway that bridges a highly congested area that is unsafe for bike or pedestrian use due to high traffic volume (2,600 ADT) and on -street parking. This pathway connects a highly populated area directly to the city grid system and thus allows this area to be incorporated into the pedestrian and bike transportation network. The total cost of this segment is estimated at $18,000. The purpose of beautification efforts in this area is to buffer the parking lot located along the perimeter of a portion of this trail 6egrnent. This will be accomplished through strategic placement of shrubs and understory trees. The estimated cost of landscaping is $4,000. QUALIFYING CRITERIA Following is a review of the project in terns of the qualifying criteria. The proposed project is consistent with the qualifying criteria as follows: 1. The project as designed provides facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. The project is integrated with the Great River Road scenic and historic highway program and includes significant beautification efforts. 2. Local Match. The City of Monticello has passed a resolution which authorizes payment of 25% of the total project cost, 3. Proiect Maintenance. The City of Monticello has passed a resolution which guarantees maintenance of the proposed project for the life of the project, 4. Ponulation Requirement. The population of the city of Monticello exceeds 5,000; therefore, Monticello is eligible for direct participation. ISTEA.NAR: 4/9/93 Page 6 IR 5. Proiect Cost Exceeds $50.000. The project as proposed amounts to $379,718. 6. Demonstrated Relationshin to Transoortation. The proposed plan is truly an enhancement of an existing transportation system. It enables pedestrian and bike traffic to be integrated with an existing right-of-way now used primarily for vehicular movement. The proposed project is integrated with an existing pedestrian and bike transportation network and is also an important phase of a larger Iocal network. Finally, the project enhances the Great River Road transportation corridor. Mitigation of Transuortation Proiect. The project as proposed is an enhancement and not mitigation. PRIORITY CRITERIA The degree to which the Dronosed aroiect fulfills the intent of ISTEA. The proposed project fits the goals and objectives of ISTEA, which is to preserve community quality and protect the environment. The project will result in the ability of a large segment of the local population to utilize and enjoy community services without the necessity of utilizing a car to get to their point of destination. It provides the opportunity for multiple modes of transportation (bike/ped) where only one exists today (auto). The long-term beneficial impacts in terms of reduced traffic and reduction in reliance on fossil fuels are obvious. 2. Proiects with comoonenta which have been funded or implemented with other funding sources, especially Droiects for which the proposed enhancements funded element would complete a larger Droiect concent or Dian. As noted in the description of the project, the enhancement funds would be used for phase I I of the City's overall plan for development of pedestrian and bikeway systems. Phase I is now complete and resulted in development of 4.25 miles of sidewalk now enjoyed primarily by residents within the core area of the city. Phase 11 funded by the enhancement program would enable areas with large populations and significant points of destination to have pedestrian and bike access to the core sidewalk grid system. Phase II will result in completion of the cast/west corridor to which future north -south pathways will be connected in conjunction with projected long-term residential development south of the corridor area. The project will enhance the motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists' enjoyment of the historic and scenic Great River Road by improving bike/pedestrian safety and by beautifying the landscape. The project is integrated with county pathway development. Wright County is planning on development of a scenic bikeway and walkway in the 177 -acro Montissippi Park. Montissippi Park is located at the western end of the r� ISTEA.NAR: 4/9/93 Page 7 proposed pathway system along the CSAH 75 corridor. Completion of phase II of the pathway system will enable safe access to this scenic park on foot or by bike for all residents within the community. 3. Proiects which qualify in two or more of ten categories of enhancements. The proposed project qualifies in the following catagories: 1) Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. 2) Scenic highway programs (Great River Road). 3) Historic highway program (Great River Road). 4) Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 4. Proiects which have alreadv gone through a state-wide or regional proiect priority setting process. The project has not gone through a state-wide or regional project priority setting process. No regional or state-wide priority setting process is available for this project to be evaluated under. 5. Proiects which demonstrate more than a local impact or benefit. The proposed project will have a significant impact on hikers, bikers, and motorists visiting or passing through Monticello. For instance: Bicyclists and motorists from afar following the Great River Road corridor will benefit from beautification efforts and will enjoy improved pedestrian and bike access through the community, thus enhancing their river road experience. Monticello is frequently the point of destination or a rest stop for organized cross-country bike events. The proposed project will certainly make these events a more pleasant experience for the thousands that participate. A listing of these major cross country bike events includes: TRAM 260, 1,500 riders - 1990; KARE 11 Bike Classic - annual ride, 1,500 riders - every year; Ironman, 1,500 riders (est.) - every year. Due to the close proximity of Monticello to the west metro area and relatively low traffic volumes in the outlying township regions, itis quite common to see individual bicyclists from the metro area enjoying a "country" ride in the Monticello area. As the metro area continues to grow in a westerly fashion, this trend will continue to grow. Wright County also has a comprehensive trail plan. The project will complement the Wright County plan and will serve nearby demi-urban township areas. ISTEA.NAIt: 4/9PJ3 Page 8 I< 6. Proiects which can be completed by the end of calendar vear 1994. It is possible that this project can be completed by the end of the construction season in 1993 and no later than the end of 1994. All of the land area necessary to construct the proposed trail segments is located on county or city right-of-way. The County Engineer has approved the concept plans behind this project, and there is no concern that the City will have any problem at all in obtaining permission to utilize county right-of-way where necessary. In addition, the City Council has already authorized development of the feasibility study, which will commence at such time that the grant is awarded to the City. In sum, this is a simple, straight -forward project with no environmental, property owner, or land use conflicts expected. Proiects with a match in excess of 20%. The project as proposed is estimated to cost $379,718. The City proposes to fund 25`'/0 of the cost, which amounts to $95,064. r ISTEA.NAR: 4/9/93 Page 9 J TRAIL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE -LONGTERM PLAN E S P S S SEGMENT DE SCRIPTION TIMING A B C. D 0 DeveloDed sidewalk grl0 system I I 1 0 1Already Cornolstea Sidewalk sectlonS Al CR 39 E. from GIIIarC to CSAH 75 1 `993 4,2 rP ;.Ila.n -ntwnai �.a Natell4Craut ,. 1933 2 A MiS$ISsioo• Drive 11.5 •993 3 A MississiDD Drive to River Street 2 IFutura ISTEA reaues:-NeeC eaSMnt 4 A Eu istlnp Meadow Oak trails 3 PUD corn tietion 5 A UndevelOpea M/0 trans/future ISTEA 2 �A, As revOentiat & CriurCn area leveroDs 6 A ase Oak Ridge Drl1 I 3 When Dnass I is dwNODBO 7 IA Oak Ridge phase II 3 When Dhase II SS CI&N006C 6 IA Oidlots C and D 3 When OuOals C& 0 are aev000ec 9 A CR 118 - SCh(MI Blvd 10 CSAR 75 3 Deoenaent Dh ISTEA funding 9 8 CR 118 - School Blvd to CSAH 75 1.5 1993 10 IA ICSA H 75- Mead ow Oak AW t0 Hart 1 IDsDenaent on ISTEA funding 11 JA IMeaaow Oak Ave 10 CR 118 3 I When area deveio% 12 A School Blvd - From Eoo, to Eam school 1.5 1993 12 B School Blvd - From Pelican to Middle SChl 3 Phase IV of Cardinal Hills 12 C $[nodi Blvd - Remaining Fallon to 118 3 Ca'c H'!!s N Cr V 12 D School 81,013 - Fallon to State Hwy 25 3 When Schoa Blvd is construaed 12 E Cara HMIs III trails spanning DlocKs 3 When phase Vis COmpletelC 12 F Mallard Lane to School Blvd Crosalng 1.5 1993 12 G Pelican Lane to School Blvd Crossing 3 At avionim of phase N Cara Hit* 13 IA - Broadway (CSAH 75)10 71h St. 1Dependent on ISTEA funding 13 A I1111"n'tiglon Fallon Ave - Bridge Crossing 3 At reconstruction of Fallon Aw �At 13 C Fallon AW - Starling 10 Chelsea 3 reconwri.Klion of Fallon Aw 14 Al C11GIs" - CR 118 to State Hwy 25 1 S 1993 . 14 A2 ChN6ea - CR 118 t0 Slate Hwy 25 3 When Cheeses is u0cfaaed 10 urtoan eaction ! 15 A State Hwy 25 - 106 to 94 I 3 IVYhen Hwy 25 WWMed/uoGraled 16 A 7111 SI - Goll Course Road to Elm St. 3 When ou11Ut A is d"apeO 16 8 1 7th St - Elm St to Minnow, 3 Coincide etfM 7111 SI de,0eldMerH 16 C 'In St - Minnesota St to Stale Hwy 25 1 5 1993 16 D1 71h St - Stale Hwy 25 to Washington i 5 1993 16 02 7th St - Slate Hwy 25 to Washington 3 Whenrural aaC:iW 4 uD9raoof 17 JA 7th St - Washington to CR 118 3 When Hoglund DroD4nil 04tvelaoe t6 A IRNel 51 - Ellison Park to Chestnut , 1993 16 113 I�Rwar St - Chestnut to One, Cleo 3 When 01 Creek RC.s upg,6oed 19 A Otter Cri✓Rive, St - Sandy Ln t0 HiaCreM 3 1 When Ono Cleo Fc,s upg,woc 20 A River SI - HillCreel to CSAR 75 3 When Offer Cleo Rd is .09,6080 21 A H.- St - CSAH 75 to NSP Fields 1 1 PeDN10Mt on tSTEA funding 22 A Montu300- Park Nature Trail & lkne"V 2 Dependent on ISTEA funaingCo,," 23 A CSAH 75 - River St to City Limits Weel 1 Dpencam on ISTEA funaing'Cduniv 24 A CSAH 75 - River St to Jerry I.iefert N 1 DenonaMt on ISTEA tuna -9 25 A CSAH 75 - JWry Listen Di to Chestnut I Dependent on ISTEA turldrng :6 A Eim St - W CTY 3910 CSAH 75 t Dpenaent on ISTEA1un13inp 27 At Golf Course Ad - 1-94 to Eim SI 1 5 1993 27 . A2 'Golf Course Rd - 1-94 to E•m St 3 When ,.,e! sec'an 's uogr Sala 28 1 A Fifth SI - Spanning MN in, Mapie 2 Future tSTEA 10Q.W-R R i0u4M 600 NA TOTALS• IY MILES $9.000 5 W C S P S S POSSIBLE F"NCING SOURCE$ - PERCENT AND TOTAL P I L I A E N GRANT -- SGMNT E D A INSTALLATION D R A 0 TOTAL CRY ISTENOTH STATE AID MNDOT COUNTY BNFTNG PROP LNGTH E E S REQUIRED E K S. W COST Be. CC. 00. EE FF GG. D S S E F G. H. 1. 1 J. K L 'M. ' A.A. % MMT % AMT M AMT % AMT % AMT % AMT 22,55OINA NAS (NONE•. N j"P I �'. 4.800 45 11 SIGNS 2 N N am I 680E 111^°" Sa^� 4.8002 GNS S IN IN II 10�k S806 2100 30 32 III SIGNS 21Y N ICITYP 81159 I( I% 5959 2.600 INA I I OFF ROAD PATHWAY I Y INA SSA.000 20% $10 RM 851% 11,9,200 2.800 NAI I R EPAIR EXISTING Y INA &42.0(X 100% 44P164I I 5.30C .NA I OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y INA 87? 500 ?.Mb 8aS 90) !10% 569600 1 600 NA I 9FFROAD PATHWAY IY INA 1 $9.000 100% $9.0001 800 NA I OFF ROAD PATHWAY IY INA 1 $12000 100% {12.,000 40C NA I Or'ROAD PATHWAY Y NA $6.000 100% 86.0001 1,600 45 I OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y %A I Icrm &28.000 20% {5.6001 80% SM, 400 ". 600 45 II STRIPEBIGNS 2 N N 1429 '00% 5429 0% 90 1 6.200 50 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y INA $119.0001 25% 529750 75% 589150 1.300 NA I OFF ROAD PATHWAY U UNK $19 500 1 100% $19.500 600 45 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY N PROP $9.0001 35% {3.150 65% $5.850 800 45 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY N PROP $12.000 35% $4,200 65% $7,8C0 2.400 45 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY N SOHO SM. 000 35% $12.600 65% $23.400 5.200 45 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY N PROP 578.000 3;% 527.300 aS% SSU.7UC 550 NA I OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y TINA $8.250 $8.250 1.200 30 36 III SIGNS 2 Y N CRY 5202 100% &202 1.200 30 36 III SIGNS 2 Y N I 82M 1(KMk 5202 2000 30 II -S SMCEWALK'SIGNS 1 Y N 'PROP &28.336 25% 67.084 75% $21.252 oily •0 900 30 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY N CRV {13.500 25% &9.375 25% $3.375 50% $6750 3600 40 �FF ROAD PATHWAY N PREIP 1'1'7 O101A 78% fv 7!50 50% 528.500 8% $113,250 8.400 45 II SIGNS 2 N N 11 51,411 100% 81,481 8400 45 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y INA M26.0W 25% 811.500 50% $63.0870 25% 691.500 6,000 135 �IOFF ROAR PATHWAY Y NA $00,000 25M &22.500 75% $67 500 2.600 35 II -S S�STRIPE,SKMS 1 N N PROP $37,097 35% $12.984 --- I 65-1b $24,113 1.400 35 II S SOVVLKISTRIPE'SIGNS / N N PROP 819.975 35% $699, 65% 512.984 1,700 35 II -S SIGNS 2 N N Mill 84M 100% "" 3.000 35 II -S SIGNS 2 N N POOP 6604 100% 8604 3.000 35 II -S SOWLVJSTRIPE'SK.NS 1 N N PNOP 142.300 1 75% WI 725 ' 25% 610.57`. 5.000 36 ; II -S ' DWLK/STRiPE/5;GNS t N IIO PP 1 $70.500 35% &24 , 875 65% M5•8`8.� 30 1 IN Icrry 100% 30 NIGNS 2IN V I 89161 100% { s, 4.200 30 1 11-8 j/ 'STRIPE SIGNS I IN IN I 659.5731 75% 00.680 25% $14.893 3.000 30 IN S' I(iNS 2 JY N 1MOP CRY I 8600 100% 6504 1 1 1.600 30 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY 1 .V Y NA I {34,269 25% {8 567 75% 8=,102 5.250 NA I OFF ROAD PATHWAY I Y INA 1 $79.200 180M .. 8g�8'I - &15.840 6 800 45 II SIGNS 2 N N ICT" 1 $269 - 100% {269 4 000 A5 I IOFF ROAD PATHWAY v NA $73.500 25% 219_11 75% &66,125 4 400 45 1 100-F ROAD PATHWAY v NA 3101 OM 25% 825.280 75%{75.750 1 200 35 1 1OFF ROAD PATHWAY NA V N F640P i22.00C 25% N 600 ' 75% 1118.500 _-_ 3.ODO 1 46 N SIGNS 2 N N CNTY t504 - 1DD% 6504 3000 48 1 OfFROAD PATHWAY N PROP M5.000 75% 6�j7;71ff1 '•S~ {1` Z•(: 400 NA ................................................ 1 QFROAD PATHWAY F Y NA $6 pop 20% 81.200 1 bkow S'424.11 81".310 64&.314 $..192•. $67.500 818654 6307696 TRAIL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ISTEA ENHANCEMENTS FUND APPLICATION APRIL 15, 1993 S S W C S P S S POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES - PERCEN' AND TOTAL E P I L I A E N GRANT G SGh0ff E D A INSTALLATION 0 R A 0 TOTAL QTY ISTEAIOTH STATE AID YNDOT COUNTY BNFING PROP • SEO DESCRIPTION Tam LNGTH E E S REOU RED E K S. W COST as. CC. DD. EE- FF. GG, D S S A. B. Q D. E. F. Q H. L J. K L Y. AA. % MIT % AUT % AMT % AUT % AUT % AUT 0 Developed sidewalk Arid systern 0 Already Competed sidewalk sections 22,550 A NA S NONE N PROP I At CR 39 E. from Ginard to CSAR 75 1 1993 4,900 45 n SIGNS 2 N N CNTY $806 100% 15we 10 A CSAH 75-lvl=ow Oak Avo t0 Mart 1 DeveMent on ISTEA runding 6.200 50 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y NA 3119,000 25% 529.750 75% $89.250 Q 13 A Wa nington - Broat"n (CSAR 75) t0 7M St. 1 Dopewom on ISTFA funding 2.000 30 II -S SIDEWAUVSIGNS 1 Y N PROP 528,733 25% $7,084 75% 321,252 OAb i0 ' - A RMr SL - EWsor1 Park to Chestnut 1 1993 6,400 30 al SIGNS 2 Y N QTY 5535 100% r 21 A RHw SL - CSAH 75 to NSP Fields 1 DeoWem on 19IEA tubing 1,600 30 I OFF ROAD PATHWAY 1 Y Y NA 334,259 25% 38-W 75% 525.702 23 A CSAR 75 - Rnwr SL to pry Umlts Wag 1 DeDsmem on 44TEA lundingr-ounry 6.800 45 II SIGNS 2 N N CTY 3269 100% 3269 24 A CAH 75 - River St. to Jerry Uefen Or 1 Deparafem on ISTEA tunding 4,000 45 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y NA 03.800 25% $15,375 7S% 555,125 25 A CSAR 75 - Jerry LOW Or to Cnostnut 1 Dep4ndam on ISTEA funding 4,400 45 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY Y NA 9101,000 25% 323.250 75% $75.750 26 A Elm St. - W. CTY 39 to CSAR 75 1 Omwem an ISTEA Amding 1,200 35 1 OFF ROAD PATHWAY NA Y N PROP 12Z.00D 25% 35.500 75% 510,500 TOTAL EXPENSE 3J79.7te 395.064 3283,579 so to 51.075 So Council Agenda - 4/12193 19. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow the expansion of an existing clinic building in a PZM (aerformance zone mixed) zone. ADmlicanL Monticello -Bis Lake Communitv Hosnital District. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Following is the stats' report provided to the Planning Commission on this topic. For efficiency, it is submitted to Council unchanged. Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit request per alternative N1. The packet includes a hefty collection of meeting minutes relating to past hospital district development issues. Please review this history at your discretion. Not all of it relates to the land use question at hand. 28 Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 6. Public_ Hearing -:Consideration of -a conditional use permit which would allow the expansion of an existing clinic building in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Monticello-Bia Lake Communitv Hospital District. Q.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may know, the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District purchased the clinic building located directly east of the existing hospital. In conjunction with this purchase, the hospital district is proposing to almost double the size of the facility through development of a 10,000 sq ft addition. The addition will mirror the existing building in appearance and will consist of two floors. In order to expand the clinic facility as proposed in a PZI zone, the hospital district must first obtain a conditional use permit. The site plan calls for development of a driveway and parking area along the east side of the structure. The drive serves additional parking in the rear or river side of the property. The driveway configuration strives to promote the rear of the building as being the primary entrance to the facility. As you know, the existing clinic has parking in the front across Hart Boulevard. According to the City Engineer, execution of the plan is feasible; however, it will require a significant amount of grading and excavation. It is possible that the City will install a storm sewer line at this time in conjunction with development of the parking area. Staff is also exploring the feasibility of installing the line farther to the east between the Soltis and Bondhus property. AREA IMPACTS To the east of the site is residential property owned by Mrs. Kasper. Further east are properties owned by Dan McConnon and Mike Soltis. The construction of a clinic parking lot/drive area along the Kasper property line will have a significant impact on Kasper's property. It is critical that a well - constructed and well-maintained screening fence be placed along the full length of the parking lot/drive area so as to mitigate the negative impact on the Kasper property. The plan as proposed does show a screening fence; however, it does not indicate the type of fence proposed. It is suggested that the fence be constructed to meet the minimum opacity requirements as noted by ordinance. To the north of the site is the River Street right-of-way, followed by the Mississippi River. It appears that the setback from the river is far enough so as to have minimal impact on the river setting. ii n Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 To the weal of the site is the existing nursing home. the presence of the parking lot will have an effect on the view to the east from the east wing of the nursing home. It is suggested that berming or landscaping be constructed along the western boundary line of the parking lot in order to buffer the impact of the parking lot on the adjacent nursing home. PARKING LOT DESIGN Parkine Stall Reouirement The proposal calls for 71 parking spaces, which is the same number as required by ordinance. Therefore, the plan meets the minimum requirements necessary with the proposed addition. Unfortunately, the total parking requirement for the entire hospital district complex remains 45 stalls short of what is required by ordinance. Development of a 71 -stall parking lot will not serve to improve this situation. Perhaps the hospital district should be encouraged to provide additional parking at this location, which would eliminate the need to develop additional parking on the River Street side of the nursing home. As you may recall, in September 1991, the hospital district requested a conditional use permit which would have allowed development of a 45 -stall parking area directly east of the nursing home at the end of River Street. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled the matter pending input from the City Engineer on the feasibility of developing the additional parking on the east side. After further consideration, the hospital district put their request to expand River Street parking on hold. The Planning Commission, therefore, never made a formal recommendation on the request. The City Engineer has been directed to review the new clinic site plan and determine whether or not it would be feasible to develop additional parking at the clinic location designed to serve parking demand created by other hospital district uses. Obstacles to increasing clinic parking to serve other hospital district uses are as follows: Adding stalls to the plan would require an extension of the parking lot toward the river, which would further undermine the pleasant river setting in the area and would further obstruct the view of the river from the nursing home. 2. Access to other hospital district buildings from the clinic lot may not be convenient. There may be problems in allowing users of the clinic parking lot to enter the nursing home from the east 12 R Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 wing. Fntrance and exiting of the nursing hnme is designed to occur in the front of the building, which makes the clinic location for nursing home parking stalls undesirable. 3. From a legal standpoint, the City may not have any leverage to require development of additional parking to serve other hospital district uses. Technically, the City lost legal authority to direct parking location and design when the building permit for the recent clinic expansion was granted without the district first obtaining a conditional use permit. In summary, it does not seem fair to the residents on East River Street that they should experience additional traffic for the sake of preserving the river setting for the entity that is generating the additional traffic. If the hospital district wishes to expand and grow at its present site, then perhaps it should prepare overall plans that are designed to have the hospital district deal with the consequences of the expansion without impacting the residential neighborhood to the west. In addition to the clinic expansion, it is very possible that within two years a congregate housing project for seniors may be developed west of the dental clinic. Perhaps the parking stall deficit can be satisfied in conjunction with the senior housing project in a manner and design that will not impact the River Street neighborhood. ?'t ,� A 15 roo,ar. I—f f— 'r�.J.f ane 6� /et. ie of CPstc 10 i��o 1'c/ CG B. ALTERNAT ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing expansion of the clinic facility in the PZM zone subject to the following conditions: T 1. Staff review and approval of detailed landscaping plans. 1� 2. Staff review and approval of design and construction of screening �� fence. Lott � 3. Staff review and approval of grading and drainage plan. 4. Hospital district providing easements necessary to construct storm water facility along length of drive area. u /9 Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 Cunditiuneu upuu lite huspital district consideration of developing more than 71 stalls at the clinic location and/or consideration of working jointly with the City to design a long-term plan that serves the needs of the hospital district while being sensitive to nearby residential neighborhood concerns. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the site plan as prepared is consistent with the purpose of the PLM zone and that proper action has been taken to mitigate the negative impacts of this development on adjoining residential areas. The last contingency is not a requirement because it is not enforceable. However, it is added to put the district on notice that development of necessary parking at the River Street location may not be viewed favorably. It is obvious that the area will be experiencing significant intensification of use in the near and long -tens future. Given the parking stall deficiency, potential of senior housing, and presence of nearby residences, it would make sense to sit down with the hospital district to jointly outline a fairly specific plan for development of the entire area impacted by hospital district development. Such a plan would benefit the hospital district by enabling it to focus efforts on a development pattern that is likely to be approved and would spare the expense of preparing plans that might be denied. The City would benefit by being able to provide direction early in the process which could spare the need to make tough planning/political decisions later on. Motion to deny conditional use permit as requested. Under this alternative, Planning Commission is not convinced that the hospital district has adequately met the requirements of a conditional use permit in a PZM zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative N1. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of site plan; Excerpts from previous conditional use permit applications; Hospital/clinic parking needs analysis; Excerpts from agendalminutes of 1991 parking conditional use permit request. gawFed i ::..::ti:�:.:.'. •`; ss ----..:;..�i=Jeri;-=- - amom «MNa► asa carr =, iI WM «uswr • - _ � 1, A HOSPITAUCL NIC PARKING ANALYSIS Total demand before 1991 hospital addition 218 Increased demand with addition 36 Total demand 254 Current parking available 209 Deficit 45 Clinic expansion parking demand 71 Stalls proposed Deficit 71 Unchanged Planning Commission Minutes - 9/3/91 3. Public Fearinc--A conditional use recuest to allow development of a hospital parkinc lot in a PZM (oerfornance :one mixed) zone. Anolicant, Monticello -Bic Lake F:osnitai District. a _, Cna.rperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District's plans for developing an additional 45 -stall off-street parking lot. The Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District shares their parking facilities with the Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Home, the health care clinic, and the dental clinic. The total number of spaces needed by these four facilities is 218 spaces. The total number of spaces provided is 209, representing a 9 -stall shortage. With the proposed addition to the east of the hospital building, the tctal additional parking spaces needed for the first floor would be 18. When the second floor is finished, an additional 18 stalls will be required, bringing the total to 36 stalls needed for the hospital addition when fully completed. The location of the proposed new parking lot is directly south of the dental clinic and west of the service drive entrance to the Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Home. The ingress and egress of this parking lot will be off the extension of East River Street. Landscaping is a concern of adjacent residential property, and the site plan does propose a 6 -foot, 90% opaque cedar fence along the west property line. Mr. Jim Lurgwitz, a resident across the street from the proposed new parking lot, explained his concerns as follows. 1) The drainage of the storm water should be addressed to carry the water from the westerly portion of East River Street and water run-off from this parking lot directly to the river. 2) The amount of truck traffic currently using East River Street for loading and unloading at the Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Home/Hospital. With the entrance as proposed near the southwest corner of the parking lot, cars coming out of the driveway will be shining their lights right into his home. The Planning Commission should consider closing the exit near the northeast corner of the proposed parking lot and have a shared entrance/exit near the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot. Chairperson Dan McConnon closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. An item brought up by Mr. O'Neill in his presentation was the storm water which currently comes from the Oakwood Industrial Park area underneath the freeway, between the school district and the Bondhus Tool Corporation property, underneath County Road 75, along the easterly edge of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital parking lot, and then under Hart Boulevard running on John Bondhus'o property to the river. Further development of Oakwood Industrial Park and properties south of the industrial park would mean increased flow into the storm sewer. The consulting engineering firm is currently looking at other alternatives for obtaining access for this storm wator directly to the river rather than going through the ponds on tho Bcndhus Corporate Office Headquartors property. )� Planning Commission Minutes - 9/3/91 Concerns of the Planning Commission members involved looking at an alternative site for the parking lot expansion. There were concerns with the increased amount of traffic already to the nursing home, and adding an additional parking lot in this area would add additional traffic to this area, and alternatives should probably be looked at. There should be another place for a parking lot to be constructed between the medical clinic building and the Kasper property to the east. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to table the conditional use request to allow development of a hospital parking lot in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. The applicant is to work with the consulting engineer and bring to the next Planning Commission meeting an alternative proposal for the location of a new parking lot. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent. Special Planning Commission Minutes - 9/19/91 Consideration of a conditional use oer:nit which would allow l � construction of a tarkinc lot in a PZx zone. Aoolicant, Monticello -Bic Lake Hosoital District. P.=_sistsnt Administrator O'Neill reviewed the hospital district's request for the special meeting to farther update the Planning Commission members on the progress of the proposed parking lot facilities. Mr. O'Neill updated the Planning Commission members on a conversation that he had with Mr. Rick Holloway, potential developer of the Monticello Health Care Center. Mr. Holloway indicated he is still actively working on the proposed expansion to the health care center and also the possibility of acquiring the adjoining Kasper residential property to the east. Withcut acquisition of the Kasper property, it would be very difficult to develop the 135 parking spaces needed for the health care center and hospital district additions as planned. However, if the Kasper property is acquired, it is possible that creating the total number of off-street parking spaces needed for the hospital district and the health care center could be accomplished on the top part or the southerly most portion of the lot immediately east of the Kasper lot. Barb Schwientek, Administrator of the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital and Nursing Home, explained that the hospital district has gone through a lot of planning for this project in that they have scheduled no meetings or classes in the hospital or nursing home facilities to avoid further congestion to the parking situation while the hospital construction is underway. The hospital district has made provisions for their employees and the construction workers in order to accommodate their immediate needs until construction is completed on the hospital addition. Part of this parking situation is reflected by the need fur the parking lot as proposed under their conditional use permit request. Planning Commission members were still very uncomfortable with construction of a parking lot off of East Rivor Street. Some possibilities that might be considered would be using this location as a temporary parking facility until construction is completed, and the possibility that parking facilities might be created south and east of the existing Monticello Health Center. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to table the conditional use permit request which would allow construction of a parking lot in a PZM zone. Reason for tabling: Planning Commission members felt thorn should not be any additional traffic on East River Stroot if at all possible, and all options have not boon fully explored at this time. They further recommended that the hospital district look strongly into acquiring the Kasper property for dovolopment of an off-Stroot parking facility south and east of the Monticello Health Caro Center. Motion carried unanimously. 1q) Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use request to allow development of a hospital parking lot in a PZM (performance zone mixedl zone. Applicant, Monticello-Biq Lake_ Community Hospital. (J.0.) � rcu RL A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: /pp� --de�r In conjunction with theconstrsction of the addition to the existing hospital facility, the Hospital District is contemplating development of a 45 stall parking lot facility. According to the zoning ordinance, a conditional use permit must be obtained prior to development of parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling establishments provided that screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2-G, of the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it could be construed that the Hospital District is a commercial or semi- commercial enterprise and requiring a conditional use permit is consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Hospital Expansion In July, the Hospital District began construction of an addition to the east wall of the existing hospital facility. According to Hospital Administrator, Barb Schwientek, the purpose of the addition is to add space for an inhouse C.T. scanner and mammography, ultrasound, and radiology work area; laboratory area; outpatient examination and treatment area; and waiting area. This will include 3,500 square feet of remodeling on the first floor of the hospital. The construction will also include an unfinished basement and unfinished second floor area for future expansion. Parkina Needs Analvsis - Prior to Hospital Expansion According to the zoning ordinance, the combined health care related uses require 218 parking spaces. This includes 90 spaces needed for the Health Care Center, 80 spaces for the hospital, 34 spaces for the nursing home, and 14 spaces for the dental office. Presently, there are 209 parking spaces which moans the total parking currently provided is 9 stalls (or 4%) less than what would normally be required by ordinance. According to Ms. Schweintek, parking has increasingly become more of a problem and it appears that, in reality, the parking stall supply is more than 9 stalls short. It is likely that the formula used for calculating parking demand for hospitals is outdated because it is based on a high percentage of Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 patients being treated on an "in-patient" basis. In the past few years, many more patients are being treated on an outpatient basis and there is no formula in the zoning ordinance for addressing parking demands created by this emerging type of hospital use. It could be that outpatient care creates more parking demand than in-patient care. Whatever the case, according to the hospital administration, the need for additional parking space has been demonstrated even without the new addition. Attached for your review is an aerial photo that shows where the parking facilities are located and how many stalls they contain. Parkinq Needs Analysis - Hospital Expansion For the type of uses described above, it appears that the hospital expansion will create more office use than hospital bed space. Therefore the formula for calculating parking stalls associated with office space uses was used in determining the parking requirement associated with the addition. This formula, when applied to the first floor expansion, results in the need for 18 additional parking stalls. According to Ms. Schwientek, the second floor will not be utilized immediately and no additional parking demand will be created for the time being. It should be noted that this space is as large as the first floor and, someday, will create the need for an additional 18 parking stalls. At a minimum, the new parking area provided should be large enough to handle an additional 36 stalls. This would accommodate the immediate and long term parking demand created by the addition. Parkinq Lot Expansion Desiqn Review According to Ms. Schweintek, the parking lot will be used by employees only. No client use of the parking lot will be allowed. The only public use of parking in the area will continue to be that which is associated with the nursing home. Stalls created. The proposed parking lot will create 49 parking spaces which is 9 more than what is needed with the J development of the addition. The additional 9 parking stalls will help to ease the overall parking stall deficiency; however, given the present trends, parking will likely continue to be somewhat of a problem. In addition, if the basemont annex is ever developed for office use, then additional parking demand will be created that can only be handlod with development of a new parking aroa. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 Location. rhe parkiny lwL ie yr pCseu LQ bei.Cate,. +- - lr north of the existing dental clinic building and west of service drive serving the nursing home. Park'ina lot access/traffic. Access to the parking area is proposed to come through a residential area via River Street. It is estimated that the additional 45 stalls will result in 120 to 180 additional vehicle trips through the residential area. Please note that in the past some neighbors have been actively opposed to introducing additional traffic in the area. It appears that the added traffic will impact about 15 homes. Attached you will find meeting minutes describing previous testimony associated with developments completed in 1981 and 1984. It is possible that there will be some opposition to the concept of adding additional traffic to River Street. Landscaoinc. Of concern is the impact of the parking facility on the residential property to the west of the site. In response to this concern, the site plan calls for the parking lot to be set back 10 feet from the west property line. In addition, the site plan proposes installation of a 6 foot high, 901 opaque cedar fence. Tree and shrub plantings will also be installed to supplement the screening effect provided by the fence. Unfortunately, screening the view of the parking lot will also result in the view of the river being screened from the rear yard of the property located directly west of the proposed parking lot. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: A motion to approve a conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: Provide screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2-G, of the Zoning Ordinance. Use of the parking facility is limited to employees of the Hospital District. C. Development of the basement annex as office or meeting apace requires development of at least 9 new parking stalls. Motion to approvo based on the finding that: The added traffic croated by employees using the parking facility is not sufficient to result in a deprociation of adjoining R-1 (single family residential) land values. 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 The parking lot is well screened and landscapes to sufficiently protect and mitigate the negative impact of the parking lot on adjoining properties and, therefore, serves to preserve the residential character of the adjoining neighborhood. There is a demonstrated need for such use. A motion to deny conditional use permit and recommend that the parking lot facility be placed in an alternative location. Planning Commission could note the following concerns under this alternative: The adjoining land values will depreciate if additional non-residential traffic is introduced to River Street. The proposed screening and landscaping does not sufficiently protect the adjoining residential areas. The Hospital District has land area available for parking that has direct access to Hart Boulevard. Exploration of this alternative site should be pursued. As you will note, on the comprehensive site plan provided, City staff has outlined an area that could possibly be used for development of a parking area in lieu of the area proposed. This area is located behind the existing health care facility and east of the nursing home. According to Barb Schwientek, this area may ultimately become a parking area at such time that the hospital or health care facility expands further. This potential area for parking was not deemed desirable for development at this time because the cost is higher due to physical constraints that the site presents and because the parking convenience provided by the alternate site is not as good as the location proposed. From a land use traffic management standpoint, the alternative site would be preferable to the site under consideration because all of the traffic created by the alternative site would have immediate access to Hart Boulevard and no additional traffic would pass through a residential arse. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 STAFF HECummt:vDATION: The Hospital District is sensitive to the needs of the neighbornuad and has designed the Parking lot accardingly. The landscape plans appear to be sufficient to properly screen the parking lot from the adjoining residential areas. In addition, the Hospital District has indicated that parking will be limited to employee parking only, thereby limiting vehicle trip frequency. It appears that the additional traffic may have a nominal impact on the neighborhood. On the other hand, before development of the nursing home, this neighborhood had no "commercial" traffic. Now, even without the expansion, there are a considerable number of cars that use River Street to get to the nursing home. In addition, all hospital deliveries are made via River Street to the loading berth behind the hospital. It could be that adding additional traffic to the existing load would begin to undermine the adjoining residential property values and generally result in a diminishment of the ability of residents to enjoy their property for residential uses. No firm recommendation is made regarding this decision. If Planning Commission is convinced that the added parking and associated traffic will not create a problem for the neighborhood, then alternative one should be selected. If, on the other hand, the Planning Commission is concerned that a problem may be created, it makes sense to require that the Hospital District further explore the possibility of using an alternative site to handle the growing parking demand. SUPPORTING DATA: Health care complex site plan; Aerial photo; Excerpts of minutes from previous meetings; vicinity map; Parking lot site plan. S . . . . . . . . . . AW ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AW P!anni¢g Ca�ission Mia�-9 6 2'_/80 11. Consideration of Rezoning and Conditiocal Use for a P -noosed Medical Clinic cast of the Moncicello-Big Lake Hosoital. The Mocticello-3ig Lake Hospital, on behalf of the developer of a proposed new cli_ic, made an application for rezoning of Lots 1 6 13, and the West 33' of Lac 2 of Block 22, Lover Monticello, and the east half of Oak Street lying beejeen Blocks 22 a 23, from R-1 to R-3. Is addition to the rezoning request, an application was also made for a conditional use for a medical clinic. This rezoning would then make the present R -B zoning adjacent to the cospi:al large enough to acca=odate this proposed medical clinic. This recuest at this time is only for a conditional use for the proposed medical clinic and the necessary rezoning, and does not include any request for an extension of River Street to serve the parking lot proposed to the North of the new medical clinic building. At this time, the developer of the medical clinic is looking at the feasibility of entering the parking lot proposed to the north of the medical clinic facility diraetly from Hart Blvd. If this is not feasible, the developer may, at some time in the future, approach the City for an extension of River Street; however, it is not part of the request that River Street be extended at the rise of this consideration. Previously, the City received correspondence from the neigh- bors in the Ellison Park area expressing their concerns with the possible extension of River Street to aceommadate a parking lot to the rear of the medical clinic. Or. Kasper, a property owner in the area, expressed come concern with the rezoning portion of the request. Dr. Kasper is not opposed to the medical clinic, but did express opposition to the poaoibility of any retail establish- ment which could be built in conjunction with the medical clinic. For 6 -temple, a pharmacy. A motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhua was unanimoun in its approval to recommend the rezoning and conditional use requests provided that the parking lot at this time not be allowed to open onto any extended River Street until such time as a hearing might be held on that subject, and that the concerned neighbors in the Ellison Park area have an opportunity to speak their concerns. Council Minutes - 9/22/80 '. o....l+.- Heirin- r.,n the Petnn4n, and C,rdir'onal L'se __r a c-orosed Medical Clinic East of the Mcnt-cello-Sic take Comunit, Hoscital. Monticello -3i9 Lake Community P.ospital requested rezoning of Lots 1 a 13, and the ',Nest 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lower Monticello, and the East Half Of Cak Street Lying between Blocks 22 6 23, Lower Monticello, from R-1 to R-3. In addition to the rezon Lzg request, the Hospital has also made an application for a conditional use for a proposed medical clinic. It was noted that previous'' -7 the City Of Monticello has received corres- pondence from neighbors in the Ellison Park area expressing concerns with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot to the re= of the proposed medical clinic. Presently, the rezoning request and the conditional use request for the Clinic does not propose to use River Street extended to meet their parking lot, but rather to have parking lot traffic enter and exit onto Hart Boulevard. The daveloper of the Clinic has indicated that if, for some reason, Hart Boulevard cannot be used for entering the parking lot, they may, in the future, approach the City for possible extension of River Street to the rear of their parking lot. Mr. John Bondhus, area resident near the Hospital, expressed concern about the water drainage problem that now exists in the area that presently drains through his property, causing large flows through his existing trout ponds. Mr. Bondhus was concerned that if the drainage through his property is increased because of future development within the City, future story aewor outlets would have to be provided to allow for the Increased runoff and suggested that the City consider keeping a small area along the vacated Oak Street for a drainage/utility purposes. Mr. Sondhus noted that, although the Clinic requested the easements be eliminated to allow for the development of the Clinic, he suggested that a amall area on the cast aide of the property be retained for possible future utilities. Consulting Engineer, John Badalich, indicated that if drainage beeame a problem, holding ponds could be constructed between Hart Blvd. and County Road 73, which would help alloviate any exconsive flows at one time, and also, if otorn newer outloto are needed to the River, the aroa at the cow3r plant could be used for the underground storm newer rather than through Oak Street. In ragardo to the conditional use permit, the Planning Commigsion, at their loot meeting, rocatmandod approval of both the rezoninq and the conditional uao permit for the Clinic provided the developers provide acc000 to the proposod parking lot from Hart Blvd., rather than opening up and extending River Street. Motion wag made by Dan Blonigon, socondod by Phil White and unanimously carried to rezone roto 1 6 13 and tho Went 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, tower Monticello, and the East Half of Oak Stroat lying between Blocks 22 and 23, from R-1 to R -B, and also, approvo the inauanca of a conditional use portait for the proposed medical clinic contingent upon the proposed parking let uuLzg Hart Boulevard an an accoao and exit point. (Sao Zoning Ordinance Amendment 9/22/80 086). /1 Planning CJatnlssion Kiauces - 4/14/81 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Reouest (Re - Hearing) for Medical Facilities Comoanv. On September 22, 1980, a public hearing on the rezoning and conditional use for ■ proposed medical clinic east of the Monticello -Big Lake Caemunity Hospital was held. Monticello -Big Lake Conmenity Hospital had requested rezoning of Lots 16 13, and the Vest 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lower Monti- cello, and the east half of Oak Street lying betveem Block 22 and 23, Lower :;.; at icalla, f-.- ?-1 to R -B. In addition to their rezoning request, the Hospital had also made an application for a conditional use for a proposed medical clinic. At that meeting, it had been noted that previously, the City of Monticello had received correspondence from people living in the area of Ellison Park, expressing concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot at the rear of the proposed medical clinic. At that time, the rezoning request and conditional use for the clinic did not propose to have River Street extended to meet the parking lot, but rather it was designed to have the parking lot traffic enter and exit onto Hart Blvd. At that time, the developer of the Clinic indicated that, if for some reason, Hart Boulevard could not be used exclusively as the entrance and exit point to the parking lot, that they may approach the City for the possible extension of River Street to the rear of the parking lot. Barb Schwientak, Executive Director of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, was present and indicated it is new the developers intention to extend River Street to allow access to the parking lot, thus the rehearing was necessary. Mrs. Irvin Eallin, a resident of the area, presented a letter to the Planning Commission, and outlined some of her concerns. They were as follows: A. A potential of increased traffic flow which will increase the traffic danger to the children. B. A potential of furthor increased traffic if the parking lot is used by Hospital customers rather than just employees as originally proposed. C. A potential of lowering the asset value of their property as they now, have a quiet, low -traffic area and this could possibly change. D. It could provide an idos, new remote area for additional problems to occur at night, including drug useage. E. It could crate a great location for drag racing. Further, a petition van prosentod by several of the neighbors in the area, which basically outlined the same concerns as the letter presented by Mrs. lallin. Fred Topel objected if access were going to be used to bring the ambulance into the Hospital on River Street. Bud Jansen objected to increased traffic In the a oa. Fred Topol was contarned as to who would pay the cost of the acaeacmanto for the extension of River Street (this cost would be borne by the abutting property ownaro, who in thin case, in entirely the Hospital District). Lovell Severson questionned whether or not a years delay could be Instituted before opening up liver Street to see if it van rally necessary. Barb Schwientak pointed out that not passing on this issue would jeopardize the proposed clinic. A motion was mado by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martie to recosmend opening River Street with batter police protection in that area to be provided. All voted is favor. Council Minutes - 4127/81 6. Consideration of Amendment Of Conditional 'Use Perini: on Paz king Lot Access -Medical Facilities Ccmoanv. Medical Facilities Company, developers of the proposed medical clinic east of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, requested that their Con- ditional Use permit be amended to allow access to their proposed ;.er;.ing int oi: of River SLreut aL the rear of the proposed clonic. Previously, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the development of the clinic with the provision that the access to the parking lot on sight wuld be off of Hut Boulevard. This provision was inserted as a result of in -put from neighbors in the Ellison Park area along River Street, who expressed concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate the parking lot at the rear of the propeed medical clinic. Since that time, the developers of the clinic have indicated that the proposed grade from the lover parking lot to Hart Boulevard may on occasions he difficult to maneuver and as a result the ambulance may have to use River Street if weather conditions are unfavorable. In addition, the developer has indicated that if the clinic is expanded in the future and additional parking space is needed for patients, the lover perking lot would be used and as ■ result should have an alternate route other than Hart Boulevard. Barb Schwientek, Hospital Administrator, indicated that the intent of opening River Street would be for emergency use only by ambulance .hen necessary and also for employees to use the rear parkins lot, but that in the future, patients may also use the lover parking lot as the clinic expands and requires more parking apace. Concerns were expressed by neighbors along River Street in the Ellison Park area Choc any extension of River Street to the medical clinic would result in increased traffic and safety problems. Mr. Irvin Rollin, property owner near Ellison Park along River Street, asked that the city prepare some type of plan that would control traffic and onfety problems in the area such as lover speed limits, mote frequent police patrols, etc. Mr. Tom McKee, clinic developer, indicated that they would be willing to work with the city and residencon as much as po— ible to control any problems that could arise by the extension o: River Street, by increasing lighting in their parking lot it necessary, along with possibly closing off their parking lot at a certain time each evening, if necensary. After consideration of the testimony, action was made by Pair, seconded by Maus, and asked to be carried to adopt a resolution ordering the city engineer to prepare a foosibility report on the extension of River Street to the proposed medical clinic with the report also to include any aovar line repairs, if necessary. (Sea Resolution 1981-16) to addition, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by fair, to approve amending the Conditional Use Permit for the Medical facilities Company allowing access from River Street to the proposed parking lot with a 2 year time limit at which time the situation would be revioved to see if problems have arisen. Voting in favor was Moue, Pair, Crimsmo, and Blonigon. opposed: White. Mocion was also made by White, seconded by Pair, and unanimously carried to have the City Administrator study and work on a plAn for providing safety and traffic regulations, etc. for the River Street are* near Ellison Park such as spud limit signs, increased patroliog; services, etc. , Planning Commission Agenda -t'111/141834 ). Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Nursing Home in a R -B Zone - Apolicant, Monticello-Biq Lake Community Hospital Dis- trict. (G.A.) A. RE?ERENCE AND BACXGROUND: As the bond issue has passed for allowing the new nursing home to be built, the nursing home project is only allowed as a conditional use in a R -B zone. The nursing home will be located behind the existing Monticello -Big Lake Hospital with the building extending to the rear of the property on the 20 ft. into the right-of-way of the platted River Street. No sewer relocation will be necessary at this time to allow for the construction of the new nursing home. B. ALTERNATPJE ACTIONSi I. Approve a conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONt The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. The nursing home ie compatible with the existing property surrounding it and will blend in quite well. D. SUPPORTING DATA: . A copy of the location of the propooed site plan of the new Monticello - Big Lake Nursing Home. 7 .l h Pi Conditional Use Req�a-tet to alloy • nursing home in an L -B Zone. Monticello -Big Lake immunity hoapita_ ��.. P'_an.-ilag Coaiasica Minutes - 11/14/84 ' 3. P, -tic 3earinj - A Conditional Use Recuest to Ail low a Nursing He=e in an R-8 Zone - Acclicant, Monticello-H:g Lake Co.i ty Hcs:_tal D:st=iCt. Har- Schwientak, Hospital Administrator, was present to show the proposed location of the new MonticeL`o-big Lake No_siaq He=e to be built direct -'y in beck of the existing Mcnt_cero-Big Lake Hcapital. Ms. Schwientak indicated to Cz— asica me=bers the bu'-ldiZg would be a i -level building with the lower most level to mat=h up with the ex-stl:ng Lover level of the hospital. Acting charas, Richard Carlson , opened the public hearing fcr public input. Mr. Robert Jameson questioned as to how close t`.e now proposed nursing home woutld be from the high water mark of the Mississippi River. Ms. Schwientak Indicated to Mr. Jameson that soil bcriaga had been taken and that the closest point of the proposed nursing home to be built would be approxi=ately 7-d feet above the existing elevation of where it is at, thus necessitating additional fill to be hauled in. The sol- boringa were taken from the existing soil, and water was found to be 7 feet below the surface at that point. Commission memhar, W1 --lam Fair, questioned Zoning Adniiintrator Andaraoa if the street vacation had anythilq to do with the prop000d conditional use ea prasented. Zoning Adminiat.-ator Andoraon indicated to Cccisaion members that the stroet vacation vas acted an by the Manticallo City Council at their Tuesday, November 13, meeting, and a motion was made by the Cir/ Council to not grant the street vacation at chis time but inat-ucted Consulting Engineer, John Badalich, and public Wor:ta Dl:oc tcr, John S --cla, and Ci:/ Administrator, Thcoaa Eidem, to work with the Adaimistratian and Board of the Mcrticsl-o-Big Laka Hospital to establish aomo sort of width for the right-of-way of River St=set. The main concern of the City was to protect our intercaptor sower line which rano directly in tho tontor of the plattod River Street. Motion by Ed Schaffor, seconded by William Fair, to approve t.`.o conditional uno roqueot to a.' -'ow a nursing home in an R-8 Zana. Motion carried unanimcunly. Council Miautes - 11/26/84y rs ...... .... . .... .................... 10. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow a Nursing Hcc:e in an R-3 Zone - aoolicant, Monticello -Sig Lake Cammnit7 Hospital District. The Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District requested a conditional use permit to be allowed to start construction of their new nursing home to be located on the north side of I the present hospital. Mot -,ca was made by Blonigen, seconded by Mawrall, and anaaimously carried to approve the conditional use permit for a nursing hc, in an R -B Zone by the Monticello -Big Laks Cc—,nity Hospital District. C� 1 •� � I ! Ia•� S~ � l i��i. r.«. rlw• I = 1 1 1 1 PARKINU LOT 4040 APPURIFNANT WORK I I ( ; I I,..• MONIICFLLO-RIOLAKS COMMUMtY IIOSPITAI r•• I M1N1TICUIC3, MWM990IA V;, M a� _ _ .. - =.:-arm<..'s•..� s .,►.� � � r ',,, ��i %•.. /' .�.�—�—� �•�_ "G -Z= �__ .i°.'!.=moi :.•� �.i :�. \�i A. �� •� fir„ .9 \ �V��4a ��, � ��A=��Q � Q�r..q �,� - i ,/ � /�� ,� �'�'•.. Ackilo /� sr flew Ajo/ •� � + �.• � i • '.'rte/�� g +�,'F Sf• I 'R2 - -` o�ax April 5, 1993 xb van vnm Caen 5775' 4.Y a BMAI a Minrwa ,MNS541bo-122e n12-505.5775 i apo-; 55-s;' s Mr. Jeff O'Neill FAX V54774 Egnern City of Monticello ",M�n P. O. Box 1147 S—Yon Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Re: Monticello/Big Lake Health Care Expansion OSM Project No. 174891 Dear W. O'Neill: We have reviewed the preHmionry layout of the parking facilities for the Health Care Center expansion and offer the following comments: 1) The submittal should include existing street elevations for Hart Boulevard and should show the location of the existing parking lot entrance on the south side of Han Boulevard. 2) Install the driveway envance perpendicular to Han Boulevard. 3) Install a standard curb driveway section for the entrance from Han Boulevard. 4) The grading is shown to be outside of the property line. A temporary easement should be prepared or the grading should be revised accordingly. 5) The concrete swale will not be allowed as proposed on the plan. Storm sewer will need to be utilized between the parking lou and may be necessary for the entire project depending the City's decision regarding the Han Boulevard storm sewer System. 6) Stairs may be required between the north parking lot and the proposed expansion due to tl a excessively steep slopes. 7) Erosion control should be shown on the plan as necessary. 8) The 753 grades between parking lots should be examined and possibly lowered to a maximum of 6%. 9) Include all design parameters regarding sitework with future submittals. Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello April 5, 1993 Page 2 Please give me a all if you have any questions regarding this letter. I will prepare a more formal review upon receipt of the construction plans and specifications. Sincerely, ORRSCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES. INC Bret A Wein, P.E. City Engineer Gary Anderson, City of Monticello John Simol4 City of Monticello Council Agenda - 4/12/93 20. Update on second stage digester inspection at the wastewater treatment plant and consideration of authorization toremove the steel cover. W.S.I A. REFERENCE AND 13ACKGROUND At the previous meeting, Kelsie McQuire, PSG's manager of the City's wastewater treatment plant, reported that they were in the process of doing some piping repair work to the second stage digester at the wastewater treatment plant and that during this process, some odors could be noted in and around the plant. The City's plant has two digesters --one, a primary digester with a fixed cover, and a second with a floating cover. Both of these digesters are approximately 40 ft in diameter and the covers are made of steel. We also have a 65 -ft diameter sludge storage tank which allows us to store approximately 6 months worth of sludge so that we can apply sludge to land on a twice -a -year basis rather than on a daily or weekly basis. Covers on the digester and sludge storage tank create a seal so that methane gas and odors do not escape into the atmosphere. The floating covers allow the level of sludge in the second stage digester and the sludge storage tank to he changed without losing the gas seal and allow storage of methane gas. Gas is recovered for use in heating and for producing air for the process at the wastewater treatment plant. After the second surge digester was completely emptied, PSG performed a high-pressure washing of the interior of the tank and the roof in order to do their own inspection of piping that needed repair and the cover itself PSG hired n subcontractor to inspect the digester cover after it was noted a significant amount of rust and corrosion was present. This contractor, Harold 'Theisen from Gridor Construction, informed us that the cover was in poor condition. The coal tar epoxy coating on the cover and supporting structure which was not continually submerged in sludge was in extremely poor condition. Some pieces of steel had already fallen onto the floor of the digester tank, and other pieces of structural 1 -beam came off when touched. The concrete tank portion of the digesters and sludge holding tank were designed by OSM and built by the Paul A. Lawrence Company. The steel covers for the three tanks were specified by OSM but designed by n company called Atara, Inc., a subcontractor to the Paul A. Lawrence Company. Atara has since gone out of business. The covers themselves resemble an upside down coffee cup or coffee can. The exterior skin is built out of 1/4 -inch plate steel. The interior, however, consists of many 1 -beams and structural supports holding the units together. With this particular design of cover, all of these supports are exposed to the corrosive 29 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 atmosphere, which can be found inside a digester. Some covers of this type include a false ceiling under the inner structural steel to protect it from the corrosive environment of the digesters. Ours do not have this feature. In order to protect the concrete tanks and the covers from corrosion, a 3 -coat system of coal tar epoxy was applied to the interior of the tanks and both the interior and exterior of the covers. In order for this coating system to work well, the steel has to be properly prepared to a near -white sandblast finish, and each nook and cranny of the structure has to receive the proper thickness of coal tar epoxy. With the amount of structural steel and supports inside this tank, even if the Paul A. Lawrence Company's painting subcontractor, George Colby Company, did an excellent job, we would expect after 10 years to have to go in and do some minor repairs and touchup of the coal tar epoxy. We were surprised to find a complete failure of the coating system and the massive amounts of corrosion inside this tank cover. It is possible that we have similar problems inside the first stage digester and the sludge storage tank cover. If the massive corrosion involves all three tank covers and the tank covers are not repairable, we could be looking at total replacement cost that could exceed half a million dollars. How could this dilemma have been avoided? Since hindsight is always 20/20, it is easy to look back and see what we could have done to avoid this situation. First, we could have specified a different type of design of cover which would have been less prone to corrosion. For example, one with an additional ceiling in it to protect the inner structure, or a cover could have been designed with larger individual beams which would be less prone to corrosion and would have less surface area than all of the intricate support structures on the existing covers. More than likely, this alternate type of design would have been more costly at the beginning but appears that it may have saved thousands of dollars for us over the life, of the plant. Secondly, we could have had a more vigorous inspection of the steel preparation and coal tar epoxy coating system used on the inside of the cover to ensure that we had the absolute best protection for the steel that was to be exposed to the corrosive environment in the digesters. The standard type of inspection provided during the wastewater treatment plant construction was more than adequate for most phuses of construction, but the inspector probably did not look over every square inch of the inside of the cover atter sandblasting nor during the application of the coal tar epoxy. Had the coating system not failed, we would have found ourselves at a point in time when the covers would only need minor refurbishment and recoating of the coal tar epoxy. This is the information I received from Harold Theisen of Gridor Construction, who has been working in and around digester covers, both new ones and repairing old ones, for the past 30 years. He indicates a 10 -year cycle for minor refurbishment of digester covers is typical. 30 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 Lastly, we could have inspected the covers on a more regular basis. PSG was in the second stage digester to clean it out in the fall of 1988. At that time, no problems were noted wide the cover. Looking back, it may have been better to take the digesters out of service every three or four years and have a thorough inspection performed. Regardless of how we got to where we are today, we need to look at the future. It is highly unlikely that we will demolish and relocate these digesters to another site on the wastewater treatment plant, even if we expand the wastewater treatment plant. We either need to repair the covers using the existing design, or replace the covers utilizing a new design which would be less prone to problems associated with the corrosion of the inner structure. At this time, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to salvage the second stage digester cover. Due to the need for major refurbishment, it is unlikely that any major cover manufacturer would be willing to perform this reconstruction, and it would probably he more costly to do so. If we were to refurbish the tank, it would be in our best interest to get the tank removed as soon as possible and have it sitting on the ground because a refurbishment of this magnitude cannot take place in the tank, especially when we may need to utilize the tank for holding digested sludge on a temporary hasis. If the cover is going to be replaced, it may be more economical to have the contractor building the new cover remove the old one. There is not sufficient room at the wastewater treatment plant site to allow much flexibility during the removal of the old cover and then instillation of the new one. Should we decide to remove the cover and try to have it repaired, the first stop of removal is estimated to cost us approximately $7,400. Special rigging would be involved to assure that the cover does not collapse and fall into the tank during removal and cause more damage than already exists. have discussed our possible options with OSAI, specifically, Jon Peterson of their wastewater department, and Bill %erfas of their structural department. They are of the opinion that the tank cover should be replaced and that it would not be practical to repair it. Jon Peterson will he available at the Council meeting, and a copy of his letter regarding our options is enclosed for your review. I have also included a copy of the letter from Harold Theisen of Gridor Construction and quotes for removing thecover at this time, along with some drawings provided by the original designer of the covers, Atara, Inc., to show you the complexity of the inner structure in the tank cover. 31 Council Agenda - 4/12193 B. ALTERNATIVE: ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative would be to go on the premise that the cover can be repaired and hire a contractor to remove the cover and place it on the ground near the wastewater treatment plant entrance so that the City can bid out the refurbishing work and use the existing tank on an interim basis. 2. The second alternative would be to make the determination that the cover cannot he repaired feasibly or economically and to draw plans and specifications for advertisement for bids for replacing the cover. Since OSM did not physically design the cover but did specify it, we would have to determine their exact role in the replacement of the cover for digester #2 its well as refurbishment or replacement for the first stage digester cover and the sludge storage tank cover. 3. The third alternative would be to do nothing at this time. This does not appear to he applicable, as the design of the wastewater treatment plant depends upon anaerobic digestion of sludge, that is, the digestion of sludge without air to produce a pathogen -reduced sludge and to generate methane gas for use in heating and aeration at the wastewater treatment plant. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: One would like to think that the existing cover can be repaired as long as a significant portion of it is in good condition. Harold Theisen of Cridor Construction indicates that the outer shell, that is the skim., and the reinforcing beams on the skirt are in good condition. Without a total redesign of the cover, however, we may not have anything better than we originally had; and the possibility of getting it good solid protective coating on the cover inside and out in reality may be difficult to achieve. It may he hest to hite the bullet at this time and replace the second stage digester cover and plan a thorough inspection of the first stage digester and sludge storage tank holding covers at the earliest possible time. This may not he, however, until the second stage digester is back in operation. As Public Works Director, 1 would like to have prices on repairs prior to replacement, so lean toward alternative #1 first prior to alternative 112. U. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter from Cridor Construction; Copy of letter from OSM; Copy of drawing submittals from At.ara for the second stage digester cover; Copy of photograph of the second stage digester cover being lilted into place in the spring of 1982 by the Paul A. Lawrence Company. 32 GRIDOR CONSTR., INC. 1816 MIKSNIR11 LANE P. 0. BOK 11216 PLYMOUTH, MO NMTA 53111 611.3547771 March 29, 1993 John Simola City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55363 RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Simola: We thank you for having an interest in Gridor Constr., Inc. to do your potential repair work at the wastewater treatment plant. I will issue this report and make a recommendation to the owner to the best of my ability. On March 9, 1 met with Kelsie McGuire and yourself to inspect the digesters and to determine the reason why no methane gas was being produced. rly recommendation was to empty and clean digester for an inspection. i On March 29, 1 made a visual inspection of the inside of the digester and have the following comments I The manways have deteriorated and have corrosion holes Recommended the center gas drawoff dome cover be removed for further inspection. 2. The 8" sampling wells seem to be in good condition. 3. The structural beams that support the concrete ballast seem to be in good condition. 4. All parts of the skirt, including the rollers below the normal high water level were In good condition. 5 The pipe in the tank need some additional supports 6. The main trusses that support the dome have deteriorated to the extent that I would recommend that the tank only be used to hold sludge, do not allow the cover to float or attempt to hold gas, as your methane could escape to the atmosphere and cause a fire or explosion. 7. We recommend that no smoking signs be placed near your digesters. ECUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 8. It also appears that the concrete structure was built for a floating cover with a different supporting system. As I observed four or five concrete corbels that carry no load from the cover, but some additional concrete supports were added to make up for the corbels not used. Gridoes recommendation would be to employ the services of a structural engineer from a firm that designs and engineers wastewater treatment plants for a second evaluation of the digester's floating cover deterioration. Gridor's recommendation would be to lower all the concrete ballast to the floor, then remove the cover and place on cribbing for a complete inspection and repair. After repairs are made to the cover, a complete sandblast and coal tar epoxy application be made to complete the cover. Feel free to call on Gridor Constr., Inc. for any further assistance with your water or wastewater treatment systems. Sincerely, GRIDOR CONSTR., INC. Harold Theisen President cc: Kelsie McGuire HT:bpt 1 have researched the cost of replacing the anaerobic digester covers at the wastewater treatment facility. The City of Monticello wastewater treatment plant utilizes three tanks for treatment of sludge. The first stage digester is a 40 foot diameter tank with a rued digester cover 39.5 feet in diameter. The second stage digester is a 40 foot diameter tank, with a 39 foot diameter gas holder floating cover. The sludge storage tank is a 65 foot diameter tank, with a 64 foot diameter gas holder Floating cover. On March 29, 1993, Bill Zerfas of our office and myself viewed the cover on the secondary stage digester. The interior support structure of this cover appeared to be seriously corroded. We did not view the interior of the covers on the first stage digester or the sludge storage tank structure. Failure of the second stage digester cover is a definite possibility, which may cause leakage of gas from the digester. Due to the potential hazards involved, and the degree of corrosion evident in the structure of the second stage digester, it is recommended that the second stage digester cover be replaced. In addition, is anticipated that the sludge storage tank gas holder cover may also be seriously damaged by corrosion. At this point, 1 have researched two options for the replacement of the two gas holder covers, but have not researched the cost of replacement of the fixed digester cover. The first option is to install a steel gas holder floating cover. Gas holder covers are available in either scum submergence or non -scum submergence arrangements. The scum submergence designation implies that the gas holder has a ceiling plate attached to the lower chord of the trusses. This ceiling plate forms a buoyant chamber which allows the gas holder to float directly on the liquid surface at zero gas storage. Since this arrangement floats directly upon the liquid surface, it has the ability to submerge scum and floating solids at zero gas storage, thus explaining the name 'scum 0DOL�" . Inc Y70 ParA Plait enter April 8, 1993 5775 Wayzata Boulevard ,1linneapults AIN 55710 122M oI?-5955775 1.800.753-5;75 FAX 5U5.5; i 4 Mr. John Simola Engineers Archnen5 Public Works Director Planners 5<,rvr)nrs City of Monticello P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Anaerobic Digester Covers at Wastewater Treatment Plant Dear John, 1 have researched the cost of replacing the anaerobic digester covers at the wastewater treatment facility. The City of Monticello wastewater treatment plant utilizes three tanks for treatment of sludge. The first stage digester is a 40 foot diameter tank with a rued digester cover 39.5 feet in diameter. The second stage digester is a 40 foot diameter tank, with a 39 foot diameter gas holder floating cover. The sludge storage tank is a 65 foot diameter tank, with a 64 foot diameter gas holder Floating cover. On March 29, 1993, Bill Zerfas of our office and myself viewed the cover on the secondary stage digester. The interior support structure of this cover appeared to be seriously corroded. We did not view the interior of the covers on the first stage digester or the sludge storage tank structure. Failure of the second stage digester cover is a definite possibility, which may cause leakage of gas from the digester. Due to the potential hazards involved, and the degree of corrosion evident in the structure of the second stage digester, it is recommended that the second stage digester cover be replaced. In addition, is anticipated that the sludge storage tank gas holder cover may also be seriously damaged by corrosion. At this point, 1 have researched two options for the replacement of the two gas holder covers, but have not researched the cost of replacement of the fixed digester cover. The first option is to install a steel gas holder floating cover. Gas holder covers are available in either scum submergence or non -scum submergence arrangements. The scum submergence designation implies that the gas holder has a ceiling plate attached to the lower chord of the trusses. This ceiling plate forms a buoyant chamber which allows the gas holder to float directly on the liquid surface at zero gas storage. Since this arrangement floats directly upon the liquid surface, it has the ability to submerge scum and floating solids at zero gas storage, thus explaining the name 'scum Mr. John Simola April 8, 1993 Page 2 submergence' Under normal operation, a gas holder spends very little time at the zero gas storage position. Gas can be released periodically to submerge a blanket build-up if desired. The ceiling plate also protects the structural members (trusses) from the digester contents. The trusses are totally enclosed within the attic space and therefore, are not exposed to the corrosive environment of the moist digester gas. This enclosed attic space also provides excellent protection for insulation. The insulation, normally in the form of light weight concrete, is placed over the ceiling plate, where it is protected from both the digester contents and ambient conditions. The non -scum submergence design has no steel ceiling plate and has a steel roof plate. Rather than resting directly upon the liquid surface at zero gas storage, a layer of gas is always trapped beneath the roof to prevent the holder from sinking. The trapped gas, which cannot escape because of the location of the gas dome, maintains a minimum freeboard between the roof and the liquid level in the annular space. Since the non -scum submergence has no ceiling plate, it does not submerge scum or floating solids under any condition. Also, the trusses (the main structural members) are exposed to the digester contents. The existing floating gas holder covers are of the non -scum submergence design. In order to protect a new cover from the corrosive atmosphere which has damaged the existing cover, a scum -submergence type cover is recommended for replacement of the existing cover. I have prepared cost estimates for the furnishing and installation of floating covers for the 40 foot and 65 foot diameter tanks. 40 ft Floating Gas Holder Cover 5180,000.00 65 ft Floating Gas Holder Cover 5350,000.00 These costs are based on equipment costs provided by Envirex Inc. and installation costs provided by Harold Theisen at Gridor Construction. The second option 1 investigated is the installation of a flexible membrane type cover. This type of cover can be easily retrofitted to existing digesters. The flexible membrane cover has a two membrane system. The outer membrane fabric, exposed to air only, is used throughout the world in architectural structures and other heavy duty application, and is similar to the material used at the Metrodome. It has high tear and tensile strength, high puncture resistance, and long life in all kinds of either conditions. The fabric is available in colors that blend with or enhance nearly any form of architecture. 0 Mr. John Simola April 8. 1993 Page 3 The inner membrane fabric, exposed to gas and the internal digester environment, 6 used as a liner or cover for wastewater and sludge lagoons, solar ponds, anaerobic lagoons; and for containment structure holding acids or other highly corrosive, hazardous or dangerous materials. The fabric has very high oil, chemical and temperature resistance in addition to high strength and puncture resistance. Methane gas is drawn from the gas storage chamber. A small blower supplies air the air chamber, expanding it so it displaces the methane gas. The maximum volume of the usable gas is the same as the volume of the air chamber, since that is the volume that can be displaced. As gas is added, an adjustable pressure relief valve equalizes the pressure in the two chambers by venting the air chamber, allowing the gas membrane to rise. A structure supports the gas wells and walkway used to reach the gas well. This structure may be an external open lattice dome, an external bridge or arch, or an internal anter pier. The fabricated center gas well is suspended from but not anchored to the structure. In turn, it supports the membranes and the components used to seal them Estimated installed costs for this type of cover are as follows: 40 It Cover $265,000.00 65 ft Cover $410,000.00 The time schedule for installation of a new cover or covers is estimated as follows: Preparation of Plats and Specs 3 - 6 weeks Bidding of Project 2 - 4 weeks Shop Drawings 6 - 8 weeks Delivery of Equipment 16 - 18 weeks Installation of Equipment 2 - 4 weeks Titus, based on these time requirements, a new cover could be installed in approximately eight months. Due to the need to replace this cover as soon as possible in order to use the second stage digesters, this project could be expedited through direct negotiation with the manufacturers. In order to assure that a top quality cover is installed, it is recommended that the cover be supplied by one of the major digester cover suppliers. Potential cover suppliers G Mr. John Simola April 8, 1993 Page 4 include Envirex, Eimco, Carter and Walker. Assessment of each of these suppliers digester cover design would be conducted during preparation of plans and specifications. Salvage of any of the existing cover does not seem feasible. Much of the truss work has been corroded, and the uncertainty of how much of the cover will be worth salvaging makes it hard to estimate a salvage cost. 1 intend to attend the April 12 council meeting to discuss this issue. I will bring the photographs which I took of the inside of the digester to show council members the degree of corrosion which the second stage digester has experienced If you have any questions, please call me at 595-5607. Sincerely, ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC Jon D. Peterson, P.E. Project Manager lme Na aw view ........,..... i'r. ,M.aaf �r� rr:se -m •1. /•OOtiG40 MWM[f�T� ff4+ M.a+.assr i OD r. w tz --- r •1. /•OOtiG40 MWM[f�T� ff4+ M.a+.assr i OD M I y 1 � , Y I 1 �wrr�Q I tat, a7)O.l+Q 1r1.� r= 1r� I r � r3Ti�rZ��• .wT��..r I �L IM• a? Opp �� .rI �. .r �'1: r•T i 11.x/ sr/ +rwl.W Iy srs-K-ll •� !!o tr `v j � raw I � \ 1N '.r�+w��.�� _ I^+•I t a s'r.••1eo awul •ice CJI f ,r,9;c�I i•.,.•..;�j I � � � - sal «-.... ��w --^'. rte• a• 1es1 � . � : �r =. _ � � ='' ..— I...a[, 11„ ��'�✓� ..�•us ee e� v1� P w y1r r� _ � � �«�►:!L_ I _ � _,� y �s�•w. 130 f Ys +sd o's• r.r.,. ��0. ��e Y wee+. �w�f` sr r r ,I i Selling 40 O' Ois tlneling slaw) mg—to, gas rnvar Tnnrmrnt 'I his tanbhpnrvuI . rum pleb• yrebmnary treatment wtlh num m n r grit remmal and dewatering. bar scorn, par.hnll numr meaaurrmenl wnh all Ihr n .wry hypua ralunlr In March of I9MI Prvgert Manager I iull- Knul.in started r—uifing a work big .I, —11-1.1, .6 prr..iou.ly rorlicd on PAIA'11 l -q -1s In 1'hshdm. Interna tn.nal Fall.. and St Paul. as well a. Kral re -Jeri. Ily Sr•ptrmla•r At. Ilwl wr had pmn•A 1Mraw nl Ihr 9Y711 ruhic yard• mrlud rd in the roatrart Phillip \c hnrod•r. Pip Ing Sulwrnlendrnt, is keeling his vrrw buav during the winter and haws to have the nupwdn ul the piping and mrrhamrsl wink doiu• hs July al Phu. urar Ihinng 1h• height of the ronslnirhon as,it—nist were hire unatr m haung the aA &-cial help of lour rMunal..r. Irian IN Main Office Their duo r• included Beeper Ing m'trle Ieal., rstnating nmrfrl r. rr twd keeping a well as running numer n . rrrand Th- in turn were given Ow olgawlundi to learn first hand ahnul Brie ng and 1—ring concrete. piping. n 24 lwditng. c.airdmalion with sutwonlrar tuws, and a multuud• ut nit—Olanriius in Inrmati- ahnut the field olrratwn Ed Ilurley, Tien I4•rg, I'arnl I—envrn and Sam I/vrud rash slwnl N weeks with u. like hyw they acquired r•aprrirnre and kno."ll, that Ihry wdl Iw able In apply to their work in the future Mr Gerald 1'omrk of Orr Srhelrn Mayernn, .•nitincers 4w this propwi, say. 'TAIA'U. the 1'ny Puhlir Works A Ill.— On.. stall. the gnvrrnmrnlal agencies 14'.wps of Kngmrrrs. MITA. and EPAI and I ISM all have displayed it Reno— interest and racell—I r.aywnUim .n this p6q—l. cid Phi% m.rt certainly is the prime rem—n Ihr p-p,l is on schedule, within hudgel. and ha. pnM(reswA.—Ahly' �rF` n-� •��3 n;: .i_fyi P1111_LI(I I [,nn[nn r.< vr+ r=:te,a1t54G-1771 FAX: (8121846-1787 TRUCK CRAI4E675 COLORADO AVE. SU., Gl7LOEN ,ALLEY, MN 85418 SERVICE April 9, 1997 Mr. John Simol8 Monticello Public Works 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245 re: REMOVAL OF BIDING COVER ON DIGESTER TANK Dear John: In response to your requout rat, a quotation on the above project, we are pleased to submit the following pricing: Our lump aura price to cut whore necessary to install rigglnq, attach tho rigginy and remove the cover uning our Amerloan '1150, 125 tun truck crane, place the cover on the ground on your blocking and roturn all oquipment to Our GOldUh Vslloy yard inclusive: 87,400 TOTAL We approcinte this opportunity to quo Lu (iii your project and offer our services. should you have any quontions or require further information, ploane do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, TRUCK ORRNE eERVICB COMPANY Mike vion Oporations Managar MV/J& oao Council Agenda - 4/12.193 21. Consideration of non -encroachment agreement with the Federal Hiehwav Administration for the reconstruction of eastbound Countv Road 75. O.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Wright County is proposing to use federal funds for a portion of the reconstruction of eastbound County Road 75. Prior to release of funds, the Federal Highway Administration requires that the City and County sign non - encroachment agreement regarding the use of signs, setting of speed limits, and parking restrictions on that section of highway improved using federal funds. Generally speaking, no signs will he permitted on the right-of-way other than those erected in conformance with the Uniform Traffic Manual of the State of Minnesota. In addition, the City will not allow posters, billboards, roadside stands, or private signs on the right-of-way. Additionally, that we will not lower the speed limit below 30 mph on this stretch of highway. I have been informed by Tony Kempenich from MN/DOT that if a traffic study indicated the speed should he lowered that it would prevail over the agreement. The last requirement of the agreement is that the City prohibit all types of parking except parallel parking on that portion of the highway financed with federal funds. A copy of the proposed agreement is enclosed for your review. 11. AI.TERNA'I'IVF. ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to enter into the agreement with the Federal Highway Administration as proposed. L' N 2. The second alternative is to ask for varinnces from certain portions of l;C ? the agreement. 3. The third alternative is not to enter into the agreement. C. STAFF RPCOMNIENI)ATION: It is the recommendation of the 1'uhlic Works Director that the City enter into the enclosed agreement as outlined in alternative Ml. 1). SUI'1'0R7'ING DATA: Copy of the letter from Wright County and the agreement from the Federal Highway Administration. 33 �� JNTY WRIGHT COUNTY vp 2 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS WAY Hsh—y E.g,.- 'PF: �.>a" T Z Wright County Public Works Building DAVID K. MONTEBELLO. P m Route No. I Box 97-B Auin�ot H 27397 Ennn..e Bu/falx, Minnesota 55313 6e2Ise� 6RICHARD Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 E MARQUETTE R,sha ofW.y Agent % Telephone (612) 682.7383 662.7386 7866 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: k % f -,/ DATE: 31z91Q3 ay 1147 u IA, .55362- RF:iiwt�7 G.i4 ---q, We are forwarding herewith the following: o. of Copies Description Sheet Numbers Dates Remarks:Oke et�i,4,AA 75- Sinceroly, PC: 714 Equal Opponansty / Affv, tj,, Art— Employ,, Mn/DOT 30721 (12-79) AGREE!lFNT BETWEEN MUNICIPALITY AND COUNTY FOR FEDERAL -AID HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made by the City of . Minnesota, hereinafter called the "Municipality" with the County of hereinafter, called the "County", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the United States Government, through the Federal Highway Administration of the U. S. Department of Transportation does apportion Fed- eral funds for the construction, reconstruction and improvement of highway projects on approved systema of public roads, and WHEREAS, said approved systems within the limits of a Municipality are now or may be eligible for the participation of these Federal funds in their improvement or construction, and ' WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration as a condition to the use of Federal funds on approved Federal -Aid projects requires the agreement of the Municipality to control road signs, traffic control devices, adver- tising signs, miscellaneous installations, speed and parting. NOW, THEREFORE, THE Municipality in consideration of the expendi- ture and use of Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction or im- provement of any Federal -Aid Street or Highway within the limits of the Municipality agrees with the County as follows: (1) No signs, traffic control devices or other protective de- vices shall be erected on any Fadoral-Aid project within the Municipality limits except as shall conform with the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways of the State of Minnesota. (2) All right-of-way within the limits of the Municipality on any Federal -Aid project shall be hold and maintained inviolate as a public - 1Q-0 highway and no posters, billboards, roadside stands, curb pumps, curb ser- vice devices or other private installations other than utilities of public interest, And no glens, ether than traffic control or protective devices shall be permitted within the right-of-way limits of the projects. The Municipality will with respect to such items as are within its jurisdiction which may be or cause an obstruction or interfere with the free flow of traffic or which may be or cause a hazard to traffic or which may vitiate the usefulness of the project shall remove or cause removal of the same at the request of either the County or the Federal Highway Administrator. (3) The speed limits on any Federal -Aid project shall be not less than 30 miles per hour. (4) ?he Municipality shall by ordinance and continued enforce- ment prohibit all types of parking except parallel parking on any project financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. The City agrees that the State may enforce the provision by an action for specific performance, mandamus, or other appropriate remedy and by withholding any funds due the Municipality in possession of the State. Doted this day of , 19 CITY OF Accepted for and on behalf of the BY Mayor COUNTY OF This _ day of 19 BY City Clark BY Chairman APPROVAL OF MMESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ATTEST: BY Date State Aid Engineer 2- At a duly authorised meeting of the City of , County of , State of Minnesota, the following resol- utiOL L_,. and adorn-d. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of as a condition of the receipt by the County of of Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction or improvement of any State Aid Highway within the City enter into an agreement with the County, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof:. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Clerk be and they hereby are authorised to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City. CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City of , County of , State of Minn- esota, at a duly authorized meeting thereof held in the City of , Minnesota on the day of , 19 an disclosed by the records of said City on file and of record in the office. (SEAL) Clerk Council Agenda - 4/12/93 22. Consideration of advertising for bids for paint striuine services. (J.S. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City staff has had a request to look into the possibility of contracting our paint striping for crosswalks, curbs, and parking lots. Advantages to contracting out these services would be that the work could be done in a tighter time frame. Currently, the City uses only one full-time employee for this work, and we do not start the striping until well after spring cleanup, and the striping is generally not completed until July. By contracting this service, we could hold a contractor to a completion date of, say, June 1 or June 15. In addition to an earlier completion date, it would free up one pickup that is usually used during the striping service and allow the employee to perform other duties. The drawback, of course, is that we will have higher costs and more supervisory or management time keeping an eye on the contractor. Currently, our only out-of-pocket expenses are the salaries paid to the single full-time employee, the maintenance and operational cost on the striper, the operational cost on a pickup, and the cost of the paint. We currently use a high quality, fast -drying chlorinated polyolefin traffic marking paint for the white, and a alkyd base traffic marking paint for the yellow. Last year we put down 120 gallons of white and 30 gallons of yellow. Total cost of our striping was under $5,000. It is conceivable that costs could double by contracting out this service, but we would really not know unless we did request bids. B. ALTERNATIVE: ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to advertise for bids for striping utilizing the quality of paint the City currently uses with a completion date of June 15. 2. The second alternative would be to bid out only the street and curb markings, with the City continuing to do the parking lot striping. 3. The third alternative would he to continue doing the striping with our own forces as we currently are. 0 ,,a j�-\ trdinti C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council authorize advertisement for bids for all of our striping as outlined in alternative 4I. After receipt of the bids, we could weigh the increase in cost against the benefits of freeing up a vehicle and an individual for other public works related duties. 1). SUM"I(TING DATA: Copy of the specs for the traffic marking paint; List of areas to be painted. 34 CIL" 11 %:491- I'`enterLine Inpustrieis, INC. Cenle EARL F. ANDERSEN 8 ASSOC. INC • 9808 JAMES CIRCLE 7e, EARL F. ANOE EN 8 A930C., lHl h BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431-2978 98o8 Ji C6iit ,LE ' Er OLOOMINGTN 584,11-2erej! e�r��x00)) e/e MNFW.d% I r:0 t7 FA sit pa078 PAXbrat Chlorinated Polyolefin TRAFFIC MARKING FAINT PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: A lest drying, durable, all purpose traffic mark" paint formulated fm both ambient and heeled appheatwn. f wmuleled for use In or with drop -on Olms b.mis. Best results my nbtained when spray applied. Product meets the perla- manee mqukemmts of Federal Spec TiP•IISE, Type III and '1-11%)15F, Type 11. Available In white, ye Dow and Fed from cock In 5 9e11on Path. Drum quantities on ap#ctal ceder. PRODUCT ADVANTAGES: Eseemely, durable. easy to apply, with excellent tafMance to wide. aNd. ad and water. Very low des pick up In puking bit. Excellent blood wentfon when plan beads mr requited. Good resistance to abeastpn and eltlppMg. RECOMMENDED FOR: Pamtmy tender Ines, lens line., Ispends, crosswalks and parking tot stripes on both aphdl and connate. New asphall and .ww and coats require special prlocaunnne to pmont bleeding. COVERAG[B: 920 feat of 4' eetpe C 15 mih, 400 feat of 4' stripe qP 12 mils, 480 feet Fit 4' ships 0 10 mile. DRYING TIMES: 15 mih at emblent temperature tide, to no pickup In 10 minuum. When heating to larnpaatw# braween 100eF and IAO�F, dry to no pickup can he redwod to 3 minutes Dry to nn pickup Is the time required low no tracking. For eanplab dry" and tmum dM retention, lots should be cbwd to 1-flic lot two how. If., painting. TECHNICAL DATA DIRECTIONS FOR USE: MI. thoroughly bolero ud.aa Fawmumad to be applied as pac"d. Dust to the wide atetaty d equip none, dmning may be nereawy tf needed, use I oiuenlo ur MEK and nn mowo than one 11) quart Per 6 Dan" of paint. Usualy spray pun easd mscht., ad)uunwnt. my .,day a8s01ve than odNntng the patni 110 not use gasoline, ow n"ho. They we new eenlparMe. SUIRFACE PREPARATIONS: Ah surfaces should be dry, swept clean, free of vel, giesse, willllaele and otho luelplr morn below# pelnlbry. Avuki Pending at night when possible New aq.har needs 30 days aping CAUTIONS Pirtow T FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY NUT INTLNDW OR SUIFARLF. FOR USE IN OR AROUND A HUUSF.HUL11 UH UVIELLING 00 NOT TRANSFER CONIENTS TO UNLABELED CONTAINIER5 YLLLOW PAINT CONIAINS LEAD INsed Idm .J W. kuaw nrav I.• I—dul II ..ren ur chewed. WARM11011 I'I_AMMARI.r... VAPOR HARMFUL MAY IUNIIC LXI\y51Vt.LY. Keep away IForn heat. spaks, and upon It." du" use. Cess Huse Wt albn of rye,, .kw ...d rviphourry nett. Contains VMSP Naphtha, mlothVirlhyl ketone and lolpene. SEE OTHER CAUTIONS UN MSUS. � Whfsa Yellow Red White Yallner Ned PereeIErd Va'hkIs ISohdd by Walghu 22 S 20S 210 Pmcenl Solids by Weight. 700 71.2 71.0 1,—.m. e.ym.nl by W.Ighr 47 5 EWIA 50.0 Pucenl Sold, by Volumes 49.0 496 50.2 Pan:_l Solve., W Wught 300 28.8 290 Noll#ctance 94 54 N/A Vbccrsuy Ag colors: 70.10leu Hiding Power AN —lows: Complete 0 16 -[Is Weight Pas Hallen 11.65 1207 11 'M R.rdnrtinn AN colon• Tat." m MEN Pluh Pans All culaF. 25'P 1CC Clean-up Solvent: AI colas: Toluene DIRECTIONS FOR USE: MI. thoroughly bolero ud.aa Fawmumad to be applied as pac"d. Dust to the wide atetaty d equip none, dmning may be nereawy tf needed, use I oiuenlo ur MEK and nn mowo than one 11) quart Per 6 Dan" of paint. Usualy spray pun easd mscht., ad)uunwnt. my .,day a8s01ve than odNntng the patni 110 not use gasoline, ow n"ho. They we new eenlparMe. SUIRFACE PREPARATIONS: Ah surfaces should be dry, swept clean, free of vel, giesse, willllaele and otho luelplr morn below# pelnlbry. Avuki Pending at night when possible New aq.har needs 30 days aping CAUTIONS Pirtow T FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY NUT INTLNDW OR SUIFARLF. FOR USE IN OR AROUND A HUUSF.HUL11 UH UVIELLING 00 NOT TRANSFER CONIENTS TO UNLABELED CONTAINIER5 YLLLOW PAINT CONIAINS LEAD INsed Idm .J W. kuaw nrav I.• I—dul II ..ren ur chewed. WARM11011 I'I_AMMARI.r... VAPOR HARMFUL MAY IUNIIC LXI\y51Vt.LY. Keep away IForn heat. spaks, and upon It." du" use. Cess Huse Wt albn of rye,, .kw ...d rviphourry nett. Contains VMSP Naphtha, mlothVirlhyl ketone and lolpene. SEE OTHER CAUTIONS UN MSUS. � ,l,' I I v7 (h:: 44 WE r-onterl. iiia ftontorLins E ARL F. ANDERSEN 6 ASSOC, INC FAnL F. ANOEnSEN 8 ASSOC,, INC \� 91300 JAMES G)FAUE V. 9AOR JAMI'S CIRCLE ULWMINGION, MN 55431-2916 , I BLOUMINKZMN, MN 5543114978 46 121 Ne•-rw0 41 ,A)( (612) Wil 5ht9 ?I, MN WA75 a-BOO�O7-Npl�a 'T...: r MN WATS 1 Ouu."we-tWO I Alkyd Base TRAFFIC MARKING PAINT PIRODUCT DESCRIPTION: A Au,.hlr. %I w lu ,..•deun Arytnq, general purpur hiller mar�lrp paint " bosh aphax old Tonne.. .ur1.r.. rrvmhlatld lo. u.1 pl.m o, wxh drop un yl.a. he.da Product N d..lyned In, appltralx•n4 wh— haRlr can M rontndl.A n. a...Ilowd Mer,' r.d.,.l Sp•HlK n 7IP05T. Av Viii .n whdr, yvllo wd and Mer,, h.. 0—k n1 5 ydhm poll; L),un• quardlll.• nn .penal rndrr PRODUCT ADVANTAGES: 1—y.1 d,v nmea glvl e.rvllrm .dhe.lnn .n wMh.m Ea.11y apI IwA, rn.y tv gway.d, Mwhrd or n.IMd Cl.- ip with m� -1-- Gwuhne m.y h. -d for rk.ning 1..r 111..1 gl... hvM Adhtfalnn nECOMMENDED FOR: P.,I..nq lot. Elul ran M th,wd Io, 1 hnu, etre, palmWg Ahpntl mtphmge, lanl Illy and Idyl It,,., Not ........... a Wd I., unvawalxl nr uw on new a.ph.h r•rrllrnt he rwh. and leg -1, COVEf1AGES::120 lerl of 4' .u.p. ® 15 mils. 400 feet d 4' .htpr 11 JZ mill, MIM) Iv.t 01 4I' •h%. C 10 colla URVING TIMES: 1S udh al .mbvnl ,rmprtNury Litt— to nn p,rhup m 25 minub• It.elu g to 1511'1 Ndw.. no pkhup w IS ....r• of k•• I,.y i..... pnhnt. 1. d.. Ism. lrgourd IM no mklog rut romp..,• dtVmg and dut'lmum dirt IvtvMlon, haw should be ad Io ha11r I.. 1— lu,.n .he, p.Iotlny TECHNICAL DATA DIRECTIONS FOR USE: MI. tt.unlglhty tw1n1. u•1„y r1,,n.da11A m w .Igd„a .. I'Mr.y..l I l,y In the Md...wry .11 *gulp .•.1 A.,�,.��ny ��... I. .........,, 0 1 d d a.e nnv nl Vv me mm l.d —dun •.m ...ben.. and rto .Tire then on• 11) yuan p•• 5 gabnr .a paintdihI With sitep .01. nR It— unnl dip SURrACC PREPARATIONS. AM w,t.u• lih Id r d". '—pt rwan N.. nl .0 V ••w. tinuhvlrl and -he, 10 •Nn m.0. h.fm. p.......I A-1.1 Iyum.,y .1 uyb. w1v1, 1-11t -le Dl, 1— n.. ren new ..pluh CAUTIONS PIIOM)l'T rOR rROPE1110NA1 IIA) 0141 Y NOT I ITENOtO OR 1411MRI F. FOR 1,11 IN Of AR(R)NO A N(A)SI fit 1111, 1)4. Uwll I IN(. tX) NOT 1RAH%FFR CONTENTS TO IINI AML FU (i )N I AIAI R'. Yrl-LOW ►AIN) CONTAINS LEAH a". Z-1 m.y I. 71 .1.Nen "' rh•w. l WARN(1 MI1 IF LAMMARIPOR .E VA14ARMI Ill MAY It.NI II IXliI I X..p .. • •y 1...... 1...1, ".A. .—I .grin A....• .-'q uw C... 1.W.e n.MNh+n .d 1W ..L.....1 .r1.Y.hwY er1 ('nm Nen VM&I' N•pluha 1nl,llywlhYl h•1'.r1 end ,NWM IFF OTNlR 1'A01IONS ON M%I IS W►m V.IL� n•1 01Nh WI.IN 'fen" RM Oa4 r::::_, V.I..6 IL.Y.bI ly W.qh. I. 2 l0 7 led 1. h runnl '.)1W$ hV W..ynl /0 3 15 1 713 744 r'. M w..q len I 5. 1 Y I 0 57 M P.,1 1 S Ad• by V A.mv 52 7 52 J 47 5 52A %_:.' rv,.u. 5uwau I, w.4.1 N 1 N l 2N 7 25 h Refllr....1 M 641 N.'A N/A Vlaw.. AN .A.. 70 OO It. IlMlnq Ptww AN collin Coelp'15 nlxl W.v" Imo. Ii.i..,i IS 11. l: 10 11 IA 1168 F.d'Klron �.1.•1n1 AN .ell VM%P 7111- inhvr.l AIrN. r1..h I I AN ,A.. 0eww 2S'I ll( (I.- up 5olw,. AN coh.a VI4hp ml/raral Arlm., paeru .•,.y M ....t L. r4•.a.y DIRECTIONS FOR USE: MI. tt.unlglhty tw1n1. u•1„y r1,,n.da11A m w .Igd„a .. I'Mr.y..l I l,y In the Md...wry .11 *gulp .•.1 A.,�,.��ny ��... I. .........,, 0 1 d d a.e nnv nl Vv me mm l.d —dun •.m ...ben.. and rto .Tire then on• 11) yuan p•• 5 gabnr .a paintdihI With sitep .01. nR It— unnl dip SURrACC PREPARATIONS. AM w,t.u• lih Id r d". '—pt rwan N.. nl .0 V ••w. tinuhvlrl and -he, 10 •Nn m.0. h.fm. p.......I A-1.1 Iyum.,y .1 uyb. w1v1, 1-11t -le Dl, 1— n.. ren new ..pluh CAUTIONS PIIOM)l'T rOR rROPE1110NA1 IIA) 0141 Y NOT I ITENOtO OR 1411MRI F. FOR 1,11 IN Of AR(R)NO A N(A)SI fit 1111, 1)4. Uwll I IN(. tX) NOT 1RAH%FFR CONTENTS TO IINI AML FU (i )N I AIAI R'. Yrl-LOW ►AIN) CONTAINS LEAH a". Z-1 m.y I. 71 .1.Nen "' rh•w. l WARN(1 MI1 IF LAMMARIPOR .E VA14ARMI Ill MAY It.NI II IXliI I X..p .. • •y 1...... 1...1, ".A. .—I .grin A....• .-'q uw C... 1.W.e n.MNh+n .d 1W ..L.....1 .r1.Y.hwY er1 ('nm Nen VM&I' N•pluha 1nl,llywlhYl h•1'.r1 end ,NWM IFF OTNlR 1'A01IONS ON M%I IS CITY OF MONTICELLO PAINT STRIPING CROSSWALKS 1. Block Crosswalks: Intersection Eagle Cir & 39W Willow & 75W Chestnut & 75W Elm & 3rd Locust & Broadway Locust & Broadway Walnut & Broadway Walnut & Broadway Hart Blvd (clinic) Hart Blvd (hosp) Hart Blvd & 75E Dayton & 75E Washington & 75E Cedar & 75E Cedar & 75E Pine & 3rd Pine & 3rd Walnut & 3rd Walnut & 3rd Maple & 4th Walnut & 4th Walnut & 4th Pine & 4th Pine & 4th Pine & 6th Pine & 6th Pine & 5th Walnut & 5th Walnut & 6th Minnesota & 6th 7th (Kmart) Walnut & 7th Walnut & 7th Pine & 7th Pine & 7th Washington & R/R 2. Stripes: Elm & 75 Hennepin 8c 75 Vine & 75 Ramsey & 75 Minnesota & 75 Wright & 75 Maple & 75 New & 75 Linn & 75 Palm & 76 11. PARKING LOTS: City Hall East Bridge Park Ellison Park Commuter parking lot Hi -Way Liquor Sr. Citizen Center- enterzoo zooMain lot by Flickers 4th Street Park Lot behind Johnsons Ill. YEI.I.OW CUIM: halm & 3rd Pine & 75 Linn & 75 Hart Blvd & 75 Post Office Dayton & 75 Pump & Munch New & 75 Locust & 75 Palm & 75 Walnut & 75 Cedar & 75 IV. MISC. PAINTING: Parking lines (CSAR 75) Center islands Catch basin arrows 'burn arrows 7th St. Handicap zones with blue paint WR on Walnut STR 1 PI NG. LIS: 4/9/93 D Council Agenda - 4/12/93 Consideration of medif:cation of recvclin_ elan ns it aertains to reevcline at apartments. US.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the September 28 regular Council meeting of 1992, City Council and staff' discussed the problems with recycling at apartments. Most of the problems noted at apartments were due to the mixing of garbage with the recyclables, the mixing of various recyclables, and the amount of recyclables found in the dumpst.ers. During that previous meeting, many of the Council members were very adamant that the apartments should have full participation due to the number and volume of recyclables there. It was decided, however, that they would give notice to improve the conditions or the City would be increasing the minimum standards, or have the City withdraw from providing garbage to the apartments at no charge. Over the past five months, little improvement has been made at many of the apartments. A great deal of the apartments have contaminated recyclables that can't he picked up at. least 25%.. to 50% of the time, yet only one apartment has failed to achieve the minimum of 9 points required. The recycling committee met on Wednesday, April 7, to discuss the problem Lind possible options. It was the unanimous consensus of the committee that the Lipar-lments should ensure that their recycling materials are properly segregated and notcontaminated with garbage. This is not the City or D & K liecycling•s responsibility. 1) & K Recycling, reached (lie final straw a couple weeks ago when he contaminated it load of glass with non-recyclables from an apartment complex. lie will he hack -charging us approximately V15 for this load and asked that we take stronger measures to see that this doesn't recur. He has had problems with apartment containers fife limes this Inst quarter (please see X's on enclosed summary sheet). The recycling committee suggests that the apartments he charged for garbage service based upon an equal percentage of the number of times their recyclables ure improperly prepared or contaminated. Since there are four hasic recyclables--cans, glass, paper, and plastic --and a minimum of six 35 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 opportunities a quarter, an apartment buiHing who has their recyclables properly sorted and not contaminated will receive 24 points or 100% of the points available. They will, therefore, have I00�k of their garbage bill abated. Each time one of the roll -around bins is contaminated with non -recyclable materials or mixed recyclables or garbage and cannot he recycled without hand sorting by 1) & K Recycling, the apartment will lose a point and have to pay approximately 4.25: of their quarterly garbage bill, which we are currently charging $30 per unit per quarter. For a 24 -unit apartment, the typical garbage bill would he $720 per quarter. Of this bill, 4.2% equates to $30.24 for the quarter, which, coincidentally, is very close to the cost that D & K Recycling incurred for contaminating a bin of glass a few weeks ago. The recycling committee also discussed two additional options for apartments. The committee felt that if each tenant had their own recycling bin, it might better remind the individuals of the need to properly prepare and segregate their recycling materials. We would recommend that the apartment owners purchase a 3 -bag single bin from the City of Monticello at cost. The other option involves switching each apartment unit over to a separate accou lit using the individual 3 -hag single bin system (bins paid for 100% by apart_nent owners). By switching from 90 -gallon roll -around carts to the individual hin system at apartments, the City's recycling cost would go from $.HO perunit to $1.20 per unit per month. We would, therefore, need to reduce the palwrwork or management work at city hall to make this feasible. Therefore, if an apartment building were switched over at the option of the apartment owner, we would charge the current rate of $10 per month as we do wi th single family households and ahate the garbage bill by only those units that )Winicipated and receive 9 points for the quarter. We would not track vacancies or move -ins and move -outs but simply send the bills every quarter to the apartment owner, which they, in turn, can forward to their tenants. The hills would indicate a garbage charge and corresponding full or partial credit. The drawback for apartment owners is that an apartment that is vacant would be charged for garbage services because that apartment was not recycling. This, however, would lie no different than what the apartment owner would see if he were in the marketplace himself for garbage services. No gcvluoge hauler would reduce the garbage bill for an apartment building just lxTause they have vacancies. The upside of this for apartment owners is that they are tracking the recycling on an individual basis; and if they have to charge a specific apartment for not recycling, at least it does not affect the others in the building who are doing a goad job. 36 Council Agenda - 4/12/93 A second change requested to the overa!1 recycling pclicy regards a.. in heuse policy regarding exemptions from the recycling program for participants using our standard 3 -bin system. Exemptions are given freely to the elderly, handicapped, or other disabilities. We also grant exemptions for extended vacancies. We have, however, in the past gotten requests for lifestyle exemptions from individuals who feel their lifestyle does not generate any recyclables in the home. Often these individuals indicate they have very little or no garbage pickup also. It was the consensus of the committee that we grant a full exemption from the recycling program to anyone whose lifestyle did not produce recyclables or garbage, but we would also then stop city garbage service to that property. If the individual indicated that his lifestyle would produce less than the 9 recyclable products every 3 months but still had some recyclable products, we would reduce the number of points for that individual but still require them to he part of the recycling program when and as often as possible. R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative is to make the change in the current recycling program that the apartments shall recycle at each opportunity and that their garbage hill will be based upon the percentage of the time that their recyclables are found to be improperly prepared, mixed, or contaminated with garbage. Apartment complexes would also he offered it 3 -bag single hill system as an option. In addition, the policy would he modified to read that lifestyle exemptions would be granted where the individual homeowner produces no garbage. In turn, there would he no city garbage service available. A reduction in the number of points required for lifestyle exemptions could also be% granted in cases where there is a justifiable reason for earning fewer than 9 points in a quarter. 2. The second alternative would be to modify the points program at the apartment complexes but not require them to recycle at each opportunity. This would mean increasing the points from 9 to 18, for example. This alternative would also make the change for lifestyle exemptions as outlined in alternative 01. 3. The third alternative is to make no change in the recycling program at this lime. 37 Council Agenda - 4/12193 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the recycling committee that the Council modify the recycling program effective april 1, 1993, as outlined in alternative # 1 to include the requirement for apartments to recycle at each opportunity but give them an option to go to an individual bin system. This also includes the modification of the exemptions for lifestyle for the standard 3 -bin system participants. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the minutes from 9/28/92 regarding modifications and incentives for the recycling program; Copy of the letter sent to apartments in the fall of 1992; Copy of the apartment recycling summary for Quarter 1, 1993. 38 Council Minutes - 9/28/92 9. Consideration of modifications and incentives for the recvcline oroeram. John Simola reported that the City of Monticello's recycling program statistics have Laken a siighOy uuwnward L end and lc:cicd cff. Simola requested that Council consider making amendments to the policy in an effort to boost citizen participation. Simola also noted that the garbage haulers are seeing an increasing amount of recyclables in the garbage. He noted that one of the proposed methods for discouraging this is to have the garbage hauling service place a sticker on the garbage cans containing recyclable materials. The sticker would be bright red and would inform the home owner that they are throwing recyclables away and that they can call city hall for more information regarding the recycling program. In addition, Simola noted that the apartment complexes do not appear to have as much initiative to do a good job of recycling compared to individual residents. Simola stated that the recycling committee considered changes in the methods used to give apartments credit for recycling. It was suggested that the apartments be required to reach a higher standard of participation in the program. The committee recommended, however, to work with the apartments a few more months before considering point changes. Ken Maus noted that the City should require that apartments recycle at each opportunity. The apartment owners should be given plenty of warning that the City will be requiring full participation, and if the apartments do not participate, they will be charged for garbage service. In addition, the City should provide containers to make it easy for the apartment owner. The apartment owner then can place the tenants on notice that if the tenants do not participate in the program, the added cost suffered by the apartment owner due to nonparticipation by tenants will be translated into higher rents. It was Maus's view that this would motivate higher participation among apnrtment tenants. Maus also suggested that the City needs to increase program advertising. Publicity efforts have dropped off, and maybe it's time to start up with a program heightening awareness of the need to recycle. Maus completed his comments by noting that the proposed sticker stating "You are throwing it all away" should be changed to "You are throwing away recyclables." After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the 5 -point program for improving recycling participation, which includes an additional container for apartment buildings, dumpster decals, red stickers for single family residents, recycling exemption amendments, and separate recycling newsletters. In addition, a letter should be sent to apartment owners indicating that they should improve participation in the recycling program or face on increase in the minimum standard and the possibility of having the City withdraw the current service of providing garbage collection to apartments at no charge. Motion carried unanimously. MOMICELI ) 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 October 16, 1992 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (6 12) 333.5739 Fix: (612) 295-4404 TO: 0waers/Managers ofApart nlents Within the City of Monticello It E: City of Monticello Recycling 1'rogram and Garbage Pickup Dcnr Apartment Owner/Munnger: The Ci (y of Monticello Recycling (.ommittee and the City Council have some concerns about O the performance of the City's recycling programa this past spring mid summer. During the mouths of May through August of this year, the amount of material being recycled decreased when compitred to other years. lu addition, our waste haulers are noticing many incidents of recyclathles in the trash, especially io apartment. dumimters. Based uIxiii tike carol) in recycling, the recycling committee hus recommended and the City Council hos adopted it 5-1)oint plan to eocounlge additional recycling. A copy of Ute 5 -point plus is enclosed for your review. Several of these pniuts direel,l,v anlecl Lite apartments. There apimir to be leis direct imccutives to the residents of apartments to recycle when compared to stiogle fumily residents. ( )flea many of I.he residents du nut appear to be knowledgeable abuul Like City's program. Oflea Lite nun -recyclable malerials are being mixed in with the recyclahles. Some residellls fire throwing mirrors, light bulbs, headlights, window glass, drinking; gkisses, and C4.1-millc Idates 111 with the glass ffind and beverage cotit.ailiers. Ill lidditiors, sigoificalnt amounts of garbage are n(1en found in the recycling containers. Many times our recycling contractor finds the glass bottles hruken. In order to market glass final or lieverage con(aine'rs, Life clear glass must, be sorted from the colored glass, and this cnnuut. he done after Lite nul(eriali3 are broken. Consequealy, we will be delivering all nddiLional recycling conutincr la the np irtmentx for which the apalrtmeuts will pay one-half the cost„ or $25. Each recycling urea will Naive it container for clear glass told one fur colored glass. Consequently, if the gloss is broken buL pre -Hurled, it call still be recycled. These cmatainers will he delivered prior to November 1. 9 Apartment Owners October 16, 1992 Page 2 The City will be providing additional educational materials for residents in the apartment complexes. A new brochure designed specifically for the apartments is enclosed for your distribution. We have removed reference to Clio point system for recycling credit. In addition, all dumpsters will be tagged with a label stating that those receptacles are for non - recyclable waste only. We will also provide, for those requesting it, material preparation guides laminated in plastic to he located in the recycling area. It is important that the owners and managers make an effort W work with the residents of Clio apartments and to provide them with the necessary incentives to do a good job of recycling. The City Council has indicated that unless improvements are made, the recycling credits at apartments could change, and apartment owners could find themselves paying for a portion or all of the garbage pickup services. The City's current cost for garbage pickup at apartments is approximately $11 per unit per month. If you have any questions, or if we may be of any additional assistance, please contact us Respectfully, CITY Ole MONTICELLO John E. Simola Public Works Director .1 ES/kd H nelosures cc: Nile ..... a.... ..�,�,,.�.., ... APARTMENT RECYCLING - GTR 1 1993 2717/93 1/0693 (/20793 2/03/93 I KXNM POINTS raara POINTS c,.m.r.' POINTS R,wnxle ^A co.r,.• i EARNED R1Yer Park VIm PGCA PGCA PGCA NroadwaY Square PGC x PGOA x PGCA I Chwi PGCA PCA PGCA WmWcllo 913 PGCA PCA PGCA Wesl('ello-921 PCA PCA x PGCA Westcello 019 PCA PGCA PGCA WesK ello-917 PGCA PCA PGCA xcm t /I GCPA x x PGCA `RW K1 /2 x x PGCA ::,.r Ulan!/RsewaY 602 PGCA GCPA x PGCA R MID -iMll PGCA PCA PCA iITT Sla PGCA PGCA x PC Mmocello Manan PCA PC x PGCA I'lxlar—a PGCA x PGCA PGCA MmuliaYen PCA PCA PGCA MarY. d PCA PCA x POW rlrI.—I, PCA PA x PC lerlY e7Nn IIKu PCA PGCA PGCA % Washlnn im %q PC x PC x PGCA I.mca(n (Minn 711 x PCA x PGCA 'T'he Rlulls 714 PA x PGCA PCA x Nr III If �1aA PCA K PGCA PA % (•Ile alulls hll PCA x PGCA PCA % ikiwrRaad PGCA PCA x PGCA k filen Istel 7115 PCA PCA x PCA IGkn J,.Ml 6S CA PGCA x PCA Ii ary lamer PCA PCA x PGCA Mfl K- Mlaaw tdnlwFr emn.anan (MOOP prllaaAMOM INW40,tl) 11 P -OW aw CPA A - PWC c. tan - 10 2717/93 3/03/93 3717/93 I KXNM % PTS 7OINT5 c,.s.. POINTS c.....:' POINTS co.r,.• i EARNED AVAR. CPA 55 211 GCPA GCPA GCPA i 24 1 0 GCPA GCPA GCPA x I 23 61 GPA CPA GCPA 21 5e GCPA GCPA GCPA I 23 61 GCPA x GCPA GCPA 22 GCPA GCPA GCPA 23 61 GCPA CPA CP 20 31 GPA CPA CPA x 13 41 GPA x CPA CPA 13 541 CPA x PA x GCPA '+ 17 711 GCPA GCPA GCPA x 22 921 CPA GCP i 16 671 CPA x CP x GCPA 11 751 GCPA GCPA GCPA IN 1001 CPA x CPA x CPA x 11 v GCPA CPA x CPA x - 10 931 GCPA PA CPA "_ 11 171 GCPA x x OCP I= 11 761 CPA CPA x CPA x 17 711 OCA CPA GCPA 17 71; GCPA P x OCP K 17 7V GCPA CP x GCPA -_ 11 - 7M GCPA CP x PA 11 75. OCP x GCPA x GCPA n or GPA CPA CPA x 11 75' GPA CPA CPA 19 75. GCPA CPA % CPA 10 am Pals1aml AP1 YM11 Am Council Agenda - 4/12193 24. Consideration of Arbor Dav Proclamation and observance for Fridav, ADAI30.1993. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Last year, as part of our grant requirement, the City of Monticello Council declared April 24, 1992, as Arbor Day. A small celebration and ceremony was held in Ellison Park and a tree was planted. The City of Monticello has met the requirements for the "Tree City U.S.A. Program." The City met the requirements for 1992 by having an organized tree board or department, a community tree ordinance, and a tree or forestry program which is supported by at least $2 per capita. By proclaiming an Arbor Day observance, the City fulfills all of its requirements for the Tree City U.S.A. Program. We all know the benefits of planting trees for shade and beauty for the next generation. I would like the City to again consider proclaiming April 30,1993, as Arbor Day and again hold a small tree planting ceremony in one of our parks. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. The first alternative is to proclaim Friday, April 30, 1993, as Arbor Day and observe it by having a small tree planting ceremony in one of the parks. 2. The second alternative is not to proclaim Arbor Day for 1993. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council proclaim Arbor Day observance as outlined in alternative 111. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proclamation. 39 PROCLAMATION W11 I{ItL:A 3, h1 i nnesota's forc.L Lreusures were a significtuiL attraction Lo early seLLlers Iiecause of their usefulness and the beautiful environment they provided; and WHEREAS, Lrees are an increasingly vital resource in Minnesota today, enriching our lives by purifying air and water, helping conserve soil and energy, creating jobs through a large forest products industry, serving as recreational settings, providing Imbitat for wildlife of all kinds, and malting our cities more liveable; and WHEREAS, human activities such as construction damage and pollution, as well as disease and insects, threaten our trees, creating the need for concerted action to ensure the future of urban and rural forests in our state, country, and world; and WHEREAS, each year on the last Friday in April --Arbor Day --the people of Minnesota pay special attention to the wonderful treasure that our trees represent and dedicate themselves Lo Lite continued health of our state's stock of trees; NOW, 'I'HEUFORF., 1, Ken Maus, Mayor of the City of Monticello, do hereby proclaim April 311, 1493, to he and the munch of May 1113 to he ARBOR MONTH in Monticello, Minnesota. Further, I urge Jill cil.izrvis Jr') become more aware of the importance of trees to their well heing, to participate in tree planting programs that will ensure a green Minnesota in decades to come, and to plant, nurture, protect, and wisely use Minnesota's great treasure of Lrees. IN WI'I'NFSS WHEREON, I have hereunto set. my [land and caused the Seal of the City of Monticello to he affixed this twelfth day of April in the year of our IA)rd One 'Thousand Nine Ilundred and Ninety-three. Mayor Council Agenda - 4/12./93 ss. Consideration of Building Safetv Week Proclamation. 4/12/98 to 4/16/93. (G.A. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: See attached proclamation. 40 MONTICELLO BUILDING SAFETY WEEK PROCLAMATION From the inception of this nation, it has been the responsibility of the states and their local governments to adopt legislation and enforce laws and ordinances whenever necessary to protect their citizens' health, welfare, and safety. It has been a fundamental part of the democratic principles of this nation to involve all interested and affected parties from both the public and private sectors in the formulation, adoption, and, to the fullest extent possible, in the administration of such laws and ordinances. Among the most basic of the laws and ordinances which have been so derived are those acts which assure the public's health and safety in the buildings in which people live, work, and play. To assure such safety, the State of Minnesota, working together and in conjunction with the counties and cities and townships across this state, enforces a uniform state-wide building code which has been designed and is maintained with the assistance of the building industry and the consumers. It is through the untiring efforts of state and local building officials and their cooperative relationship with the construction industry that the administration of these health and life -safety regulations is assured. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Ken Maus, Mayor of Monticello, do hereby designate the week of April 12-16, 1993, as Monticello Building Safety Week. I urge all citizens of this city to use this week to visit their local building department and to better familiarize themselves with the important safety information and services provided by these public servants. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of April, in the year of our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-three. Ken Maus, Mayor COUNCIL UPDATE April 8, 1993 Update on variance reauests from 4/6/93 Planning Commission meeting. (J.0.) Following is a copy of Planning Commission agenda supplements as an update on recent Planning Commission action on three variance requests. On each staff report I have circled the alternative selected by the Planning Commission. Please note that Planning Commission action stands approved unless anyone objects to the Planning Commission decision within 6 days of the Planning Commission meeting (4/6/93). If you disagree with action taken by the Planning Commission, please let staff know so the item can be placed on the Council agenda. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 5. Puhlic Aenring--Consideration of a variance rrnuect to allow less than the 5 -ft ¢reen area as a separation between the nronerty line and back of curb. Annlicant. Dan Olson/State Farm Insurance. (GA.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mr. Olson is proposing to develop an off-street parking lot on the site of his newly -purchased residential property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 4th Street and Walnut. Olson plans on converting the residence at this location to commercial use. This conversion is allowable at this B-4 location. To meet the minimum parking requirements, Mr. Olson is required to have 11 off-street parking spaces. On the enclosed plan you will note Mr. Olson is proposing seven 9 -ft regular parking spaces, three compact spaces, and one handicapped space. With the construction of this number of parking spaces under the design as proposed, the lot would be 1.5 ft short of the width to accommodate the above -noted size and number of parking spaces. Given the proposed use, it is not likely that the parking lot will be completely occupied at all times. Perhaps the parking lot design should be approved showing a 1 -stall deficit, with the understanding with Olson that the City can demand construction of an additional stall if off-street parking becomes a problem. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to approve a variance request to allow less than the 5 -ft green area separation between the property line and back of curb. The Planning Commission should select this alternative if it is satisfied that the request will not impair the intent of the ordinance or if the situation is significantly unique to warrant issuance of a variance. This type of variance has been granted to others. For instance, Bridge Water Telephone, Marquette Bank, and Maus Foods parking lots encroach on the 5 -ft side yard requirement. 2. Motion to deny the variance request to allow less than the 5 -ft green area separation between the property line and back of curb. In this situation, a variance might not make sense because other parking lot designs could be developed that would not require a variance. Planning Commission could take the position that the circumstances are not significantly unique to grant a variance, and that Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6193 graniing a variance in this case would reinforce a precedent. It could be argued that the developer did not explore all options to develop the parking lot and meet the minimum parking lot re///q- 3. Motion to approve a variance request to allow 1 stall less than the minimum number of parking spaces but require "proof of parking." 1 Even though the public hearing was published for the development of a parking lot within the 5 -ft green area separation between the property line and back of curb, the intent has been made with the publication of a variance for the development of this parking lot. With the nature of Mr. Olson's business, even including the upstairs rental unit, the Lr likelihood of Mr. Olson's parking lot being full at any one time is quite unlikely. With this alternative, an agreement could be struck with Olson that would require him to build an additional parking stall in the event parking becomes a problem. The decision to require the added stall d be at the discretion of the City. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow less than the number of parking spaces as required by ordinance. City staff feels the project would be best served by a reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces. This variance granted only if Olson agrees to add a stall if necessary as determined by the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the ordinance section on minimum parking spaces and setback requirements; Copy of the site plan for the variance request. Q y, i A variance request to allow I ess than the 5—ft. green area separation between the property b Kcuro line and ac or p2cliCANq; Dan Olson/State Fars Insurance ij 7)IN 11 40, Except in the case of single family and two- family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. City staff may waive this requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. r EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (#192, 7/9/90) (1) STRIPING: Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with white painted lines not less than four (4) inches wide. (m) LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranger as to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses, and public right-of-ways and be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, (G) and (H) of this ordinance. (n) SIGNS: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the eight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking loth �) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for aingle,\ two-family, and townhouses, all open off- street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than five (S) feet to any lot line. Grass, plantings, or surfacing material shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (0192, 7/9/90) (p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non- residential, off-street parking areas of fiv, (9) or more spaces shall be screened an landscaped from abutting or surrounding rosidentlal districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/26 Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 4. Public Hearing. -Consideration of a variance renuest to allow no curbing in an area of future building exuansion. a Drowsed driveway. Applicant. Jim Bevl (Custom Canopy). (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Jim Beyl, representing Custom Canopy, a proposed new industrial business which will be relocating to the Oakwood Industrial Park, is proposing to construct a driveway to the rear of his property serving as a driveway and also a parking area for the back of his building. Mr. Beyl is proposing to be allowed to install the parking and drive areas without curbing in the areas from the northwest and northeast corners of the building out along the driveway area to Fallon Avenue. Our current zoning ordinance requires hard -surfaced concrete curbing to be installed in all parking/driveway areas. The area of the proposed "no curbing" is to be for future expansion area. To be expanded it would be expanded in a northerly direction in the rear of the existing building. CB,.,LRNATIVE ACTIONS: ion to approve the variance request to allow no curbing in the area uture building expansion, a proposed driveway. ction of this alternative is consistent with previous identical uests by other industrial developments. Planning Commission uld select this alternative if it is satisfied that the variance would "impair the intent" of the ordinance. This alternative interprets the nt of the ordinance to allow limited phasing of drive area elopment. 2. Motion to deny the variance request to allow no curbing in the area of future building expansion, a proposed driveway. Planning Commission could take the position thatci=cunnstances are not significantly unique to grant a variance and that granting of the variance in this case could set a precedent. It could be argued that the building may not ever be added on to in the future and it may be just a way of getting in at the front end of the development with a leaser cost to develop. It could also be argued that not this project but other future commercial/'industrial projects could be requesting similar variances from the curbing requirement at the area where the proposed curbing to be constructed would be an area that a building addition might occur. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6193 C. STAPI' RECONEVIENDATION Staff recommends that the variance request for no curbing in an area of future building expansion be approved as presented, with the approval being subject to the City Engineer's review of the grading and drainage plan. Planning Commission may wish to consider setting a time limit on the variance. Perhaps the motion could include the requirement that the variance be renewed if expansion does not occur within five years. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan for the variance request. NO, A variance request to a7..-- APPLICANT: 9 no curbing in area of f expansion, a proposed d _ ( Jim Beyl .I.i (Custom Canopy) _ rT Nit rr t.4 ORA a rN --77 C-1 -C" U-111f4o 4944 0, OW-OWAS: Ar MIS"* '41 vitt.1clu I ---- tA LLON A MWE Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance reouest to allow construction of a roof -covered open porch within the side yard setback requirement. ADDlicant. Richard Carlson. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Carlson is proposing to he allowed to construct a roof -covered open porch within the minimum 20 -ft required side yard setback. In looking at the site plan, Mr. Carlson is proposing to be allowed to construct the roof -covered open porch up to within 19 ft of his side lot line, therefore requesting a 1 -ft variance. When the house was constructed on this lot, it was placed pretty much in the center of the lot; therefore, any future development to the west of any significant width would require a structure to be built within the side yard setback requirement. A few years ago, a similar variance request to allow construction of an open porch was granted for an older home on 4th Street; therefore, a precedent has been set with would allow a small encroachment into the setback area. In 1985, Mr. Carlson, through the public hearing process, requested a variance to allow the construction of the garage within 5 ft of the side yard setback requirement. His request was approved at that time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: --� Motion to approve the variance request to allow construction of a roof - covered open porch within the side yard setback requirement. Planning Commission should select this alternative if they are satisfied Cho,u� that this situation is significantly unique to warrant the issuance of a variance. It could be argued that n variance is appropriate because of the granting of a previous variance on 4th Street. In addition, the porch addition would encroach less into the setback requirement than the pre ousl,y-approved garage setback variance request. 2. Motion to deny the variance reques"7'Ila ow construction o£ a roof - covered open porch within the side yard setback requirement. Planning Commission could take the position that the circumstances are not significantly unique to grant a variance, and t hat granting a variance in this case could set a precedent. It could be argued that it might be difficult but possible to construct a 5 -ft wide roof -covered open porch and still be up to and within the side yard setback requirement. 15 Planning Commission Agenda • 4/6/93 C. STAFF RECONMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a roof -covered open porch to be constructed within the side yard setback requirement. The need for the variance stems from the manner in which the house was located on the lot. It's unfortunate that the house was placed about in the center of the lot and any development to the west of any significant width would require an encroachment within the side yard setback requirement. To construct a porch with a lesser width would not be too practical, as typically within porches are chairs which are placed for seating purposes and to accommodate movement within an area less than 5 ft around chairs placed on this porch would make it difficult to get the best use out of the open porch; therefore, a variance is needed in order for Carlson to enjoy full use of his property. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the ordinance section in regard to the setback requirements; Copy of the proposed site plan. A variance request to allow const �.,, . •' ruction of • roof -covered )•-.,/lo, [, 'Ty:q • /.�� -• ,! "�• opain porch within the side yard 'r• �� '•. ♦ '� \� setback requirement. �,� ;••./�' � P �/, APPLICANT: Richard Carlson H -ori' �, s r.� •,� ,,,. ,. • /; /�,� ,. � •r J No. r is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. No required open space provided around any building -- structure s?a'_1 bo iacicCed a ram of any open space required for another structure. (C) All setback distances as listed in the table below shall be measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be required minimum distances. Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard A-0 50 30 50 R-1 30 10 30 R-2 30 10 30 R-3 30 20 30 R-4 ' 30 30 30 PZR See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. PZM See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. B-1 30 13 20 B-2 30 10 20 B-3 30 10 30 B-4 0 0 0 I-1 40 30 40 I-2 50 30 50 1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent structures, excluding accessory buildings within same block, have frcnt yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except as provided in subsection (F) below. 2. In R-1, R-21 B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is e \ corner lot, the aide yard setback shall be not lees than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting the street right-of-way line. (DJ The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements: 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill, pilastor, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the liko, provided they do not project more than two (2) feet into a yard. 2. Terracos, steps, or similar features, providod they do not extend above the height of the ground floor lovol of the principal structuro or to a distanco less than two (2) foot from any lot line. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/1 NEw SI/tcc--r GIµ�E j8, I t 10 /R�TY cirE l COUNCIL UPDATE April 8, 1993 Moutiuello Nuclear Plaut E,nergenev Preuaredness Exercise. Monticello School District Evacuation. (G.A.) On the morning of Tuesday, April 27, 1993, the Monticello School District, at its four school building sites, Pinewood Elementary School, Little Mountain Elementary School, Monticello Middle School, and the Monticello High School, will be implementing their emergency preparedness plans for the evacuation of students. The Monticello School District will be notifying all residents by either oral or written communications through the students in all of the school buildings. Northern States Power will be placing an ad in the Thursday, April 15, and Thursday, April 22, editions of the Monticello Times. The intent of the publication and the notification through the School District is to make all School District residents aware of the School District exercising their emergency preparedness plan. In upcoming years, the intent of the School District is to exercise their emergency preparedness plan every year, with less and less notification of the day and time of the exercise. The School District's intent is to exercise this emergency preparedness plan at an unannounced day and time similar to fire drills. As part of the emergency preparedness plan, the School District will demonstrate having the buses summoned to each of the four school buildings, with the students then loaded onto the buses. Once they are loaded, then they will be dismissed back to their regularly scheduled classes. Northern States Power would like to extend an invitation to the City of Monticello Council members and/or City staff to tour the Monticello Nuclear Plant on any of the following days and times as listed below during the month of May. Wednesday, May 5, afternoon only Thursday, May 6, any time of the day Tuesday, May 11, any time of the day Wednesday, May 12, any time of the day Tuesday, May 18, any time of the day Wednesday, May 19, anytime of the day If anyone is interested in a tour of the Monticello Nuclear Plant, please let me know after the Council meeting on a date and time. COUNCIL UPDATE April 8, 1993 The following is an update on some new code changes and some proposed code changes which would affect new construction of single family housing in the city of Monticello. January 1. 1993. Enerev Code Chanees 1. Wind wash barrier applied over exterior sheathing at the rim floor rim joist area. 2. Air scaling of all plumbing and heating pipe, electrical and cable wire, penetrations through top and bottom wall plates. 3. Wind wash barrier applied in the insulated area between the top plate and the under side of the roof sheathing below the vent chute. 4. The maximum water volume per flush of a floar•mounted water closet shall he 1.6 gallons. 5. Either the first 8 ft of both inlet and outlet pipe from the water heater storage tank must he insulated or heat traps must be installed on both the inlet and outlet pipes with pipe insulation between the storage tank and heat traps. The following is o list of proposed building code changes to be adopted on or before the end of July 31, 1993. 1. Smoke detectors. a. Smoke detectors Lire now required within each sleeping room of a dwelling unit. These detectors in sleepingrooms are in addition to those required in other locations. 2. Basement egress window well. a. Minimum recommended window well width, 42 inches. K Window well depths exceeding 42 inches to finished grade must he provided with it ladder or steps to grade. C. Window wells must be provided drainage. 111.C1)EPT.UPD: 4/9/93 Page 1 3. Stair guard rails. a. Intermediate rail spacing so that a 4 -inch sphere cannot pass through. b. Triangular area formed by tread, riser, and guard rail so that a 6 -inch sphere cannot pass through. 4. Stair handrails. a. Handrail extension must now extend 12 inches beyond the top and bottom risers. In Minnesota, they are proposing to adopt the 1991 Uniform Building Code on or before July 31, 1993. The following is a list of proposed code changes to be adopted with upcoming public hearings to be held on. 1. Indoor air quality. a. An air exchanger system installed in each house and/or mechanical induced draft fresh air duct system in each single family dwelling. 2. Reinforcing of all residential foundation walls. Some type of vertical reinforcing will be required in each new single family dwelling to be built. 3. New cold weather masonry foundation wall requirements. New construction methods for residential foundation wall construction in cold weather. BI,GDE T.UPU: 4/9/93 Page 2 CITY Of WATYfl I -kW I MY HUa Ulw; 011ANi MENt K POfll Mr>n:n n Mar r.n. 1993 PEFOW1 S i USES -L.el 1Ne - SWYM Mahn 1Y11YW 7n13 YW PEFWS1$�YED MxYt. FED WWI, MIASOI I.Y.« T. D«. TOO.. fIFS.401At NurM« 7 Is 12 73 25 v«u,1wn 5118.70000 631.10000 M2.6M 00 6171.6MM 1631.9000o Iw 913815 $302375 92 us 26 85.67067 M.D.767 Surcn«9r woo Wslo 117560 576766 891130 cOMMENCIAt Nun.Yr 1 1 7 1 V,1uN�m 86.00000 IIIIW000 9294,5100 DO 6320,30000 811.00000 {ee. 16100 61500 92.18108 92w 16 91311 Sulcnu9.s 5700 1050 11.770 $15906 8500 NUU91wM Nu 0« 1 .1u«1tn 59.O0000 !w 810000 64 so Surrn«Dr M tNA61w7 N— 3 5 6 9 few 915 00 61 M 00 $19100 93.7 00 921600 5- —,— 11 W $2 so 6400 8700 64W 111111 ITS Num r 1 v,w«� 6u M 6o w rw $1000 slow 8oso 950 10 ft.M 1115 1, 22 n 42 % 1OTAI VAI 11A11f1/1 93" 111 L1NMI1— 6t615M W 6, (1111 511 611, "MOO TOM Al 1118 11 .e6 16 93156 36 64278 32 b .e6 le 16.3%81 1O5 AI SUI6cNANO14 09010 1191 TO 937160 mm so 932870 1}269611 301811/ ' 1!!s f)JO-MI 5(SII NAIUif N�1��tw IYrmNI burll�M)r VYu«an lnY1W MY«« M16«w1 5 I116e 06 1180 W, 0001 a 11 IIyN� 0 0 .8,1.11011111 0 0 1'rwnnYr W 0 Ir,0,16rW 0 0 ti. 01«.5 1 ICY JV 6110 11 A. M00 1 0 9D11 0 0 PuON 6f0p. 0 0 4 00.9.10• 10 W? 10 619 10 660.800 00 w 1 c lW , 11800 99 61.9000 . 2 11101191« 1 0 Pt MOM "T1tliliI 1 111600 629 0 M -"S I1.V 9rwucn>R9 9W'"^^'i PaeN 0 0 n... 0 1 119.«11113 g16M1 0 0 11l9«A11NM 0 1 TWA19 ]! $1 Ya M Pt, 10 6219299 ■ 42 CITY OF MONTICELLO INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT MMM Of MatCh. 1903 PERMIT I FEES NUMBER 1 DESCRIPTION NAME/LOCATION VALUATION PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMBING 6URCHARGE 93-1987 3-season pgrdn _TYPE AD Robert 6 Rose KnowltoN29 Farrray Dr. $4,600.00 $88.40 92.30 93-1988 House rosiding AD L.W. 6 Assocrales/1305 E. Onkr000 Dr. $2,000 00 $20.00 $1.00 I 93-1989 House A garage SF Gerald i Marlene HellmwV102 Kamp* CuMe $93.700.00 $550.03 $46.85 $25.00 $0.50 1 93-1900 House A garage rashnota AD A" Ruffl611 Elm St. $1,50000 $15.00 $0.50 1 93-1991 House reaidtnp AD David A Barbara Giuea/413 W 6th SL $8.000 00 $81.00 $3.00 1 193-1992 House A garage SF Value Plus Homes/5160 Mallard Land $55,900.00 6396.94 $27.95 $24.00 50.50 1 193-1993 House A garage SF Value Plus Homolur9071 Heron Court $53,300.00 $388,41 $26.65 623.00 S0.50 1 193-1994 IBuliding roanmple AC Fldriano A Mary BrioN103 Pine St $11500.00 $15.00 $0.50 1 193-1995 IHW W A garage SF Valero Plus Homda/5123 Martin Dr. $55,900 00 $398.94 $27.95 $23.00 $0.50 1 193-1996 IDetacndd accossory ouadrna RG Gerald A Marlene HBIhMrV I O2 Kempn Cud1e $15,800.00 $168.20 $7.90 I 193-1997 IHouse reyMng AD T1lomas Matia/106 Belboul Cudo $2.000 00 $20.00 $1.00 1 193-1998 jHouso A garage resiling AD H111"tA Diane Kan4aWI08 Hillcrma Rd. 69.000 00 $10850 $4.50 I 193-1999 IHWso A garage SF Vakro Plus Homoa/9350 CaMasback Court $62,200.00 $42246 $31.10 $2300 $050 1 193-2000 [House A garap reroof AD Alan Maus/305 Vine St. 61,500 00 $1500 $o.50 193-2001 IPMcn fmisn A seek AD Bruce 6 Karen Nomer/245 M ltuawppi Dr. $10,800.00 $124.20 95,40 193-2002 IHouse rerool AD Mary Knosena/330 E nn St. 11,500.00 $15.00 60.50 193-2003 IHouse A garage redNnp AD Rick A Lonna Wollnelun/113 Onoruook Rd. S2.00,000 620.00 $1.00 I I I TOTALS $379.200.00 $2,623,08 6168.60 $116.00 $2.501 1 1 PLAN REVIEW I 193-1989 IHMM A garage SF Gerald A Marlene HollmerV/02 Kanipg Cnelu $55.00 1 193-1992 [House A garage SF Vakm Plus Hom0a15160 Mallard Lone $39.69 I 183-1993 IHouM A going* SF Value Pius Homos/9071 Horon Court 938 64 I 193-1995 IHouse A garage 6F Valuo Pars Homoa/5123 Manm Dr, $3969 I 193-1989 IHouM 6 garage SF Valero Plus HomnsM350 Convamaa Court &42.25 I I I I I TOTAL PLAN REVIEW $215.21 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I TOTAL REVENUE 63,347.45 I I 1 1 I I j I