Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda Packet 11-13-1995
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL. Monday, November 13, 1995 - 7 p.m. Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 23, and the special meeting held November 1, 1995. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens commentalpetitions, requests, and complaints. 5. Consent agenda. C A 5 h A. Consideration of purchasing gas detector for wastewater treatment plant. B. Consideration of adopting development agreement and approving final plat of the Klein Fames Estates residential planned unit development. C. Consideration pf adopting comprehensive sanitary sewer study. L). rAnfr,' S1,4, 'Y —J4./ /,'fed 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution adopting assessment roll -- delinquent accounts. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution adopting assessment roll -- Southwest Area Utility Extension, Project 95-0 IC. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution adopting assessment roll -- Meadow Oak Stone Sewer Outlet, Project 93-12C. 9. Public Hearing --Consideration of a resolution adopting assessment roll -- Maplewood Circle Storm Sewer Improvements, Project 95.09C. 10. Consideration of an amendment to the toning map which would change the zoning district designation of Part of Got 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition, from R,3 to P2M. Applicant, Vaughn Veit. 11. Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow full use of the Hillside Partnership mall. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. Agenda Monticello City Council November 13, 1995 Page 2 12. Consideration of a request to subdivide a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, for combination with the Hillside mall property. Applicant, Vaughn Veit. 13. Review of 3rd quarter liquor store financial report. 14. Consideration of attending meeting sponsored by the HRA and endorsed by the Planning Commission on downtown redevelopment --November 16, 1995, 7 p.m., High School Arena Entrance. 15. Consideration of rejecting bids for sale of fire department van and authorizing transfer to public works department. 16. Consideration of purchasing council chamber chairs. 17. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 83, 1998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: None AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY TOM PERRAULT AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD OCTOBER 9, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. ,:,, ,, ,::� , As noted in the staff report to Council, Bret Weiss and his new firm, WSB and Associates, Inc., requested that the City consider appointing WSB as the City Engineer. Staff reported that it would be beneficial to have Bret's input on a number of unfinished projects and that hiring a second engineer has been discussed in the past; however, replacement of OSM as the City Engineer had not been previously discussed. Councilmember Herbst questioned whether it would be difficult to have two engineering firms designing projects within the city and if OSM had additional engineers available if needed. Although Herbst felt WSB would do a good job for the City, it was his view that OSM should be given the chance to prove itself. Chuck Lepak of OSM stated that it would be possible for two engineering firms to design projects within the city; but if the need arose, OSM could appoint additional engineers to work in Monticello. Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the City should consider the person performing the work in additional to the overall firm. After working with Weiss for five to seven years, it was O'Neifl's view that Weiss has been an asset to the community in that he has worked well with developers, residents, and the entire City staff. O'Neill also noted that Monticello had a very busy construction season this year, and much of the credit should be given to Weiss for how well the projecta were handled. Page 1 0 Council Minutes - 10/23/95 Bret Weiss stated that one important aspect of engineering services is continuity; and after working with Monticello for five years, he is familiar with the residents, developments, and the municipal state aid system. Appointing WSB as the City Engineer would continue to provide Monticello with the continuity to which it has become accustomed. Councilmember Shirley Anderson stated that perhaps the City should hire two engineering firma. It was her view that Weiss's knowledge of the city is very valuable, and he has performed well and has excellent communication skills; therefore, the City should continue to contract with his firm in some capacity. Councilmembers agreed that they have also been impressed with Weiss's performance as City Engineer. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO CONTINUE WITH OSM AS THE CITY ENGINEER AND APPOINT WSB AND ASSOCIATES, INC., AS THE SECOND ENGINEER. Motion includes authorization for staff to delegate engineering work to each firm at their discretion; and after becoming more familiar with WSB, Council can discuss at a later date whether to appoint WSB as the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. CiLin None. Councilmember Herbst requested that item 5C be removed from the consent agenda for discussion, and Councibnember Perrault requested that item 6B also be removed from the consent agenda. A. Consideration of approval of Lha final plat of thn_ Monticello Qmrnprce (:enter 3rd Addition. Recommendation: Approve the final plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions: Execution of an easement document providing storm water casements on the property adjacent to the Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition. Final plat approval is contingent on execution of a development agreement which primarily outlines the proposal fbr designing and constructing Dundas Road utilities. Page 2 Council Minutes - 10/23/95 A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE ITEM 5A OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration of p .rrnainy council rhamber rhaim, Councilmember Perrault requested that this item be researched further, as it was his view that $75 per chair was too expensive. It was the consensus of Council to table purchase of council chamber chairs until further researched by Perrault and the City Administrator. Councilmember Herbst requested that expenses such as the $8,000 item on the proposed change order be discussed by Council prior to the work being performed. Public Works Director John Simola noted that extending the sanitary sewer across Gillard Avenue was suggested by the Mayor and recommended by the engineer. Staff concurred that extending the sanitary sewer at this time would avoid the coat of tearing up Gillard Avenue in the future if extension is needed. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE MEADOW OAK OUTLET, PROJECT 93.12C, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,379.84. Motion carried unanimously. Public H ring--Conaide_ration of adogi dei Q inn . tAffity bills And certification Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. City Administrator Rick Wolfateller reported that the proposed assessment roll contains utility billing accounts which aro delinquent more than 60 days. It was recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for certification in 1996 at an interest rate of 8%. There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing. Page 3 0 Council Minutes - 10/23/95 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRT- Y ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE DELINQUENT CHARGES AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 95-59. Public H ring—Con_aideration of approving on -sale liquori pte transfer -- J P_R nsfer-- J_Ps Annex. Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that Herbert Gutisnecht, Jr., of New Brighton applied for the on -sale liquor license currently granted to J.P.'s Annex to be transferred to his name, as he is purchasing the business from John Purmort. There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fyle closed the public hearing. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF THE CURRENT ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR J.P.S ANNEX TO HERBERT GUTISNECHT, JR., FOR THE BAR AND RESTAURANT. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that under the proposed ice arena program, the School District would be responsible for funding and constructing the arena, including all necessary purchases to allow full operation of the facility. Long-term replacement and maintenance expenses associated with the structure and parking lot would also be the responsibility of the School District, along with insurance for the building and summer ground maintenance. The cost of long-term replacement of the refrigeration system would be split 50/50 between the School and the City. The School would retain ownership of the facility; however, it would enter into a long- term $1 -per -year lease agreement with the City. City responsibilities would include managing and operating the facility on a day-to-day basis, including hiring of full-time and part-time staff, scheduling, operating the zamboni, providing liability insurance, and replacement of the original tamboni and one-half the cost of the refrigeration system. The policies governing usage of the facility would be administered by the City but developed jointly by the City and School District. Under the proposed program, the School District would pay the hill hourly rate for use of the Pago 4 0 Council Minutes - 10/23/95 facility after regular school hours. During the school day, the School District would be allowed to use the facility at no charge for community education or physical education activities; however, the School District would have to provide supervision and pay for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the City during the school day operations. The School would also be able to use the facility for dry -floor uses at no charge; however, paying customers for dry -floor rental would receive priority over non-paying School uses. Monticello School District Superintendent Shelly Johnson gave a brief overview of what amenities the arena would likely include such as a team meeting room, a family room with kitchenette, locker room, and concession area. An olympic size ice sheet may also be considered. Johnson noted that the structure would meet all city codes and would not require any variances. O'Neill reviewed the proposed budget and noted that total ice time revenue for the arena was estimated at $168,200, which was based on approximately 1,263 hours of rented ice time and other various revenue sources. Based on budgets provided by five other arenas, he and Wolfsteller estimated expenses at $164,100, leaving an estimated net revenue of $2,100. Vance Ellis, Vice President of the Monticello Hockey Association, noted that the association has existed for 20 years and is comprised of more than 100 families. He noted that the largest amount of revenue would come from renting ice; however, dry -floor activities during the summer could include home shows, craft shows, indoor soccer, trade shows, etc. In addition, the arena would have a positive effect on the community, as business would increase for motels, restaurants, and gas stations. It was Ellis's view that the risk to the City for managing the arena would be low. The Assistant Administrator went on to report that the Parke Commission recommended that Council agree to operate the arena based on the following reasons: The School District is the proper body for providing the underlying finding for the arena because it results in taxation of the user base of the facility. The arena is likely to cash flow when long-term maintenance costs and debt service are not included in the budget as proposed under the City/School plan. The arena would result in economic benefits to city commercial businesses. Page 6 Y Council Minutes - 1OW95 The need for this type of recreation service has been sufficiently demonstrated to justify a referendum on the topic. The area is ripe for development of an ice arena given the demand for ice time from nearby hockey associations. The arena will make Monticello a more attractive community, which will benefit housing stock and real estate values. Councilmember Herbst stated that the projected revenue from signs and banners ($3,000) should be eliminated from the proposed budget. Because this type of advertising revenue is prohibited at the baseball fields, it should also be prohibited at the arena. Herbst also noted his concern that other nearby communities are considering construction of an arena, which could greatly reduce the number of ice time hours Monticello would be able to sell. It was his view that perhaps the School District should construct and operate the facility so that all taxpayers are responsible for all debt incurred rather than city residents having to pay possible additional debt incurred during operations. Mayor Fyle noted that the financial risk to the City was very small relative to the community gain and that he supported City participation in the project for reasons noted by the Parks Commission. City Attorney Paul Weingarden asked what length of time the School is requesting that the City commit to managing the arena, and would the City have the option of discontinuing operation of the facility in the event it failed. Weingarden also asked if restrictions would be placed on the fee charged for ice time, or could the City increase the fee in order to cash flow the facility. Superintendent Johnson stated that a 25 -year commitment would be one alternative that could be considered; however, the City would not have the option to commit to leas than 26 years. In regard to the fee structure, Johnson stated that the fee would have to remain competitive and should be reviewed by a joint panel and the School as owner of the facility. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO DENY APPROVAL OF THE PLAN TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR PARTICIPATION IN OPERATING EXPENSES OF AN ICE ARENA. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Tom Perrault. Opposed: Brad Fyle, Brian Stumpf. Motion passed. Page 6 y Council Minutes - 10/23/95 City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that since the previous Council meeting, he discussed with Mr. Kruse the acquisition of his 6 -acre parcel adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant; however, a firm selling price had not been reached. Since the selling price of the land had not decreased from the half -million dollar amount, the City must decide whether it is in the beat interest of the community to obtain the property and whether to continue negotiations or begin eminent domain proceedings. City Attorney Paul Weingarden explained the procedure for acquiring land for public purpose under normal condemnation, which takes approximately six to eight months. Under this procedure, the City can abandon the condemnation if unhappy with the value determined by the commissioners, or the decision could be appealed to jury. If the proceeding is abandoned, the City would be required to pay the other party's cost. Once a jury decision is reached, the City no longer has the option of abandonment, and the value of the property must be paid. Weingarden went on to explain the quick take condemnation procedure, which would allow the City to obtain the property within 90 days; however, the City would not be able to back out of purchasing the property if it decided the land was no longer needed. Public Works Director John Simola stated that it is staff's recommendation that the City acquire the property regardless of whether the new plant uses the SBR technology or the oxidation ditch, Without the additional property, the City would have to pay the cost of easements and/or sheetpiling, and it would be in the best interest of the City to design the plant using the additional 6 acres. Councilmembers Anderson and Herbst noted that purchasing additional land was not proposed when expansion of the plant was discussed last year; therefore, it was their view that the new plant should be constructed on the current site. Herbst also suggested that the Council table this item until after the SBR plant tours scheduled for October 24 and 25. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD FYLE TO BEGIN THE QUICK TAKE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING THE 6 -ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. Motion failed for lack of a second. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TD COMMENCE NORMAL EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE THE 6 -ACRE KRUSE Page 7 0 Council Minutes - 10/23/95 PROPERTY. Voting in favor: Brian Stumpf and Tom Perrault. Opposed: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, and Brad Fyle. Motion failed. It was the view of Anderson and Herbst that the plant expansion should occur on the current site. It was Fyle's view that the quick take process should be used to acquire the property. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE RESULTS OF THE ADDITIONAL TESTING ARE AVAILABLE. Motion carried unanimously. � , , ::. : � , . , : � : •.. , , RtR;'��T:T'IiI�R:lsf'TI'1�1"A City Administrator Wolfsteller explained that the City has had health insurance coverage for its employees through Principal Mutual Insurance Company (formerly known as Bankers Life) for the past 15 years, which includes health, dental, life, and short-term disability insurance. State statutes require that when group insurance coverage exceeds 25 employees, the City is required to advertise for bids for insurance coverage once every 6 years. The City then has the choice of analyzing the proposals and selecting the coverAge which is most appropriate. This year the Ci!; exceeded 25 employees, and specifications were prepared outlining the City's current coverage along with an advertisement for bids that was published in the local newspaper. The City's insurance agent, Dan Carlson, also solicited quotations from a number of independent insurance companies. Wolfsteller went on to note that in response to the advertisement, the City did not directly receive any proposals; however, Dan Carlson did receive seven quotations from companies he had solicited. All of the quotations received were the companies' generic basic plans and were technically non- responsive bids that did not try to meet the specific specifications. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO REJECT ALL BIDS AS NON-RESPONSIVE FOR FAILING TO MEET THE MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY AND TO CONTINUE WITH ITS PRESENT GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, PRINCIPAL MUTUAL. Motion carried unanimously. .: b.�: 'u F City Administrator Wolfateller reported that on Monday, October 16, the Mayor requested that the City Administrator publish a notice for a special meeting and public hearing on an amendment to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan. It is expected that the week-long testing at the plant Page 8 ( y Council Minutes - 10/23/95 and Sunny Fresh Foods in regard to fluctuation of flows and loads will be completed on October 22, and the results will be available by October 30, which will be passed on to HDR and selected manufacturers of SBR equipment. Wolfsteller also noted that additional SBR plans will be toured on October 24 and 25 for continued evaluation of the SBR technology. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to set a special Council meeting for Wednesday, November 1, 1995, at 7 p.m., for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on an amendment to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan. 12. Consideration of a V=sal to nmpnd the restrictive covenants for the Eastwood Knoll stMivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that some relatively minor issues have arisen in regard to the restrictive covenants for the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. Council was asked to adjust the covenants to allow for flexibility in applying the 20% brick requirement if a unique architectural style is not complemented by the brick treatment. In addition, it was proposed that the definition of a "modified two-story" outlining the minimum square foot requirements be added to the covenants. It was also noted that changes to the oovemuita wusL be agreed to by all property owners in the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR EASTWOOD KNOLL AS OUTLINED. Motion carried unanimously. eM-1. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY SHIRLEY ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. There being no Ihrther business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager Page 9 0 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, November 1, 1998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Members Absent: Shirley Anderson A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of conducting a public hearing to consider amendments to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Plan. Mayor Fyle opened the public hearing. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the results of the additional testing performed at Sunny Fresh Foods have been received and need to be analyzed by the two major sequencing batch reactor (SBR) equipment manufacturers, Jet Tech and Aqua Aerobic. After reviewing the data, they will need to inform HDR if the teat data will change their original proposals for providing the SBR equipment; therefore, it was suggested that Council continue the public hearing to provide the manufacturers time to study the test results. Simola also reported that after touring additional SBR plants in Connecticut and Missouri, he and plant manager Kelsio McCuire were more comfortable with uhr, S -R technology. It was their view that the SBR technology would work for Monticello; however, stalTs recommendation of using the oxidation ditch technology had not changed, which was based on the simplicity of the operation of the oxidation ditch system. It was noted that before the plant expansion project can continue, Council needs to decide whether to continue with the SBR technology or change to the oxidation ditch system and whether or not to acquire the adjacent 6 -acre parcel owned by Floyd Kruse. Mr. Paul Thielen, a resident of Mississippi Drive, asked if the wooded area on the 6 -acre parcel would remain as a busier between the plant and residential uses. The Public Works Director assured residents that the plant expansion would occur near Hart Boulevard and that a 60 -ft to 60 -ft tree buffer along the Kruse east property line would remain. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1995, AT 6 P.M. IN ADDITION, A SPECIAL CLOSED MEETING WAS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1996, AT 5:15 P.M., TO DISCUSS EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. Motion carried unanimously with Shirley Anderson absent. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Karen Doty Office Manager O Council Agenda - 11/13/95 5A- Consideration of purchasing gas detector for wastewater treatment PIMU. (J.S.) In order to meet the confined space monitoring requirements for the sewer and water department and the wastewater treatment plant, two additional gas meters were budgeted for in 1995--$2,500 was budgeted in the sewer collection department and $3,000 in the wastewater treatment plant fund. On April 24, 1995, the City Council authorized purchase of the first 4 -gas Neotronics meter for $1,640 for the sewer collection department. It was our understanding that the fire department was going to use funds coming from NSP for the purchase of the second meter; consequently, we would not purchase the one for the wastewater treatment plant but use the one purchased by the fire department at the wastewater treatment plant. This would work as long as the unit would always be available for the fire department in times of emergency. It is our understanding that the fire department did not receive the funds from NSP and, consequently, did not purchase the meter, so they have been using one of the units dedicated for the collection system. City Staff would like the Council to consider purchasing the additional unit for the wastewater treatment plant at a coat of $1,640. This is significantly less than the $3,000 budgeted. The first alternative is to authorize purchase of a Neotronics minigas 4 -gas monitor, which monitors deficient oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and explosive gases for the wastewater treatment plant for confined space entry. The second alternative is to not purchase the additional gas monitor at this time. It is the staff recommendation that the City Council consider purchasing the unit as authorized in alternative #1. This 4 -gas meter would provide an upgrade to the older 3 -gas motor at the wastewater treatment plant and would assure that a unit is always available at that work site. There are su®dent funds to purchase this from in the 1995 budget. Copy of quote from Davies Water Equipment. ATE 49 - T RICES GOOD FO a � �eTnuoa D 3 (612) 533-2581 0010 LAKE BREEZE AVE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55428 800-322-3488 / QUOTATION ORDER IN PROGRESS MFRT. INCL PLUS FRT. ESTIMATED BY AYANTiTT , ';, . ,I �: `� ,•I• ;r�. ar-SacR,>PiIQM , . .. . ,:. . ,; • , . CITY m A Oa o_ BID DATF p 0 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER P.O. QUOTED _ TELEPH � - — -- P�. FerNolo 7671 Da. a rue Fas � f4 -- Tame and Conditions As NOW On Rome$ Side SALESMA IVENDOR • Council Agenda - 1 V13/96 se. Consideration of adept ng develonment a¢reement and an _v na final gnLt of the Main Farms Estates residential Planned unit_ development, (J.O.) A- REEERENCF AND BA .K •RO TND: City Council is asked to consider adopting the development agreement and to approve the final plat of the Klein Farms Estates residential planned unit development. Five weeks ago, Council granted preliminary plat approval and granted a conditional use permit allowing a planned unit development subject to completion of various items. The developer has completed the requirements; therefore, final plat approval should be a housekeeping matter. Items that the developer has completed subsequent to the preliminary plat approval include: 1. Approval of the construction plans by the City Engineer. 2. Approval of the landscaping plan by the City Planner. 3. Completion of association bylaws. 4. Amendments to the site plan eliminating the need for front yard variances. 6. An agreement with a landscaping firm has been reached regarding seeding and maintaining vegetation in the storm water basin. The development agreement governing the plat is very similar to the agreement that covers other private projects such as the Meadow Oak 4th development and the River Mill development. Paul Weingarden has been involved in the preparation and drafting of the document and has given the development agreement his approval. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the final plat and adopt the development agreement for the Klcin Farms Estates final plat. Motion to approve the final plat is subject to execution of the development agreement. 2. Motion to deny approval of the final plat and development agreement. D. SITPPORTINd DATA: Copy of development agreement; Copy of Planners comments; Copy of final plat. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT O KLEIN FARMS ESTATES ��� THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of ,1995, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota (the "City"), and E & K DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company (the "Developer"). WHEREAS, City has granted final approval to a plat known as Klein Farms Estates Planned Unit Development (the "Subdivision"), said land legally described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Property") which Subdivision shall consist of 1S twinhome residential units and an Outlot; and WHEREAS, Developer intends to construct, install, provide for and maintain streets, public storm sewer, and water, signs, pathway grading, and drainage improvement in accordance with the plans and specifications as hereinafter described, all at the sole cost and expense of Developer; and WHEREAS, the City has by resolution adopted , 199_, granted final approval to the Subdivision and the improvements contemplated herein provided that the Developer enter into the within Agreement and that Developer faithfully perform the terms and conditions contained herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. Pint Issues, The Developer agrees that the Subdivision shall be developed in accordance with the exhibits attached hereto which are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully sot forth heroin. The exhibits are: Exhibit A -- Final Plat Exhibit B •• Protective CovenantatAssociation Incorporation The above -referenced documents must be executed in accordance with City and County ordinances and filed in the office of the Wright County Recorder at Developers expense no later than '1995. Prior to the commoncoment of construction, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 19(b), Developer must pay to City all outstanding expenses incurred by City for platting and other development purposes including, but not limited to, engineering, legal, and other professional staff fees. KLMMEST.AG& 11W5 Pago 1 aA' 2. Agreement to Assess Property. The parties acknowledge that the Property as described in this agreement has been previously described as "Outlot A" in the Prior Development Agreement, paragraph _ and Exhibit C therein. Pursuant to the provisions of said Prior Development Agreement and Exhibit C therein, the Property as developed herein shall be specially assessed in the amount of S . This amount shall be distributed equally against each of the 18 twinhome parcels, for a total of $ per parcel. Assessments against each individual parcel shall be paid at time of occupancy or pursuant to annual installments as required within said Prior Development Agreement. All terms and conditions of said Prior Development Agreement, including acceptance of the amount of assessments, and waiver of Notice and Right to Appeal said assessments, apply equally to the provisions of this paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 3. Rpnreseniatinni; of new -lope . As inducement to the City's approval of the Subdivision and entering into this Agreement, the Developer hereby represents and warrants to the City: a. That the Developer is the fee owner of the Property and has authority to enter into this Agreement. b. That the intended use of the property is for a twinhome planned unit residential development. C. That the Subdivision complies with all city, county, state, and federal laws and regulations including, but not limited to, wetland regulation protection, City subdivision ordinances and zoning ordinances. d. That to the best of Developer's knowledge, the Subdivision does not require an Environmental Assessment Workaheet or an Environmental Impact Statement, but shall prepare the same if required to do so by City or other governmental entity and shall reimburse City for all expenses incurred by City in connection with the preparation of the review, including staff time and attorneys fees. 4. nAvelaaer Improvements. The Developer agrees it shall construct, install, and maintain certain public and private improvements which shall include sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main improvements, roadway, grading, pathway, landscaping and drainage improvements ("Developer Improvements") on the Property, at Developer's sole cost and expense, in accordance with the following exhibits: KLFRMESTAGR: 1M5 Page 2 6 Exhibit C •- Grading/Development and Utility Plane Exhibit D •- Landscaping and Buffer Yard Plan Exhibit E -• Storm Water Basin Landscaping/Seeding Plan Developer agrees the Developer Improvements shall be performed in accordance with the plans, specifications, and preliminary engineering reports approved or to be approved by the City Engineer and the City prior to commencement of construction and thereafter, in accordance with all City rules, regulations, ordinances, and the requirements of this Agreement, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following-. a. Street and pathway grading, graveling, surfacing and stabilizing which shall include curbs, gutter and driveway approaches. b. Street lighting within the Subdivision as determined to be necessary by the City. C. Storm sewers, including all necessary catch basins, and appurtenances. d. Water main, including all appurtenances. e. Sanitary sewer, including all appurtenances. f. Setting of lot and block monuments. g. Surveying and staking. h. Site grading, fencing and landscaping consistent with PUD requirements set forth in Exhibits C and D. i. Establishment of at least two post office duster box stands and boxes with groups of six or more. J. The City shall install street name signs, stop signs and other traffic control signs at all locations deemed necessary by City, at Developer's cost and expense. b. Permits. Upon execution of this Agreement, Developer and other necessary pasties shall promptly apply for all permits, approvals, licenses, or other documents firom any and all necessary governmental agencies (which may include the City, Wright County, PCA and DNR) so as to enable Developer to construct the Developer Improvements as herein contemplated. Developer shall use its best efforts to obtain the same as soon as reasonably possible. KLFILMESTAGR: 11WS Page 3 4 6 No grading or building permit shall be issued by City unless the plans or application are in conformity with the City comprehensive plan, this Agreement, and all local, state and federal regulations. The City shall, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of plans or building per applications, review such submittal to determine whether the foregoing requirements have been met. If the City discerns said plans or applications are deficient, it shall notify the Developer in writing stating the deficiencies and the steps necessary for correction. Issuance of a grading or building permit by City shall be a conclusive determination that the plans or applications have been approved as to the requested activity by Developer and satisfies the provisions of this section. The City may issue building permits prior to City acceptance of the Developer Improvements provided that the party applying for the building permit agrees to withhold requests for occupancy until necessary Developer Improvements have been installed, which include operational and tested sewer and water systems, installation of sod in the front yard, and roadway development sufficiently completed to support access by emergency vehicles, snowplows, and garbage trucks, to be determined by the City Engineer in his sole discretion. Until such approval is granted, no dwelling may be occupied on either a temporary or permanent basis, except that model homes may be occupied by sales personnel for marketing and related purposes. Notwithstanding this provisinn, if the Developer is in default of this Agreement, as hereinafter defined, in addition to any other remedy provided by this Agreement, City may refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy for any lot or parcel in the Subdivision until Developer cures the default as provided herein. 6. Pre•Cnnstructinn Activities. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre -construction meeting with City to review a proposed schedule for construction of the Developer Improvements. 7, rnmmpnepmpntnfrnnAtructionnfT)Pvpingprlmprovpmentg. Upon obtaining all necessary governmental approvals, licenses and permits, subject to Unavoidable Delays, Developer shall commence construction of the Developer Improvements within ten (10) days. 8. F ithfi,l Pprfarmance of rnmtructinn of Improvements, Developer shall install, construct, and maintain the Developer Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer guarantees and warrants the workmanship and materials respecting such Developer Improvements for a period of one year following City's acceptance of the same ("Guarantee Period"). The Developer shall repair or replace, as directed by the City and at the Developer's sole cost and expense, any work and/or materials that become defective, in the sole opinion of the City or its Engineer, within said Guarantee Period even KLFRMEST.AGR: 11/2195 Page 4 �505n though notice thereof be given by City after said Guarantee Period. The Developer, or Developer's contractors, shall post maintenance bonds or other security acceptable to City to secure these warranties. 9. Inspection of Improvements. Developer authorizes the City Inspector and City Engineer to inspect construction of the Developer Improvements on a full- time basis and grants to them a license to enter the Subdivision to perform all necessary duties and/or inspections deemed appropriate during the construction of the improvements until final certification of acceptance is approved by City and expiration of any applicable warranty period. Inspections by the City are to be logged and reported bi-weekly to Developer. Construction and installation plans shall be provided to City and shall be reviewed by and subject to approval of the City. Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets with the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. Developer shall cause its contractor to furnish City with a schedule of proposed operations at least five (6) days prior to the commencement of the construction of each Developer Improvement. The City shall inspect all such work items during and after construction for compliance with approved specifications and ordinance requirements. 10. Acceptance of Developer Improvements. Upon notification by Developer that any of the Developer Improvements have been completed, City Engineer shall inspect the Developer Improvement and, at his sole discretion, determine if the Development Improvement(s) has been completed in accordance with the plans, specifications and exhibits attached hereto. If the City Engineer determines that the Developer Improvement has been completed in accordance with all requirements, tate City Engineer shall give the Developer written notice of acceptance within seven (7) days effective as of the date of the inspection. If the City Engineer determines that the Developer Improvements) is not completed in accordance with said requirements, the City Engineer shall notify Developer in writing of the deficiency and provide a reasonable date upon which to cure the deficiency. Failure by the Developer to cure within the stated time period shall constitute an Event of Default. 11. rnmplotion of Deveinger Improvements, Developer agrees to complete the Developer Improvements on or before 1996. The Completion date as provided herein is subject to Unavoidable Delays as hereinafter defined, in which event the completion date may be extended by the period of such Unavoidable Delays. KLFILMEST.AGR: 1 L 2/08 Page 5 See For the purpose of this section, Unavoidable Delays mean delays which are caused by strikes, fire, war, road weight restrictions, material shortages, weather that renders construction progress impossible, causes beyond the Developer's control or other casualty to the Developer Improvements, or the act of any federal, state, or local government unit, except those acts of the City authorized or contemplated by this Agreement. In the event Developer believes an extension is warranted, Developer shall request such extension in writing to the City Engineer and specify the requested length of extension and the reason therefore. The City Engineer shall determine the length of the extension, if any, in his sole discretion. 12. Ownership of Improv m n a, Upon the completion of the Developer Improvements required to be constructed by this Agreement, and the acceptance thereof by the City, the Developer Improvements lying within the public easements and public right-of-ways as shown on the Subdivision plat shall become City property without further notice or action. Within thirty days thereafter, and before any security as herein required is released, Developer shall supply City with a complete set of reproducible "AS BUILT" and "DEVELOPMENT PLAN" plans in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, without charge to City, which documents shall become the property of City. 13, C1e8nj111. The Developer shall properly clear any soil, earth, or debris on City -owned property or public right-of-way resulting from construction work by the Developer, its agents, or assigns. 14. Maintmancs of Roads Reflore BeforeAccep nn Developer shall, at its expense, prepare any streets located in the Subdivision for snowplowing and other maintenance that Developer wishes City to undertake prior to formal acceptance by City of such streets. This preparation shall include, without limitation, ramping any manholes as necessary to avoid damage to snowplows or other vehicles used in street maintenance. Should damage occur to City snowplows or other vehicles during the course of snowplowing or other maintenance procedures prior to formal acceptance of the street by City, Developer shall pay all such damages and shall indemnify and hold City harmless for all such damage, cost, or expense incurred by City with regard thereto. lb. Frosion nnd nrainagn rnntral, The Developer shall provide and comply with erosion and drainage control plan requirements as described in Exhibit F and as otherwise required by City. As development progresses, the City may impose additional erosion and drainage control requirements if, in the sole opinion of the City Engineer, they would be useful and appropriate in controlling drainage and erosion. Developer shall promptly comply with such erosion and drainage control plans and with such additional instructions it receives from City. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. KLFRMESTACR: 11l2/M6 Page 6 56F 16. Hold H rmlacc Agreement. For the purposes of this paragraph 15, "Developer" includes the 1Qein Farms Estates Association to be formed pursuant to Exhibit B. Developer acknowledges that failure to control erosion in accordance with the plans and exhibits as contained herein may cause flooding and/or damage to adjoining property owners. In such event, Developer agrees to hold City harmless and indemnify City from claims of all third parties or by Developer for damages arising out of such flooding and/or damages. The parties recognize that in emergency situations, time is of the essence in preventing damage to persons and to property. In the event of an emergency situation requiring immediate action to prevent loss or damage to persons or property, to be determined at the sole discretion of City, the notice and cure provisions of paragraph 21 shall not apply and City is authorized to undertake any corrective action it deems necessary to prevent or minimise any such flooding and/or damage. In such event, Developer agrees to hold City harmless and indemnify City from claims of all third parties, or by Developer, for damages arising out of said corrective action by City, and agrees to reimburse City for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by City arising out of the corrective action, whether performed within or without designated easement areas, including but not limited to any costs necessary to re -landscape disrupted soils located within the Subdivision. 17. Inaurnnro, The Developer will provide and maintain or cause to be maintained at all times during the process of constructing the Developer Improvements until six (6) months after acceptance of all Developer Improvements and, from time to time at the request of the City furnish with proof of payment of premiums on: Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner's Contractors Policy with limits against bodily injury, including death, and property damage (to include, but not be limited to damages caused by erosion or flooding) which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of any of its subcontractors. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each KLFRMESTACR: 1VW5 Pagel S$G occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City, City Engineer and Developer's Engineer shall be an additional named insured on said policy. Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City upon request. 2) Worker's compensation insurance, with statutory coverage. 18. Securita for Cost of ImprovArnprits. For the purpose of financing the construction, installation and maintenance of the Developer Improvements, Developer shall, upon execution of this Agreement, execute and deliver to ("Lender") a Note and Mortgage encumbering the property in an amount not less than S The proceeds of this loan shall be escrowed by Lender and disbursed only in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certain Disbursement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated by reference herein. No work shall be commenced under this Agreement until the Note, Mortgage, and Disbursement Agreement has been executed and certified copies filed with City. 19. Regganiaibility for Costa. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or City in connection with the development of the Subdivision, including but not limited to construction of Developer Improvements, legal, planning, engineering, and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the Subdivision plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the Subdivision, including reasonable attorneys fees in the event City undertakes enforcement of this Agreement by City. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days agar receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in Bill. 20, P.mphihitinna Agnina na'ipm n_�erpempnt. Developer represents and agrees that (except for associating with other individuals or entities), prior to the completion of the Developer Improvements as certified by the City: Except only by way of security for, and only for the purpose of obtaining financing necessary to enable the Developer or any successor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof, to KLFRMESTAGR: 1125 Page 8$6 4 perform its obligations with respect to the construction of the Developer Improvements under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this Agreement, the Developer (except as so authorized) will not make or create, or suffer to be made or created, any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or transfer in any other mode or form of with respect to this Agreement or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same, without the prior written approval of City. In the absence of specific written agreement by the City to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by City shall be deemed to relieve Developer from any of its obligations. In the event that City approves a substitute developer and the Property is transferred to said substitute, the City agrees to relieve the Developer of liability from performance as described in this contract. Said substitute shall assume all responsibilities and rights of the Developer under this contract. 21. F.ventn of D fo +1 D tined. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "events of default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise 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 receiver of itself or of the whole or any substantial part of the property. C. If the Developer shall file a petition under the federal bankruptcy laws. d. If the Developer is in default under the Mortgage and has not entered into a work-out agreement with the Lender. e. The Developer shall, after commencement of tho construction of the Developer Improvements, default in or violate its obligations with respect to the construction of the same (including the nature and the date for the completion thereof), or shall abandon or substantially suspend construction work, and such act or actions is not due to Unavoidable Delays and any such KLFRMESTAGR: ILW5 Page 9 5Q default, violation, abandonment, or suspension shall not be cured, ended, or remedied within the time provided for in this Agreement. 22. Notiep/Remptiieg 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 at its last known address. If the Developer fails to cure the Event of Default within fifteen (15) 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. Halt all plat development work and construction of Developer Improvements. b. Refuse to issue building permits or occupancy permits as to any parcel 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. Exercise any and all remedies available to City pursuant to the Disbursement Agreement. If the Event of Default is the failure of Developer to complete, construct, install or correct the Developer Improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications and this Agreement, City may perform the construction or work and apply to Lender pursuant to the Disbursement Agreement to reimburse City for its expenses. This provision shall be a license granted by the Developer to the City to act, but shall not require the City to take any such action. Developer consents to such action by City and waives any claim Developer may have against City for damages in the event City exercises its rights in accordance with this provision. Terminate this Agreement by written notice to Developer at which time all terns and conditions as contained herein shall be of no further force and effect and all obligations of the parties as imposed hereunder shall be null and void. 23. Miac Ilanmua, This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. KLFRMESTAGR: 111 5 Page 10 36 r C. the action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. d. Future residents of this Subdivision shall not be deemed to be third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. e. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Developer, its successors and assigns. The Developer shall, at its expense record this Agreement in the Office of the Wright County Recorder. After the Developer has completed the work required under this Agreement, at the Developers request the City will execute and deliver to Developer a release in recordable form. f. All parties to this Agreement acknowledge they have been represented by counsel and have entered into this Agreement freely and voluntarily. 24. Ids. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, or mailed to the Dovcloper by United States mail, postage prepaid to the following address: Notices to City shall be in writing and either hand delivered to the City Administrator or mailed to City by United States mail, postage prepaid to the address: City of Monticello, 250 East Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota 65362 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have signed this Developer's Agreement the day and year first written above. CITY OF MONTICELLO Brad Fyle Mayor Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator KLFRMEST.AGR: IMS Page 11 5 M /C STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1995, by Mayor Brad Fyle and by City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller of the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. E & K DEVELOPMENT LLC President STATE OF MINNESOTA 9*� COUNTY OF WRIGHT Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1995, by its of E & K Development LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public This Instrument Drafted By: Olson, Usset, Agan & Weingarden 6600 France Avenue South Suite 590 Edina, MN 55435 KUWIEST.AGR: ili 5 Page 12 68L c KLFRME9T.AOR: 1l/W5 ATTPACEM EM A Page 13 66M QCT -23-11j% 14:Ib N -f —1 — INA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN . MARKET RESEARCH MSMORAMUM TO: Jeff ONO FROM: Stephen Oriuman DATE October 23, 1993 RE Monticello - IOein Fame Iaodacape Plan FILE NO: 191.07 - 93.12 Tho art: ba for the Klein Fsrma Estates has submitted a revised landscape plan which Mutratet a typical hodscspe tratment for the spates between, the driveways. The submitted plan is much closer to the objectives we Wt were appropriate for the development in that the area consists of a conceattation of shrub phatiog ansa, with Waited lawn. IU architect proposes to coati uo utilirittg a sod arta along the sidewalk and adjacent to the sues for p oposes of maintenance and etre of replacement when damaged. In addition, the shrub spacing has been docreased, and the variety increased, resulting in a mote httensdy landscaped effect than the previous plan. The 'sed ttaaaith- areas' should be aocepttblo from a VIEW standpoint. TLey do not create the egwses of lawn of the first proposal which seemed to defeat the utban stratscape Concept. By breaking up the from area with landscaped beds, the project should be significantly snore attractive, help ft to justify the use of the PUD Concept. As noted above, the plan has incteesed the variety of shrub types within the individual planta Ws. Tbb is a Agailka improvement over the initial proposal. Although not a critical concem, we would wSpst varying the mataeW between planting ares as well, to increase the variety of flower End texture in the Ilmdopmmt. In summary, however. we believe that the present plan is more in bxoq with overall davelopmmm concept, and could be approved by the City Council. pc: Nom We1U 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 553 -St. LOUS Perk, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595.9637 SS Council Agenda - 11/13/95 As you recall, on August 28, 1995, Bret Weiss reviewed the draft of the comprehensive sanitary sewer study. In his review, he noted that the request for the study came from developers Tony Emmerich and Bruce Pankonin of Orrin Thompson. The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not their properties could be served by the existing city sanitary sewer systems. The scope of the study also included an analysis of city-wide sewer capacity issues. In his report, Weiss noted that the study reveals that the existing sewer system serving the Meadow Oak area has sufficient capacity to also serve the Orrin Thompson homes and Emmerich properties; however, full development of the general area to the southeast of Monticello will require extension of an interceptor sewer. At the meeting on August 28, it was requested by City staff that Council review the document only and that final acceptance of the report be deferred until certain city-wide issues relating to long-term development of the comprehensive sanitary sewer system were resolved. The primary issues that the report needed to address further related to development of a sanitary sewer system that had capacity to serve a potential industrial area to the northwest side of the community. In addition, it was requested that additional study of the redevelopment of the sanitary sewer line along River Street be completed to provide a better understanding of how we might stretch the capacity of the interceptor sewer line. Jon Peterson has completed the updates to the plan as requested by City staff. Staff is now comfortable with Council reviewing and considering adoption of the final document. With regard to the ability of the City to serve Et potential industrial park in the northwest side of the city, the plan proposed does reveal sufficient capacity to handle future industrial park areas without tremendous additional cost or retrofitting of existing systems. The comprehensive sanitary sewer plan and the development of framowork being prepared by the City Planner both call for incremental extension of utilities to the south and west areas utilizing residential development to help pay for a portion of the cost to extend utilities to a position where utilities can be used by a future industrial park. This concept will be explained further by Jon Peterson of OSM. Council Agenda - 1v13/95 Motion to accept comprehensive sanitary sewer study. Motion to deny acceptance of the comprehensive sanitary sewer study. C. STAFF )ZCOMII�NDATION: Staff recommends that City Council adopt the document as presented. It is our view that the level of information presented meets our. Other issues pertaining to sanitary sewer system design and capacity that remain could be addressed via further study under separate authorization. It is our view that the document as presented will provide us a framework which will give us a better understanding of the cost and benefits of extension of sanitary sewer systems. We now have an instrument that we can use for planning future extensions and for identifying the relative cost of development for areas along the perimeter of the community. This information will be very valuable as we begin to plan for the next wave of residential development. Copy of the comprehensive sanitary sewer study. Council Agenda - I V13/95 ,-� The City Council is asked to adopt an assessment roll for accounts receivable bills which are delinquent more than 60 days and to certify the assessment roll to the County Auditor as of November 30, 1995, for collection on next year's real estate taxes if not paid within 30 days of this public hearing. It is recommended that the delinquent accounts be put on an assessment roll for certification in 1996 at an interest rate of 8% as allowed by state statute. As in the past, if any accounts are paid within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll, they can be paid without any additional interest. The forfeit property delinquent amounts will be added to our forfeit property listing. At such time as this property is sold and returned to the tax rolls, these amounts will be added back to the property with interest accruing at 8% from the date of the public hearing. 1. Adopt the assessment roll for the delinquent charges as presented. 2. Based on public hearing input, adjust the assessment roll as required. C. STAFF RRGOMMRNDATION: It is staff recommendation that the Council adopt the assessment roll as presented. All of the accounts aro at least 60 days past due and have been given proper notice of this assessment hearing and ample opportunity to pay the accounts in Rill. D_ At DATA: Copy of resolution adopting assessment roll; Complete listing of delinquent accounts to be certified. RESOLUTION 95• RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent accounts receivable charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assesament, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against the parcels named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in one (1) annual installment payable on or before the first Monday in January 1997 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1996. 3. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. 4. The City Administrator shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tau list of the county, and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of November, 1995. Mayor City Administrator &A 10/10/95 1995 DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Pape 1 SPECIAL ASSUSMI rT CERTIFICATIONS (11/11/95) PROPENYL IO IBR AMOUNT FARE ---------------------------------------- ADDITION ---------- ---- LOT/SEC ------- SLOCN ----- ------------------------------ 155-010-029061 411.75 Jarry Ron- Original 415 29 155-010-056010 27.96 Ymdy Bollaaon Original 1.8 56 155-026-001060 27.96 Stall 6 Jan Vandlvort Andoro YIlhal. 6 1 155-016-001100 129.10 Stato OT MY (forfolt) Boglund 10 I 155-061-002010 16.71 Richard Balker Bolkar HSllalda 1 2 155-061-002020 16.71 Rlehard Salk- Solkar HSllalda 2 2 155-061-002010 14.71 Richard nolkar Bolkor HSllolda 1 155-044-001010 111.11 Ultra B -co MaadoY Oak Eat 1 1 155-044-002010 119.70 Ultra Booaa Mandw Oak Eat 1 I 155-044-002040 119.69 Ultra B- Meadw Oak lot 4 2 155-044-001010 204.16 Ultra Cos• Meador Oak Eat 1 1 155-044-001040 246.07 Ultra 0- Moadw Oak got 4 1 155-044-001060 194.16 Ultra Rose Meadow Oak Eat 6 I 155-044-004010 56.06 Ultra emao "ad- Oak lot 1 4 155-044-004020 56.06 Ultra R -o Meadow Oak tot 2 4 155.044-004010 56.05 Ultra Boso Mead Oak lot ] 4 155-044-004050 45.60 Ultra Boca Maadw Oak gat 5 4 155 OJ4 cCiac0 45.&. J1 tra ll ^. F.caCCu Cak eat - 4 155-064-004070 0.60 Ultra HOso Mondow Oak Eat 7 4 155.044-004080 45.60 Ultra H -a Maadwr Oak lot o 4 155.057-001040 112.55 Ultra Bose Moaaw Oak Ira 4 1 155-059-002100 42.67 Ultra Bose Hand- Oak 41h 10 2 155-059.001010 240.82 Ultra Bose Moedow Oak 4th 1 1 155-059-004010 79.08 Ultra Holm Meador Oak 4th 1 4 155.064-001050 16.84 OCR COnatruotlm Moadowa 2" 5 1 155-064-001060 16.64 BCH Conotruo tion Meadow 2nd 6 1 155-064.001070 16.94 BCH Conatruetlon Mwdowo 2nd 7 1 155-064-001000 16.52 RCD Conot-liaa Mmaowo 2m a ] 155-071-001010 70.95 Yflllaea Dnolgn i COnotructlon Em tvlow 1 1 155.500-011400 131.80 Otato of M (lortolt)/City of Monticollo Unplattoa I TOTAL. 6 --- 1.715.16 (to m rortlf/od) lead farfolt. .- ---IGL: n - cam TOTAL. 6 3 ] 7Y. 06 (to Do cant to County Auditor) Council Agenda - 11/13/95 Although the project is not entirely complete, it is far enough along to establish a fairly precise final cost. Completing the assessment process at this time enables the City to collect payment of assessments in 1996. Council is asked to conduct the public hearing and review the proposed assessment roll and consider a resolution adopting the assessment roll. PROJECT COST SUN[MARY The total cost of the project came in at $198,054, which is about $10,000 less than the estimate. The total cost for the lift station and force main was $99,358; lateral sewer expenses, $26,673; trunk water expense, $30,650; lateral water expense, $31,352; service ties, $10,019. According to the finance program adopted by City Council in April of 1995, the lateral sewer expenses, lateral water expenses, and service ties are to be assessed against each benefitting property. The lift station/force main expenses and trunk water fees helping to fiord trunk expenses must be paid at such time that the benefitting properties actually connect to city services. The assessment roll proposed for approval today is consistent with the project assessments projected in the finance plan adopted in April 1995. Please note that in April, the affected property owners were supportive of paying the cost identified at that time. The actual assessment figures proposed under the assessment roll are slightly less than the amounts outlined for each property in the April 1995 plan; therefore, I would expect that there will be no objections to the assessment program as proposed in the assessment roll. W kLTERNATIVE ACTIONS; 1. Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Southwest Area Utilities Extension, Project 95-01C. This alternative should be selected if Council desires to take action consistent with approval of the preliminary finance plan in April 1995. Council Agenda - 11/13/95 Motion to deny adoption of the assessment roll. This alternative should be selected if Council wishes to wait a few more weeks until the final work is completed on the project. Due to the fact that we have set bid amounts, it is not likely that waiting a few weeks will not change the final cost or result in a revised assessment roll. OMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 01. The project went well without serious complications. At this point in time, none of the benefitting property owners have connected to city services; however, it is possible that Gould Brothers and/or D & D Bus Company may connect to city services in the near future. Copy of resolution for adoption; Copy of assessment roll. RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT SOUTHWEST AREA UTIIdTY EXTENSION AND APPURTENANT WORK PROJECT 95 -OIC WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of a lift station and extension of sanitary sewer and water main from a location near Sandberg Road to the Gould Chevrolet and D & D Bus Company properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 1997, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.6% percent per annum from the data of the adoption of this assessment rosolution. To the firat installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1996. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year In which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 16 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of November, 1996 Mayor City Administrator -? A • ovncro voro notifiod of oa0000mont amount; hovovor, acoaoamento will bo doforrod until annexation occuro. J a Ties Total 2417.66 86 2417.66 14,022.86 3619.23 15,224.43 1437.92 13,043.12 1181.14 12,786.34 1363.71 12,968.91 1363.71 22968 91, SOUTEMF.ST ARBA UTILITIES EXTENSION PROTECT 95-01c Name Address PID Sewer Water Oehart & Kathleen Everson 10840 Noble Ave. N. 155-500-113302 5334.65 6270.55 Minneapolis, MN 55443 Raymon & Deloria Stellmach 3412 85th St. NE 155.500-113302 5334.65 6270.55 Monticello, MN 55362 Milton Olson 209 Main St. S. 155.500.113303 5334.65 6270.55 St. Michael, MN 55376 Dean & Donna Carlson 12960 Clementa Ave. NW 155.500-104306 5334.65 6270.55 Monticello. MN 55362 Stuart & Arleen Hoglund • 420 Oakwood Dr. W. 213.100-104305 5334.65 6270.55 Monticello, MN 55362 213.100-104400 V'uliil Michaelis 313 Riverview Dr. 155.500.104401 5334.65 6270.55 PO Box 395 Monticello, MN 55362 John Michaelis 1000 97th St. NW 155.500-104401 5334.65 6270.68 PO Box 127 Monticello, MN 55362 • ovncro voro notifiod of oa0000mont amount; hovovor, acoaoamento will bo doforrod until annexation occuro. J a Ties Total 2417.66 86 2417.66 14,022.86 3619.23 15,224.43 1437.92 13,043.12 1181.14 12,786.34 1363.71 12,968.91 1363.71 22968 91, Council Agenda - IV13/95 18219M . (R.W.) The total project cost for the Meadow Oak outlet project and Gillard Avenue reconstruction has been determined, and the resulting assessment notices have been mailed to all potential benefitted property owners. The purpose of this item is now to conduct the public hearing on the adoption of the assessment roll so that it can be certified to the county auditor for collection on 1996 taxes. City Engineer Bret Weiss of WSB & Associates has put together the project cost with Mr. Chuck Lepak of OSM. The total project cost was determined to be $443,447, of which $16,932 is proposed to be City responsibility for sanitary sewer and water main stubs, and the Gillard Avenue street construction cost at $37,979. In addition, storm sewer oversizing costs were included in the project, totaling $35,767, to provide additional capacity in the storm sewer project for areas outside of the current city limits. After deducting the $50,000 contribution received from MN/DOT for their share of storm water drainage, the total assessable storm sewer cost was calculated at $301,128. When the original assessment projections were prepared a few years ago, we had assumed there was 245 acres of area within the drainage district that could benefit from this storm sewer project. The 245 acres included city parks and rights-of-way, along with MN/DOT right-of-way and 20 acres that were owned by Mr. Gene Bauer that are ultimately being used for ponding purposes. In deducting this area from the total acreage within the district, we feel there is a net assessable acreage of 163 acres that the $301,128 cost should be divided amongst. In doing so, this brings the per -acre coat to $1,852 per acre versus the original $1,550 that had been used for projections. Bret Weiss and/or Chuck Lepak will be in attendance at the meeting to further review the project cost and assessment roll preparation data. After receiving public comment, if the Council feels an adjustment in the acreage charge is warranted, the Council could look at adjusting the assessment roll accordingly but would not be able to increase it above the $1,852 amount without having an additional public hearing. It should be noted that in the project cost there has not been included any interest -carrying cost that the City has incurred on this project. Of the total assessment roll, $209,433 is projected to be assessable to properties located within the city of Monticello. Properties outside of tho city limits, and thus not eligible to be assessed, total $92,600. Unless this acreage is developed and annexed into the city, the City would not be able to Council Agenda - 11/13/95 collect this amount. It should also be noted that of the $209,433 that is assessable to property within the city limits, over $85,000 of this amount is chargeable to larger tracts of property that are currently undeveloped such as the Rod Norell property along Gillard Avenue and Outlet A of Briar Oakes Estate. It is anticipated that these amounts will not be collected until such time that the property further develops in the future. Under our storm sewer policy, we have been assuming that individual lots that are currently undeveloped without a building would not be assessed under storm sewer improvements but would be charged at the time of taking out a building permit. If we continue with this assumption, the Council should look at revising the storm sewer area charge on an annual basis to reflect inflation cost that the City may have incurred. Enclosed with the agenda you will also find additional assessment rolls that have been prepared by Bret using lower storm sewer acreage charges other than the $1,852/acre amount that the costs justify. These additional assessment rolls can be used by Council as reference material should you feel it's necessary to adjust the assessment roll proposed. After closing the public hearing, adopt the assessment roll for the storm sewer and street reconstruction project as proposed in the $1,852 amount per acre charge. Adopt an assessment roll for the project as adjusted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although the staff is certainly aware of the $1,550/acre amount that was noted in preliminary estimates, the actual cost of this project for storm sewer charges is $1,852 per acre. Should this amount be adjusted lower, Council should be aware that the lower amount would also apply to future properties as they develop in this district, including acreage that is currently outside of the city limits. Regardless of the per -acre amount chosen, the Council certainly has the opportunity to adjust this amount annually based on an inflation factor. It is my recommendation that the proposed assessment roll be adopted as presented in the $1,852 per acre amount in that we would only immediately be assessing about $125,000 of the $301,000 project cost, with hopes of collecting more as areas develop in the future, including areas currently in the township. D_ 8[IPPORTIN(I DATA: Copy of proposed resolution; Copy of Bret Weiss letter dated November 3, 1995; Copy of assessment roll options. RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 93.12C MEADOW OAK STORM WATER OUTLET AND GILLARD AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice fully given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment of the improvements for the construction of an outlet from Meadow Oak pond to the Mississippi River along with reconstruction of Gillard Avenue. NOW, TREREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: Such proposed assessments, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessments against improved property shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the fust Monday in January 1997, and shall bear the interest rate of 6.6% per annum from the date of the aduptiou of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1996. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid assessments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no Interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 16 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year, The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collated and paid over In the some manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of November, 1996. Mayor City Adminlstrator Q� WSH v &Asroriates, Inc. November 3. 1995 350 Westwood Lake Olfice 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 612-541-4800 FAX 541-1700 BA. MiM—h P.E Bm A. Tc66 P.F P— R. %U—Nang' PT 0,—W W. Sin— P.r R -Ad B. N.Y. PJ Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Monticello P.O. Box 1147 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Assessment Roll Meadow Oaks Outlet City -f Monticello Project No. 93-12C WSB Project No. 1001,01 Dear Mayor and Council Members: The assessment notices for the above-ieforrmcd project have been prepared and are being distributed in the mail on Friday, November 3, 1995, to all affected parcels, This letter is simply an update to you regarding the method of assessing the properties in the event you receive phone calls from the benefitted property owners prior to the November 13, 1995 council meeting. The following is a breakdown of pertinent items associated with the project. • Total project cost: ....................................... $443,446.84 • Sanitary sewer and watermain construction: (City responsibility) ....... $16,931.92 • Street construction: ....................................... $37,978.62 This street cost is intended to be spread 57,423.17 to the Township, with the remainder being assessed on a front footage bnsis to ilio Township and City sides of Gillard Avenue, It is proposed that the City of Monticello pay for the 1,945 feet of the front footage cost located in the Township. Therefore, $15,317.10 will be the City responsibility and $15,238.35 will be the responsibility of the City residents. • Storm sewer overtizing costs: ............................... $35,767.16 111 garb- t re • Engineers • Plantar rQu,LLirxunnary ornrnta W v Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello November 3, 1995 Page 2 This is the cost of providing an additional 5 cfs capacity in the overall storm sewer project. This oversizing was intended to serve an area south of CR 118 or other potential areas within the City that may require the outlet. Mn/DOT Contribution ....................................... S50,000 We were able to receive funding in the amount of $50,000 from Mn/DOT for their participation in the project because of the storm water that is coming from the 1-94 right- of-way. Total Assessable Storm Sewer Costs .......................... $301,128.14 Storm sewer project cost: $386,895.30 Mn/DOT contribution: 50,000.00 Oversizing: 35-767.16 $301,128.14 Project Area Total Assessable Acres: ......................................... 163 Total Acres within the drainage district: .. .......................... 245 The 245 acres include City parks and rights-of-way, the 16.3 acres of Mn/DOT property that we are assuming is covered by the $50,000 payment, and 20.34 acres of the Gene Bauer property that was removed from the assessment roll as a condition of the acquisition of the 9.5 acre ponding area. Therefore, the area that the storm sewer cost can be spread against is reduced from 245 acres to 163 acres, which doesn't include city rights-of-way, park land, or ponding areas. Previous correspondence had utilized the entire drainage area to spread the cost and achieve a per -acre assessment in the neighborhood of 51,550. If the total assessable storm sewer cost is spread over the 163 -assessable acres, the per -acre assessment would be $1,852/acre. This is what was used for the assessment notices. Because the City Council has not officially chosen an assessment rate and because the per -acre cost can be reduced after the notices are sent, but not raised, we chose to use the 51,852/acre. One alternative the council would have to reduce this per -acre assessment would be to include an area that could be served by using the additional 5 cfs capacity to the outlet system. We have estimated that this acreage could be as much as 160 acres located outside of the drainage drstu uct. The only catch with adding the 160 acres into the program is that there will be a capital cost associated with serving the additional 160 acres of somewhere between $160,000 to $200,000. If you assumed that there was an additional $160,000 of project expenses and spread the current Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello November 3, 1995 Page 3 storm sewer project cost of $301,128.14 plus $35,767.16 (oversizing), over the 323 acres, the per - acre assessment cost would be 51,538 per acre. If you chose to be slightly more conservative and utilize the $200,000 capital costs for the additional 160 acres, the per -acre cost would be increased to $1,662 per acre. Assessment Collection It should be noted that the assessment method to be utilized will spread these area assessments to each individual parcel that is currently developed. The remainder of the properties which do not have homes on them or are not currently developed, will have their assessments deferred and will pay a trunk access fee upon development of their properties. This trunk access fee will be at the same rate per acre paid by the properties currently developed. Subsequently, the trunk access fee can be adjusted in future years to account for increased construction costs. Therefore, if you set the per -acre cost at $1,550 per acre, each subsequent year, 1997, 1998, and so on, could be adjusted up according to the construction cost index to account for holding costs or to an amount that would reflect the construction cost if the project were completed at the time the property is paying their trunk access charge. Bike Shoulder Assessment One other item on the Gillard Avenue resident assessment notice is an item called the "bike shoulder". This bike shoulder is simply the estimated cost of providing a four -foot bituminous bike shoulder along the west side of Gillard Avenue during the spring of 1996. Several residents in the area requested that we widen the road to accommodate this bike shoulder and we felt that this would be your decision based on the public input that you receive at your meeting on November 13th. If you decide that there is not enough public support to move forward with this part of the project, we will simply not complete the item and it will be removed from the assessment roll. Uquidated Damages If you should be questioned regarding the construction time exceeding our original schedule, you can notify the residents that the project costs have been reduced by over $3,000 for liquidated damages received from the contractor. As you are aware, we did ask the contractor to perform several additional items that delayed the final completion of the project, and due to the soil conditions realized during the construction, the final lift of bituminous will not be placed until 1996. Summary To summarize, you are going to receive quite a bit of input from the residents that the per -acre charge of $1,852 is $300 more than what was originally discussed. This is simply done because we cannot increase the per -acre cost if we were to place $1,550 per acre on their assessment notices, but we can come down from the proposed $1,852 per acre. Because the council did not take a definite stand on how the acro charge was to be developed, we felt the need to go with the high side and then present you with justification to lower that cost if you so desired, If you feel uncomfortable with utilizing the additional 160 -acre area, you could choose to assess your w Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Monticello November 3, 1995 Page 4 park land and wetland areas and right-of-way areas, which would lower the assessable amount per acre to close to $1,550. This may set a precedent that could cause you problems in the future, and, therefore, we are recommending that you utilize the additional 160 -acre area that could be served by this pipe, along with some amount of capital cost for future expenditures. Please give me a call at my office at 5414800 or home at 755-8035 if you have any questions regarding this information. Please don't hesitate to call me if you do require additional clarification. Sincerely, WSBA ASSO�� CUTES, INC. TAJI/ Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Vice President c: Kick Wolfsteller, City of Monticello Jeff O'Neill, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello nm SE Name Address Ultra I lames, Inc. c/o Dickman Knutson IIC83, Box 914A Storm Crosslake, MN 66442 Ultra Homes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 166-044-003010 IIC83, Box 914A 0.00 Crosslake, MN 56442 Ultra Homes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 472.26 IIC83, Box 914A 0.00 Crosslake, MN 66442 Ultra Ilomes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 0.00 I IC&,9, Box 914A 450.04 Crosslake, MN 66442 Ultra Ilomes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 0.00 IIC83, Box 914A 166-044-003060 Crosslako, MN 66442 Wayne & Barbara Ward 2666 Meadow Oak Ave. 616.71 Monticello, MN 66362 William & Bonnie Weisbrod 2617 Meadow Oak Iano 0.00 Monticello, MN 66362 Thomas & Elizabeth Adonis 2616 Meadow Oak Lane 0.00 Monticello, MN 66362 Hebert & Beverly Wagner 2685 White Oak Circle 656.61 Monticello, MN 66362 Steven & Sandrn Poplin 2680 White Oak Circle 156.044.003090 Monticello, MN 86362 Ilnice & .lonneen Ilerning 2607 Meadow Oak Iano 894.62 Monticello, MN 55362 Michael & Nancy Voll 2606 Meadow Oak lane 0.00 Monticello. MN 55362 UQ ASMTMI I.SEC: I 1/.W0 Page I PID Storm [like Street Total 166-044-003010 613.01 0.00 0.00 613.01 155-044-003020 472.26 0.00 0.00 472.26 166.044-003030 460.04 0.00 0.00 450.04 165-044-003040 503.74 0.00 0.00 603.74 166-044-003060 616.71 0.00 0.00 616.71 166-044-003060 701.01 0.00 0.00 701.01 166.044-003070 490.78 0.00 0.00 490.78 166.044-003080 656.61 0.00 0.00 055,ti1 156.044.003090 894.52 0.00 0.00 894.62 155.044.003100 837.10 0.00 0.00 &17. 10 166.044-003110 668.72 0.00 0.00 666.72 166.044.003120 581.53 0.00 0.00 681.63 Page I Name ` Kevin & Lce'rmcy William & Mary Lou Fish Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Bradley & Cynlhin Mylo Iluherl & Anila Crimmnn ASM'1'M0.81W.: I lnM5 Address 2603 Meadow Oak Lane PO Box 1058 Monticello, MN 66362 2601 Meadow Oak Lane Monticello, MN 66362 do Dickman Knutson IIC83, Box 914A Crosslake, MN 66442 do Dickman Knutson IIC&3, Box 914A Crosalake, MN 66442 do Dickman Knutson IIC83, Box 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 do Dickman Knutson IIC83, Box 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 do Dickman Knutson I ICES, Ilux 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 do Dickman Knutson IIC83, Box 914A Crosslake, MN 66442 do Dickman Knutson 11('.83, Itox 914A Crosslake, MN 66442 2616 Meadow Oak Ione Monticello, MN 66362 2600 Meadow Oak Iona Monticello, MN 66362 Y/ PIU storm (like street Total 166.044-003130 650.04 0.00 0.00 550.04 166-044-003140 642.64 0.00 0.00 542.64 166.044-004010 644.50 0.00 0.00 644.60 166.0444004020 606.66 0.00 0.00 605.60 165-044-004030 542.64 0.00 0.00 542.64 166.044-004050 779.69 0.00 0.00 779.69 166.044-004060 888.96 0.00 0.00 888.96 156.044-004070 976.25 0.00 0.00 835,25 165.044404080 998.23 0.00 0.00 998.23 IM -044-004040 664.86 0.00 0.00 664.86 IM -044-004090 1318.62 0.00 0.00 131Hf2 Vow, 2 Name Mary & Dinno Anderson Charles Walters Michael & Rebecca Beck Charles McCormick Jerome Benson Jeffrey Richard Michael & Susan limier Daniel Fink Gerald Bergeron Robin I'eikerl Ronald Dubay Kyle & Janet Jenson David &.Iulia Wilt, Charles flat -tell (owner) 119 ASMTM0.SBC: 11/,711.15 Address 784 Acorn Circle Monticello, MN 55362 782 Acorn Circle Monticello, MN 55362 780 Acorn Circle Monticello, MN 55362 779 Acorn Circle Monticello, MN 65362 2600 Meadow Oak Ione Monticello, MN 65362 2841 Had Oak Lane Monticello, MN 66362 2861 Iced Onk Circle Monticello, MN 65362 PO Dias 1190 Monticello, MN 65362 2900 lied Oak Circle Monticello, MN 55362 2880 Iced Oak Circle Monticello, MN 55362 2860 lied Oak Circlo Monticello, MN 66362 910 Meadow Oak (hive Monticello, MN 65362 920 Meadow Oak Dr. Monticello, MN 55362 9244 95th Street NF' Monticello, MN 65362 Page:l Pu) Storm Dike Street •rola1 155.044-004100 694.50 0.00 0.00 694.50 155.044-004110 1244.64 0.00 0.00 1244.54 165.044.004120 1664.96 0.00 0.00 1664.95 155.044.004130 1256.66 0.00 0.00 1255166 165.044.004140 761.17 0.00 0.00 761.17 1651.045.001010 820.44 0.00 0.00 920.44 155.046.002010 668.66 0.00 0.00 568.516 165.04M02020 463.74 0.00 0.00 463.74 155.045.002030 408.19 0.00 0.00 498.19 155.045.002040 479.67 0.00 0.00 479.67 155.046.002050 461.15 0.00 0.00 461.15 156.045-002060 601.00 0.00 0,00 601.90 155.046.002070 570.42 0.00 0.00 570.42 166.046.002080 613.00 0.00 0.00 513.00 Page:l Name Address Richard Schrenk (renter) 930 Meadow Oak Dr. 166-046.002090 Monticello, MN 65362 Patrick McCoy 940 Meadow Oak Dr. 165-045.002110 Monticello, MN 66362 Scott heldmnn &T. Biergerl 950 Meadow Oak Dr. 166.046.003020 Monticello, MN 55362 Richard Imholto 1000 Meadow Oak Dr. 166-046-003040 Monticello, MN 65362 Steven Safar & Peggy Webber 2840 Red Oak Lane 166-046-004080 Monticello, MN 66362 Timothy Churchill 906 Meadow Oak Dr. 155.045-MI00 Monticello, MN 65362 Richard Jarvis & 1.. Mushel 915 Meadow Oak Dr. 166-046.006080 Monticello, MN 66362 Julie I lenricha 925 Meadow Oak Dr. 540.78 Monticello, MN 55362 Betty Dechene 1005 Meadow Oak Dr. 0.00 Monticello, MN 65362 Timothy & Jennifer Bauer 2761 Oakvlow Lane 0,00 Monticello, MN 66362 Kirk I Iarteler 2741 Ookviow Lono 344.47 Monticello, MN 66362 James & .hmn Pogatchnik 2721 Oakviow Lane Monticello, MN 55362 Noll Ki -mix 2742 Oakview Imno Monticello, MN 65362 Brenda Innis 2722Oakviow Lano Monticello, MN 68362 09 HASMTM().SKC': II/ 105 PID Storm 166-045-002080 513.00 166-046.002090 463.00 166.045.002100 435.22 165-045.002110 468.56 165-045.003010 474.11 166.046.003020 436.22 166-046.003030 470.41 166-046-003040 474.11 155.046.004010 640.78 166-046-004080 374.10 165.045-M090 377.81 155.045-MI00 367.44 166-045.006070 344.47 166-046.006080 348.18 Paps 4 (tike Street Total 0.00 0.00 513.00 0.00 0.00 463.00 0.00 0.00 435.22 0.00 0.00 4Q.56 0.00 0.00 474.11 0.00 0.00 435.22 0.00 0.00 470.41 0.00 0.00 474.11 0.00 0.00 540.78 0.00 0.00 374.10 0.00 0.00 377.81 0.00 0,00 357.44 0.00 0.00 344.47 0.00 0.00 348.18 Paps 4 J -- Name Address PID Storm Bike Street Total John & Shnron Belinski 2691 Red Oak Lane 166-057-001010 924.15 0.00 0.00 924.15 Monticello, MN 65362 William ]tinker 2701 lied Oak Lane 165-057.001020 676.97 0.00 0.00 575.97 Monticello, MN 55362 Itandy Sheppard 2721 Iced Oak bene 155.057.001030 611.15 0.00 0.00 511.15; Monticello, MN 66362 Ultra Homes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 165-057-001040 622.26 0.00 0.00 522.26; IIC83, Box 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 GnrySandman 2750 Maplewood Circle 155.057-002060 614.86 0.00 0.00 614.86; Monticello, MN 65362 Iloward & Lynn Lenzen 2760 Maplewood Circle 166-057-002070 487.08 0.00 0.00 487.08 Monticello, MN 66362 Michael I(rier 280011x1 Oak Ione 156.057.002080 487.08 0.00 0.00 487.08 Monticello, MN 55362 Dennis Koreh 2761 Iced Oak Lone 155.057.001050 496.34 0.00 0.00 4961.34 Monticello, MN 65362 Anthony Ilackennmueller 2781 ]led Oak Lane 155.057.001060 522.26 0.00 0.00 522.26 Monticello, MN 55362 Charles & Carol Ebert 2801 Red Oak Lone 15"57-001070 648.20 0.00 0.00 CAR.20 Monticello, MN 65362 Tommy Schulte & M.G. Asklnnd 2700 lied Oak lone 165-057-002010 533.38 0.00 0.00 633.38 Monticello, MN 66362 Dole & Nancy Olson 2470 lied Oak Lono 155-057-002020 472.26 0.00 0.00 472.26 Monticello, MN 65362 Bruce I'nraon 2743 Maplewood Circle 165.057.0020.30 479.67 0.00 0.00 479.67 110 Box 353 Monticello, MN 55362 09 4 ASMT M l.SW: 11095 I,M:e fi Name Robert & Krist.e Maus 1)elarah Eccless Ultra Ilnmes, Inc. Ultra Homes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Homes, Inc. Ultra Ilomes, Inc. Ultra Homes, Inc. Ultra Ilomos, Inc. Ultra llomes, Inc. Ultra Mimes, Inc. AaMT5111.81,C: 1 V1195 Address 2746 Maplewood Circle Monticello, MN 55362 2747 Maplewood Circle Monticello, MN 66362 c/o Dickman Knutson IIC83, Dox 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 do Dickman Knutson IIC83, Dox 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 do Dickman Knutson IIC83, Dox 914A Crosslake, MN 66442 do Dickman Knutson 11('.83, Dox 914A Crosslnke, MN 56442 c/o Dickman Knutson IIC83, Box 914A Crosslake, MN 66442 c/o Dickman Knutson I IC83, Dox 914A Crosslake. MN 66442 do Dickman Knutson IIC83, Dox 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 c/o Dickman Knutson I [C83, Ikar 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 clo Dickman Knutson I ICM, Ilnx 914A Crosslake, MN 56442 PID Storm Ilike Street Talal 165.057-002040 720.43 0.00 0.00 720.43 155-057.002050 581.53 0.00 0.00 581.53 155.059-001010 983.41 0.00 0.00 98:1.41 166.059-001020 540.78 0.00 0.00 540.78 165.059-001030 350.03 0.00 0.00 360.03 155.059.001040 324.10 0.00 0.00 324.10 166.059-001050 335.21 0.00 0.00 335.21 156.059-001060 355.68 0.00 0.00 365.58 155.059.001070 381.51 0.00 0.00 381.51 155-059.001080 437.07 0.00 0.00 437.07 IM -059.002010 437.07 0.00 011) 437.07 Page li hy,4, 7 Name Address Ultra Homes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson Storm IIC83, Dox 914A Street Crosslake, MN 66442 Ultra Homes. Inc. do Dickman Knutson 0.00 1IC&I, Dox 914A 474.11 Crosslake, MN 56442 Ultra Homes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 0.00 IIC83, Box 914A 155.059.002040 Crosslake, MN 56442 Ultra Ilomes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 459.30 IIC93, Box 914A 401.88 Crosslake, MN 56442 Charles Ilnrtell (owner) 9244 06th Sl. NE 165.059.002120 Monticello, MN 65362 Dan Wermes(renter) 2841 Meadow bane 375.96 Monticello, MN 65362 Ultra Ilomes, Inc. do Rickman Knutson 0.00 IIC83, Dox 914A 155.059.003030 Crosslako, MN 56442 IIllra lTomes, Inc. do Dickman Knutson 401.88 IIC83, Box 914A 746.36 Cmselake, MN 56442 Michael & Kelly Daniels 2701 Meadow Lane 165.059.002050 Monticello, MN 55362 (florin (maser 110 Box 1036 422.26 Monticello, MN 55362 Mark At Patricia 9Yu:ller 2741 Meadow lane 0.00 Monticello, MN 55362 Menton & Marilyn WSllander 2761 Meadow lens 0.00 Monticello, MN 55.9(f2 350.03 166.059002080 ASMTMO,SVC: 1 IW95 0.00 hy,4, 7 PID Storm Hike Street Total 166-059-002020 474.11 0.00 0.00 474.11 165.059-002030 646.34 0.00 0.00 546.34 155.059.002040 459.30 0.00 0.00 459.30 166.059-002100 401.88 0.00 0.00 401.88 165.059.002120 375.96 0.00 0.00 375.96 165.059.002120 375.96 0.00 0.00 37ri.96 155.059.003030 401.88 0.00 0.00 401.88 156.059.004010 746.36 0.00 0.00 740.36 165.059.002050 422.26 0.00 0.00 422.26 155.059.002060 320.60 0.00 0.00 329.66 IIS6.059.002070 350.03 0.00 0.00 350.03 166.059002080 364.84 0.00 0.00 364.84 hy,4, 7 Name Address Greg Turkuln 2781 Meadow Lane Monticello, MN 66362 Barham Hamilton 2821 Meadow Lane Street Monticello, MN 65362 Bandy & Maureen Winger 2700 Meadow Lane 0.00 Monticello, MN 56362 Bradley & Shari Cyr 2720 Meadow Lane 401.88 Monticello, MN 55362 'rim & Sandra Suchy 2760 Meadow Lane 166-069.003010 Monticello, MN 65362 Peter & Rebecca Bouloy 2780 Meadow Lane 646.34 Monticello, MN 55362 Thomas & Lisa Itowen 2800 Meadow Lano 0.00 Monticello, MN 55362 'ferry Wells & S. 1). Dougherty 2820 Meadow Lano 0.00 Monticello, MN 65362 Charles &.IoAnn Barthel 2840 Meadow Lono 411.14 Monticello, MN 0362 Jerome & Dinue O'Leary 25I8 Briar Oakes Boulevard 165-059-003060 Monticello, MN 55362 Tim & Cindy Olinger 2622 Briar Oakea Boulevard 390.77 Monticello, MN 66362 c & S of St. Cloud 110 :lox 7486 0.00 SI. Claud, MN 66302 C & S of St. Cloud 110 Box 7486 0.00 St_ Cloud, MN 56302 C & S of St. Cloud 110 Box 7486 600.05 SL Cloud, MN 66302 A SM'1'MI I. S FC: I I /3/Uri 1'14:0 8 PID Storm Bike Street Total 165-069-002090 365.68 0.00 0.00 355.58 165-059.002110 401.88 0.00 0.00 401.88 166-069.003010 646.34 0.00 0.00 646.34 165-069-003020 453.74 0.00 0.00 463.74 165-059-003040 411.14 0.00 0.00 411.14 Ifi5-069.003050 411.14 0.00 0.00 411.14 165-059-003060 390.77 0.00 0.00 390.77 155-069-003070 427.81 0.00 0.00 427.81 165-059.003080 463.00 0.00 0.00 463.00 155.070.001010 600.05 0.00 0.00 600.05 165.070.001020 629.68 0.00 0.00 629.68 166-070.001030 659.30 0.00 0.00 659.30 155.070.001050 655.61 0.00 0.00 fiir5.6i 1 166-070.001060 472.26 0.00 0.00 472.26 1'14:0 8 Name Address PIU Storm Bike Street Total C & S of St. Cloud PO Box 7486 166-070-001070 711.17 0.00 0.00 711.17 Sl. Cloud, MN 56302 teary & Dawn Metzger 1036 I lawthorne Pl. N. 166.070-001080 1014.90 0.00 0.00 1014.90 Monticello, MN 66362 William& Susan Endres 2632 Briar Oakes Blvd. 166-0070.001100 616.71 0.00 0.00 616.71 Monticello, MN 66362 I(evin &.lean Done 2626 Briar Oakes Blvd. 166.070.001040 670.42 0.00 0.00 670.42 Monticello, MN 66362 Anthony & blether Skelton 1046 Ilawthorne PI. N. 166-070-001090 648.20 0.00 0.00 648.20 Monticello, MN 66362 Wayne & Patricia Mayer 2630 Brinr Oakes Blvd. 166.070.001110 661.90 0.00 0.00 651.90 Monticello, MN 66362 C' & S of St. Cloud PO Box 7486 166.970.002010 1036.27 0.00 0.00 1035.27 Monticello, MN 66362 C & S of Ft. f:Inud 110 Box 7486 166.070.002020 879.70 0.00 0.00 879.70 Sl. Cloud, MN 66302 C & S of St. Cloud PO Box 7486 166.070.002030 840.81 0.00 0.00 840.81 St Cloud, MN 66302 (lregory & Teresn Currie 1120 Endicott Trall 166.070.002060 879.70 0.00 0.00 870.70 Monticello, MN 66362 Scott & Panay Sonntng 1116 Endicott Trail 166-070002060 1038.97 0.00 0.00 1038.97 Monticello, MN 66362 Mnrty Moran 1076 Endicott Trail 166-070.002070 744.60 0.00 0.00 744.60 Monticello, MN 66362 Charles Sell 2623 Briar Oakes Blvd. 166.070.002080 627.82 0.00 0.00 627.82 Monticello, MN 66362 David & Jami Schwartz 2627 Briar Oakes Blvd. IBM70.002100 620.41 0.00 0.00 620.41 Monticello, MN 66362 Z ASmwo.smc: iirmi Name Address C & S of St. Cloud PO Bo: 7486 Sl. Cloud, MN 66302 I)ouglas & Catherine Niklason 1170 Hawthorne Pl. S. Street Monticello, MN 66362 Michael DeVries 2633 Briar Oakes Blvd. 0.00 Monticello, MN 66362 Ityan & Elizabeth Isaacson 2631 Briar Oakes Blvd. 864.88 Monticello, MN 66362 Jeff & Cindy Francis 1110 Endicott Trail 166.070.002160 Monticello, MN 66362 Marshall & Dinno Jacubson 2626 Briar Oakes Blvd. 600.04 Monticello, MN 66362 Bruce & Ann Itinggenherg 1130 llnwthorne PI. S. 0.00 Monticello, MN 66362 Willinm & MarySchmidt 11516 1lawthorne PI. S. 0.00 Monticello, MN 66362 Gerald & Patricia Wilke 1126 Hawthorne Pl. S. 667.46 Monticello, MN 66362 Gerald Doerr 9861 Dillard Ave. NE 166-070.002110 Monticello, MN 66362 Williams Design nod 19087 180th Ave. Construction Big Lnke, MN 66309 Clint & Dinne Ilerbst 9801 UBlard Ave. NE 0.00 Monticello, MN 66362 Walney & Karen Novell 2161 66th St. NW 0.00 Mopin Lake, MN 66368 Italnoy & Karen Norell 2161 66th St. NW 0.00 Maplo Lake, MN 66368 QO 11681.411 166.071-001010 0.00 ASM'11111.8I3% II/.W5 1063.14 Page III PID Storm Bike Street Total 166-070-002120 669.31 0.00 0.00 059.31 166-070-002130 864.88 0.00 0.00 864.88 166.070.002160 600.04 0.00 0.00 600.04 166.070.002170 461.89 0.00 0.00 4511.89 166-070.002040 869.33 0.00 0.00 869.33 166.070-002090 667.46 0.00 0.00 557.45 166-070.002110 1018.60 0.00 0.00 1018.60 168.070.002140 781.64 0.00 0.00 + 781.64 166.070.002160 833.40 0.00 0.00 181,13.40 166.071.001020 0.00 286.87 1394.63 11681.411 166.071-001010 0.00 218.70 1063.14 11281.84 166.061.001010 0.00 130.83 636.99 76X6,83 166.001.001020 0.00 146.82 708.84 854.66 166.061.000010 41,646.92 213.84 1039.62 142,799.27 Page III Name ` Rosamond & Louis Sandusky Victor Hellman Jeffrey & Colleen Nelson .Jeffrey & Colleen Nelson John & Margery Gurney Kevin & Pat Fair Victor & Ilnrhara Hellman Richard & Iloiiarn Busch Victor & Rerharn Ilellman Warren & Lindy Pederson Victor & Ilarhara Ilellman Sloven & I)eborn Peterson Victor & Hnrlmra Ilellmnn Itichnrd & Ila (sordes ASKIWO.NFa I1W.16 Address 9751 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 65362 213 Mississippi Dr. Monticello, MN 66362 9721 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 56362 9721 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 65362 9691 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 65362 9681 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 66362 213 Mississippi Dr. Monticello, MN 65362 9651 Gillam Ave. NE Monticello, MN 66362 213 Mississippi Dr. Monticello, MN 65362 9621 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 65362 213 Mississippi Dr. Monticello, MN 65362 9591 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 65362 213 Mississippi Dr. Monticello, MN 65362 9621 Gillard Ave. NE Monticello, MN 55362 PID Storm 165-061-002010 676.98 165-061-002020 833.40 165-061.002030 926.00 165-061-002040 926.00 165-061.002050 600.04 165-061.002060 566.71 165-061.002070 883.40 165-061.002080 926.00 155-061.002090 926.00 166-061.002100 926.00 165-061.002110 926.00 165-061-002120 926.00 165.061.002130 926.00 165-061.003010 926.00 [tike Street Tom 146.82 708.84 1530.64 129.62 630.09 1593.10 129.62 630.09 16185.70 129.62 630.09 1685.70 129.62 630.09 1259.74 129.62 630.09 1326.42 129.62 630.09 1643.11 129.62 630.09 1685.70 129.62 630.09 1685.70 129.62 630.09 1685.70 129,62 630.09 1686.70 129.62 630.09 1685.70 129.62 630.09 1685.70 145.82 708.84 1780.616 Name Address PID Storm Bike Street Total Randall Vetsch 9511 Gillard Ave. NE 155-061.003020 926.00 145.82 708.84 1780.66 Monticello, MN 55362 Corey & Kimberly Hellman 9551 Gillard Ave. NE 155-061-002140 1042.68 145.82 708.84 1897.33 Monticello, MN 56362 C & S of St. Cloud 110 Box 7486 Outlot A 33,891.60 0.00 0.00 33,891.60 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Briar Oakes Eel. Adam & Antonin Mueller 2711 Oakviow Lane 165-080.004010 537.08 0.00 0.00 537.08 Monticello, MN 56362 David & Melissa Lee 2701 Oakview Lane 165.080.005010 1092.68 0.00 0.00 1092.68 Monticello, MN 55362 Patrick & Juann Olson 2691 Oakviow Rd. 1515.080.005020 796.36 0.00 0.00 796.30 Monticello, MN 55362 Eugene Windhorst 2681 Oakviow Lone 166.080.005030 759.32 0.00 0.00 759.32 Monticello, MN 55362 Gerald Hellman Construction 110 Box 794 1651.080.005040 944.62 0.00 0.00 944.52 Monticello, MN 66362 Monti LIA, 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. 165.080.005050 1944.60 0.00 0.00 1944.60 Cam Rapids, MN 55433 New Creation homes 708 Main Sl. 155.080.005060 1600.12 0.00 0.00 100. 12 I:Ik River, M N 515330 Monti LLC 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. 155.080.005070 1092.68 0.00 0.00 1092.68 Coon Rapids, MN 66433 Thomas & Kathleen Wendel 26171 Oak Ridge Dr. 156-080-005080 700.36 0.00 0.00 796.36 Monticello, MN 66362 Monti I,IA: 2619 Cam Rapids 111vd. Ifin-080.0051090 769.32 0.00 0.00 759.32 Coon Rapids, MN 65433 Monti LIA: 2619 Conn Rapids Blvd, 166.080.005100 703.76 0.00 0.00 703.76 Cam Rapids, MN 55433 Qpq AAHMTM0.SFN1: 11/A195 PaOe 12 Name Address Monti LLC 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 66433 Richard & Kimberly Rowland 2631 Oak Ridge Dr. Street Monticello, MN 66362 Dan & Michelle Foreman 2621 Oak Ridge Dr. 0.00 Monticello, MN 66362 Bruce Lanoue & Robin Balder 2721 Oak Ridge Dr. 407.44 Monticello, MN 66362 Michael & Marcia Bauman 2672Onkview Lane 166-080-006130 Monticello, MN 66362 David & Kathy Mattson 2702 Oakview Lane 407.44 Monticello, MN 66362 Burlington Northern Railroad Property Ta: Dept. 0.00 777 Main Bt. 166-080-003110 1206 Continental Plaza 0.00 Fort Worth, TX 76102.6384 OO IV ANNITMI I BEC: 11/3HI6 hire 1:1 PID Storm Bike Street Total 166-080.006110 703.76 0.00 0.00 703.76 166-080-006120 407.44 0.00 0.00 407.44 166-080-006130 407.44 0.00 0.00 407.44 166-080-003100 648.20 0.00 0.00 648.20 166-080-003110 666.60 0.00 0.00 666.60 166080-003120 674.12 0.00 0.00 674.12 Right -or -way 4262.19 0.00 0.00 4262.19 hire 1:1 November 8, 1995 City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller, This letter provides our objections to the proposed assessment against our property for the Meadow Oak Storm Sewer Outlet project, Project 93-12C. This is pursuant to the notice for a public hearing on this project that we received on November 4, 1995. We feel that the proposed assessment is excessive and unfair and exceeds the benefit to our property. We also feel that the method used to derive the assessment is arbitrary and capricious. Specific objections to the proposed assessment are listed below. 1. The primary purpose for this project was to provide a storm outlet for the Meadow Oaks area and any benefits to the residents of Gillard Ave. are minimal. However, the amount of assessment against properties along Gillard Avenue exceeds the assessments against the Meadow Oaks parcels. In addition to the storm drain assessments we are expected to pay for the road reconstruction. 2. If storm drainage for the Gillard Ave. properties were truly necessary, it should have been installed when the sanitary sewer and water were Installed 5 years ago. Because this was not done, the parcels on Gillard Ave. have, in effect, been assessed twice for portions of this project. FIR November 8, 1995 City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller, This letter provides our objections to the proposed assessment against our property for the Meadow Oak Storm Sewer Outlet project, Project 93-12C. This is pursuant to the notice for a public hearing on this project that we received on November 4, 1995. We feel that the proposed assessment is excessive and unfair and exceeds the benefit to our property. We also feel that the method used to derive the assessment is arbitrary and capricious. Specific objections to the proposed assessment are listed below. 1. The primary purpose for this project was to provide a storm outlet for the Meadow Oaks area and any benefits to the residents of Gillard Ave. are minimal. However, the amount of assessment against properties along Gillard Avenue exceeds the assessments against the Meadow Oaks parcels. In addition to the storm drain assessments we are expected to pay for the road reconstruction. 2. If storm drainage for the Gillard Ave. properties were truly necessary, it should have been installed when the sanitary sewer and water were Installed 5 years ago. Because this was not done, the parcels on Gillard Ave. have, in effect, been assessed twice for portions of this project. FIR November 8, 1995 City Administrator City of Monticello 250 last Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Wolfsteller, This letter provides our objections to the proposed assessment against our property for the Meadow Oak Storm Sewer Outlet project, Project 93-12C. This is pursuant to the notice for a public hearing on this project that we received on November 4, 1995. We feel that the proposed assessment is excessive and unfair and exceeds the benefit to our property. We also feel that the method used to derive the assessment is arbitrary and capricious. Specific objections to the proposed assessment are listed below: 1. The primary purpose for this project was to provide a storm outlet for the Meadow Oaks area and any benefits to the residents of Giflard Ave. are minimal. However, the amount of assessment against properties along Gillard Avenue exceeds the assessments against the Meadow Oaks parcels. In addition to the storm drain assessment we have to pay for reconstruction of the road. 2. If storm drainage for the Glllard Ave. properties were truly necessary, It should have been installed when the sanitary sewer and water were installed 5 years ago. Because this was not done, the parcels on Gillard Avenue have, in effect, been assessed twice for portions of this project. j1 3. We are expected to pay all of the reconstruction costs for replacing v GWard Ave. The average service life of a road surface Is 20 years, however there has been no attempt by city staff or the city engineer to determine the age of the existing road surface. We feel that some credit for remaining lie of the existing road surface should be given. We also have concerns about the future integrity of the roadbed for the new road since extensive patching of the surfacing was required within weeks of laying the new surface. In closing we feel that the proposed assessment for our property does not meet the requirements of the applicable Minnesota statutes in that the benefit derived from the project, based on market valuation, is much less than the assessment. if need be, we are prepared to pursue litigation in the court system to prove this. Signed. Xl-d^ld4-"- -O i 155-OG1- 002010 Nov -09-95 04:45P MSB & ASS=- INC. Pkwcmber 9, 1995 I kuKrabk Mayor and Cowl M=bers City of Mmsicdlo P.O. Lkx 1147 2% Fast 13tc�y Moruiexllo, MN 55362 Ke: Asses Tmtt Atter =Vcs for Nba&w (Jerks Oudet City of Moreiallo Project Na 93-12C WSB Y gjax No. 1001.01 612 541-1700 P.02 a.ti mit"bamie. P.E nn. A mein. P.H. Peter R, 3Vdkabnt* P.F. trm.ld W. S.Ms . PIE Rmdd B. am, P.H. Dmr May%* and Cowwil Manbm This later is a fidlow-up to my Ireviots Ima describing the awssmrnt procodt m used for the above- rcfcmnL%4 project. The fo11owWg ate wmr uther acszu= ahattativo that could be used to Iowa the a&%msablc mte if the oouncil so dmsims: (1) Base %&qbLd lhis is the med►od wW was wed an the anm meas auxs dw were cera ata Tatid Storm PIP ovate Mu11f04' Saler Pmjed (To dWw Bo Caurlbutim C4u edamw Seg) • Sram Smwx Amtslnan CwA - 3386.956.07 535,767.16 - f50,000 -5301.118.91 Aswxs" Rate 5301,11891 $I.1SLAaetuble Ane 162.67 AwnBbb Acrd • Soea A%w.%Unel►t 37.68/1 f to NketiW- to taidmo )=led a6V Giltwd Avails S 15,317.02 Y. the City of Mtrakx In for Towm Wp rukkm >, dm could not be alwaW. $7.423.17 Montka:llr. Town Ca oibtakn A crort kW 1/7 crus I01 MLMM tdM QM rme urrb this Inettnd wwld be $6170), 11 f ianNMI. is Pimm" • Plmarerr i Lata, Nwts-II& rrr e01am+ 1 350 westw000 Lake Office 8441 Wayzata t3 MSA $54 6 Mtnneapdfe, MNN 55428 r 812-541.4800 U`A.uoci&aJxc- FAX 541-1700 Pkwcmber 9, 1995 I kuKrabk Mayor and Cowl M=bers City of Mmsicdlo P.O. Lkx 1147 2% Fast 13tc�y Moruiexllo, MN 55362 Ke: Asses Tmtt Atter =Vcs for Nba&w (Jerks Oudet City of Moreiallo Project Na 93-12C WSB Y gjax No. 1001.01 612 541-1700 P.02 a.ti mit"bamie. P.E nn. A mein. P.H. Peter R, 3Vdkabnt* P.F. trm.ld W. S.Ms . PIE Rmdd B. am, P.H. Dmr May%* and Cowwil Manbm This later is a fidlow-up to my Ireviots Ima describing the awssmrnt procodt m used for the above- rcfcmnL%4 project. The fo11owWg ate wmr uther acszu= ahattativo that could be used to Iowa the a&%msablc mte if the oouncil so dmsims: (1) Base %&qbLd lhis is the med►od wW was wed an the anm meas auxs dw were cera ata Tatid Storm PIP ovate Mu11f04' Saler Pmjed (To dWw Bo Caurlbutim C4u edamw Seg) • Sram Smwx Amtslnan CwA - 3386.956.07 535,767.16 - f50,000 -5301.118.91 Aswxs" Rate 5301,11891 $I.1SLAaetuble Ane 162.67 AwnBbb Acrd • Soea A%w.%Unel►t 37.68/1 f to NketiW- to taidmo )=led a6V Giltwd Avails S 15,317.02 Y. the City of Mtrakx In for Towm Wp rukkm >, dm could not be alwaW. $7.423.17 Montka:llr. Town Ca oibtakn A crort kW 1/7 crus I01 MLMM tdM QM rme urrb this Inettnd wwld be $6170), 11 f ianNMI. is Pimm" • Plmarerr i Lata, Nwts-II& rrr e01am+ 1 Nov -09-98 04:48P MSB & ASSOC. INC. 612 841-1700 P.03 Hactomble Mayor ural Comml Members City of Mordimllo. MN Novernba 9, 1995 Page 2 (2) AumoMica mu VAbout Gillard Avenue Strom ssessn t with this nudatd the only saw wscwnc a would be do $7.423.17 to Nbntioelb Trwsnship fnr their short: of die biaunirsrtss ov day. The rmminiog swot cost will he irchtded with the storm wv= costs. '(itis wttuW reduce the Gillatd Ave m residm& cw by $300 to 5400 per la bomm they wnuldn4 be paying a ceps m saw assessutsatt. TuW Coorm 1►twmm Sewer Project CooMbutW Sued Cod Cud • Cann Sewer Aswsstrp sot $386,956.07 - $50.000 + $30,355.43 — S2.239.801A.�m- 16263 Ancsuble Acres A narrlwd 1/3 ace lot tavesstnaa using the above rwo would be $753.00 Ibis nwdwd is nut ruwmnertded due to the Coco that dw rmidouct alatg Collard Averure are receiving a now road m a very renuoabk cast Most of the removal and mwavaiiun ousts have bwm %howl to the stmn sewer p ujea me and only dta sew pavamnt ted hoe we hen assessed at the consahuion cm rate. CottvwAWvcly, if the toed was mixt iQw W as a upm prtyw. ow, residaas would be responsible for app vnirmtdy Sl9U as apposed to the leviod $7.88, 'Ibis alio does not inohrd<s the grade modification duh was ircarpatated aw the ca u&ucted project. (3) This ntetlxd would udlim rho cum manciused with the base nultW but would alp l the dr 4wjc w a to include an arca drat an be saved by tk additional S eft for which the wam &cosy was mutaod. This methal, howcvtr, would raquim sorm additional capaal ono to fled Kan improwrrnms nmmswy ro axanoatdste the eropathded mainaga arra. It fou cainrnod dw this additional Liptal asst would be bAwom $170M to SMOM using 1905 anwwsirn txmL Thu mul%nd would ai8 udNas the sued assawnew to C911rd Avow raidcm, A bFWJoww of the own diffwom capital cost akmmva is a follows: t'dttP%w 1ML01%111PM.I VA" 0 Nov -09-96 04:45P MSB & ASSOC. INC. Wnrmnable Wyir and (a=d Mmibers City Of Nlroaiccuo. MN November 9. 1995 Page 3 612 541-1700 P.04 AU Stam Seam Aatlmmmt w/S170A00 Future t.apim EapwAisme Total Storm Slum Project Cart 5386956.07 . S50,000 + $170,000 - S1.571.371Acre 162.63 + 160 (New Arcs) AddWmW bud= Capiul Cart A amkud 1/3 we lit assaunan using dw above ram would be 5521.00. Tuts) Storm Additional Sower Project MWDOT Capital Cao SM956.07 - SSO.00O + S2W.000 - SI WA.31/Auer 162.63 - 160 (Tkw Arm) A naakud 1/3 nae Irt astesmmn using the above ram would be $554.17. It ui uW he safe to utilize the $170,000 capital cost for the ptcpuss of setting an assessable arc rate hocatrse this tate uan be a wand up in the futtae. The: aaewnent will be billed to all owently-dmity ed p q=cs and turn will be chengd to a 'lha* Storm ticwcr A.u1w fine to pttrpenies that develop after the awessmim rull is artificd. Subsetluernly. this nuc erxdd he Austad up ws caty as ]amtary. 1996 and yearly after that to account for in %cs to the ankutaxion cast index Addition -illy, ytxr axdd mipulatc that the City wwxdd ally be tespuluibk for i maximum of $170.001) or 5200.000 to ova the estpnttded draliva arra, and thLn any additional coats over that anrunt wjuW be to v by Ow ekxh of alae enwWad arca_ C%V4VAMI W I.Un 11 W W.I IAt' Nov -09-96 04:46P MSB 8 ASSOC. INC. 612 641-1700 P.OB Hmcrable Mayor and Cotmuil Mmmbm City of Mumiudlo. MN mwanba 9, 1995 Hage 4 (4) 9dditiamLl) kdhttds If the City Cbtaril would Ww m reach the rate findw than what is Wcmifiad harcin m would like to amain a mum stigmiftrara ftme of the costa, a method can be devised at the Council Havering. Most likely, any odor madmid world place the City m a preearlow situation for fume umPvmrou raVidnii waawncm Additioml1y, it is ave rwmm =xW that the City include the existing poinding and right-of-way area in the ass mord program 'this world d6mitely set an wrxxvad prmodcnL It wiwM be my . � .an tat hyou sclec a method an audinvd herein wda Altemative 3. 'Utas pmvidm an assast m rate m ft ballperlt of wto was araicipated early m the pmjoct phm and also would provide the most flcxWity to recover the fimds a WKW with mks project Please call mo m my office at 5414800 or at ham at 755.8035 if you have any cluestinme prior to the Caatcil Meeting. Sim=dy, W% B ARKMAM INC Litz - BM A W1.1L% RL vice Pre4dmu nm tMwwMtms.nnt Ivan IML, 7z- 1J Council Agenda - 11/13/96 roll.. O.S.) This project has taken a significant amount of time to initiate due to the complexity of the project, working in an existing neighborhood with 12 individual property owners and 2 utility companies in relatively tight quarters. More neighborhood informational meetings and Council meetings have been spent on this project than is typically spent on projects 20 times its size. The project proceeded under the premise that we would install a new drainage ditch with limited storm sewer piping in the existing 10 -ft easement but would acquire additional back slope from 4 property owners who are not adamantly opposed to the project. In the area of two rear lot lines, ideal slope conditions were compromised in order to have maximum protection of trees in the area and stay in the existing easement. The Council went a step beyond normal projects and indicated they would warranty the trees adjoining this ditch in the area of the deep cuts for an additional year after the project is completed. The original estimates on the project were $7,170 for construction and $1,434 for engineering and administration, for a total of $8,604. Since it was originally anticipated that we would be going further into these properties, closer to the trees and installing retaining walls, the City Council placed the first estimated project cost in the public hearing notices at $10,000. During a subsequent public hearing, when the plans for the project were finalized without retaining walls, the Council was asked by citizens to consider sharing in the cost of the project. At that time, the Council indicated they would cover any City direct coats for staff, such as engineering and administration coats estimated at about $,1434, which was about 17% of the original total estimated project coat. The project was awarded to Fyle's Excavating and went pretty well as planned. Bridge Water Telephone contracted separately with Fyle's Excavating to remove and relocate the telephone cables in the easement, and Jones Intercable chose to work independently to rebury their cables. It is my understanding that some of the cables today have not yet been reburied. Individual property owners have been in contact with Jones Intercable to got this work completed. Council Agenda - 11/13/96 As the project was nearing completion near Red Oak Lane where the storm sewer connection was to be made, two residents who had given additional slope easement without costa were unhappy with the depth of the ditch and slope at their property. These property owners were Steven Safar at Lot 1 and Mike Krier at Lot 8. These individuals requested that the storm sewer pipe be extended a short distance so as to make that portion of their property adjoining Red Oak Lane more useable. We had the contractor order and install one additional length of pipe. The City found several used serviceable pipes at various projects around the community and purchased one additional pipe to extend the Minch storm sewer pipe an additional 70 feet. This was the maximum length we felt it practical to go, as the longer the pipe was extended, the more of a maintenance problem it would become for the City in the future. Since there were not funds in the project for bringing dirt back in to cover the additional pipe and the regrading, Mr. Safar and Mr. Krier agreed to pay for that cost and were billed by the contractor directly. This cost was $260. City staff felt comfortable with extending the storm sewer in this area, as the two property owners involved had willingly given additional slope easement to the City at no cost and felt their property had been more adversely affected than they originally thought. The other two individuals who gave us additional slope easements actually saw their property improved, as they were able to regain more use of their property through the relocation of the ditch. The final cost of the project is as follows: 1) Fyle's Construction Construction costs $6,364.66 2) Taylor Land Surveyors Re -staking property corners $300.00 3) Additional RCP pipe purchased by City RCP pipe $262.00 4) Fiber blanket purchased by City (includes staples) Fiber blanket $87.13 TOTAL A.Q= Breaking the costs down on a per -lot basis, based upon the square footage of the lots draining into the swale, results in a cost of 10AMe per square foot. Costs per lot range from a low of $212.73 for Lot 1, owned by Steve Safar, to a high of $966.76 for Lot 6, owned by Gary Sandman. A copy of the drainage area, owners of the lots, and assessment notices sent per lot are enclosed for your review. Council Agenda - 11/13/95 The first alternative after the close of the public hearing would be to place an assessment of 10.865¢ per square foot on that portion of the benefitting lots and adopt the assessment roll as presented, and to place the assessment over the property for a period of 10 years at 6.5% interest. As always, the property owners have 30 days to pay the assessment in full without interest. The second alternative would be to have the City reduce the assessment to the property owners beyond kicking in the administration and engineering that has been done in alternative is 1. The City could kick in an additional 20% of the remaining amount, or some other number, based upon the premise that the City should have placed tighter controls on the developer to see that he completed this work prior to building any houses in the area. The third alternative would be to assess the lots on a per-unit basis rather than a per -square -foot basis. Instead of having a range of lot assessments from $212.73 to $966.76, the cost per lot on a unit basis would be $583.64. C. ST FF F..p F.NDATICaN; It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council consider alternative #I. Based upon the revised cost figures of the project and an estimated administration and engineering cost of $1,434, this results in the City sharing approximately 20% of the cost of the project already. Any further adjustment could set a precedent for future projects and change our existing storm sewer policy as located under 'Assessments' in the rear of your ordinance manual. The City could, however, consider revising that portion of the assessment ordinance to cover more of the cost of storm sewer projects of this nature in the future, then follow what was assessed in this project. Copy of the proposed assessments; Lot configuration with benefitting area. 12 t Z ' in 3 9� w ti O 0 Staff Estimates Removals 20 L.F. Curb 19 Sa Yd. Bit t3"tniek) 2.99 _Js o.00 930 Cu. Yd Common Ex. �2i20,y7Q Move 2 Trees Construction Cut into existing pipe 2�;0 vk 49"Monnole w/Costing 230,29- _ 1250.09- 16'- 12' R. 16 -12"R. C. P. _... .3.6:) 49- 12" F. E.S.owl Trash Guard _. t00 -Jo 20 L.F. Curb _ 4.0000 3 Ca Yd. Class 9 _._ -9-0 -2& 3 Ton Bituminous „ 160.00 Grade ditch (Limp Sim). _ , _ *QO,OQ Seeding (0,2 Acre) _ 3 a0 OQ Remsve %Pt;nsloll Fence .._....9Q2.M 9 Move 6 Rep oce Liven Shed 300.00 herr—Ve 6ReplaceProp,7rmsf3) ._.. 300.0.0. Estimated or 7,17C - Construction Cost $ 1.434 Engineering 6 Admin Estimated 6 00 Project Cost 8�604— o. so 0-O0 �4 ,16.25 99a.2s 999.93 • "• S4 jorc we d Tac. Bit, EJge • Ifnciaenrau ✓-:� T:.: 9-:L Removal --- \J 13' X 13' 12,E ,• Tree dmo�e6 Replace atteegral.r.g ' in 3 9� w ti O 0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE STORM SEWER PROJECT A. REMOVAL& am QUANTITY UNR COSI TOTA 1. 2OLF. Curb $ 50.00 2 19 Sq. Yd. Muminow (3' thicio 85.00 J. 530 Cu. Yd. Common Ex 530 Cu. Yd. $3.25 1,720.00 A Move 2 Trees 2 $100.00 200.00 B. TOTAL (A) CONSTRUCTION: $ 2,055.00 1IE� QUANTITY UNR 1. Cut into exMg pipe $ 150.00 2 48'manhole w/costkV 1 1,220.00 3. 16'•12'R.C.P. 16' 375.00 4. 12'FE.S w/hashguard 525.00 5. 2OLF. Curb 350.00 Q 3 Cu. Yd. Class 5 40.00 7. 3 Ton Bftuminow 425.00 8. Grade ditch Dump sum) 360.00 9. Seedln8 (a2 acre) 275.00 Remove & reInstatl fence j r Move & replace lawn shed Remove & replace prop. Irom (8) TOTAL (B) $ 3,720.00 C. 1. UTILITY CABLES, Remove 2 telephone cables, in opwatlan, Intact $ 467.00 2 Remove 1 TV cable, h operatbn, intact 255.00 TOTAL (C) $ 722.00 GRAND TOTAL (A + B +C) E 6,497.00 COITI=y: Fyle's Excavating & Honey Wagon Dcaw. August 15, 1995 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE STORM PROJECT Estimated Project Cost 57,003.69 Breakdown between 12 lots by parcel S583.64 per lot Project cost broken down by square footage of Wts draining Into swale (64,461 square feet) COST AT 10.8658 Lai SQUARE FOOTAGE PER SQUARE FOOT 8 3696 S 401.57 7 5076 551.50 6 8898 966.76 3 2864 311.17 9 6370 713.83 10 7410 805.09 11 6691 726.97 12 7249 787.60 1 1958 212.73 2 3177 345.16 3 4176 433.72 3 6696 727.52 TOTAL a H!M F,,,,a-r,o41s � G ry / 41 354. S4 —rd V Aw r 3 00. 00 di4v d S2. 00 CI• f7. 13 crx..4 4 R CP �e0 V,,0ikd rt Sit. 9c 1 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE RESIDENTS JULIA LIERGUCH.4 ® MAILING LIST to DEBORAH ECCLES4 GARY SANDMAN Lct3 Lath 2747 MAPLEWOOD CIR(IE XMMAPLEWOOD CIRCLE MDNUCEIJA, MN 55362 MONnaUD, MN 55562 HOWARD A LYNN LENZEN MME R ROt Iat7 Iat8 2760 MAPLEWOOD CMCIE 29W RED OAR LANE MONncELw. MN $5362 1160NRCEILO, MN 55362 S SAPAR 3 P. WEBER nM CHUR(HnL LatI Lat2 2640 RED OAK LUBE 905 MEADOW OAR DRIVE M0N7IC33J,O, MN 55362 MON ICE UD. MN 55362 RICHARD JARVIS JULIA LIERGUCH.4 1.4 3 Lot 4 915 M1 ADOW OAK DRIVE 925 MEADOW OAK DRIVE MONSCEIJA. MN 55362 MONnCPLJ.O, MN 55362 GREG TURKUTA BARE HAMILTON Lot 9 la 11 2781 MEADOW LANE 2821 MEADOW LANG MONTICIMI,O. MN 55362 MONTI(FJJA. MN 55362 CBI DM (owwa) 0 DAN WERME:4 dmtttmi ULTRA HODS IKC. lAt12 Lot 12 Lotto P.O. BOX 1232 2841 MEADOW LANE HC33, BOX 914A MAPLE mLOVE. MN bCONnCMJA. MN 55362 CROSS IAKE MN 5642 53311-1232 AYJ 11/13/95 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE ASSESSMENT ROLL Page 1 Improvement Project 195-09C PID Number Lot Block Addition Amount ------------ Owner ------------------ -------------- 155-045-003010 --- 1 ----- 3 ----------------- Meadow Oaks 2nd 212.73 S Saler 6 P Weber 155-045-003020 2 3 Meadow Oaks 2nd 345.16 T Churchill 155-045-003030 3 3 Meadow Oaks 2nd 453.72 R Jarvis 155-045-003040 4 3 Meadow Oaks 2nd 727.52 J Heinrichs 155-057-002050 5 2 Meadow Oaks 3rd 311.17 D Ewilling 155-057-002060 6 2 Meadow Oaks 3rd 966.76 G Sandman 155-057-002070 7 2 Meadow Oaks 3rd 551.50 H Lenzen 155-057-002060 8 2 Meadow Oaks 3rd 401.57 M Rrier 155-059-002090 9 2 Meadow Oaks 4th 713.83 G Turkula 155-059-002100 10 2 Meadow Oaks 4th 605.09 Ultra Homes, Inc 155-059-002110 11 2 Meadow Oaks 4th 726.97 B Hamilton 155-059-002120 12 2 Meadow Oaks 4th 787.60 CBI, Inc (D Wermer TOTAL = 7,UU3.61 Rip OAK _ for.ea � ••tt Nouse locations are baled on �}' 1 Lot Surveys (C.S) 6 Aerial t Photos (Ap) f , L.S. A.RI A A' 0 14 d L.S. )fni• �,�• A q !+,?, t,�;'t:, \♦ A.P. `O L.B. � . , 4.;'.i `• �l',. � too it f S: • f t • �. ry ,rn�P i Council Agenda - 11/13/95 , : •v: h: 1 iii i • .. AND BACKGROUND: Most of the City Council members are familiar with recently land use decisions relating to the development of the Hillside mall. The action requested by the applicant stems from previous decisions relating to this property. Specifically, on February 28, 1994, the applicant failed to obtain sufficient votes necessary to get the zoning approval needed which would allow expansion of the PZM site and subsequent construction of additional parking necessary to accommodate the expansion of a restaurant within the mall. However, the developer was able to obtain an amendment to the conditional use permit which allowed the expansion of the restaurant in the mall subject to a number of stipulations and conditions. One of the conditions required that 9,100 sq ft of the space available for occupancy within the mall be left vacant for the purpose of maintaining parting capacity matching the existing capacity of the parking lot. This option was selected by the City Council at the request of the Hillside Pto-Wership. The attorney representing the Hillside Partnership suggested that by leaving 9,100 sq ft of retail space vacant, the site as it now exists could accommodate the restaurant use along with existing uses on the site. He also noted that this alternative would allow the restaurant facility to be established, which would result in a better understanding of parking demand and patterns. He went on to note that this practical information regarding parking demand would be useful when addressing full utilization of the structure at some point in the future. It is now nearing two years since the conditional use permit was awarded with the stipulation restricting use of the facility. The developer is now requesting that the original request, which was denied in 1994, be brought up again for reconsideration so that the building can be put to full use. The specific request that the developer is making today is identical to the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council in 1994. For your information, I have copied excerpts from previous meeting minutes and agenda packets regarding this issue. Please review this for additional detail regarding the site. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve an amendment to the zoning map which would change the zoning district designation of a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrnce Addition, from R•3 to PZM. Council Agenda - 11/13/95 Under this alternative, the lower section of the property would be merged with the Hillside Partnership property, which would result in a land area sufficient to accommodate future parking spaces. This alternative could be selected based on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the character and geography of the area and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the Council selects this alternative, then it can allow the intensification of the use of the Hillside mall site through development of the retail space that has been left unoccupied. This motion could be based on the finding that the proposed amendment placing PZM/parking behind the R-3 uses will not result in a negative impact on the R-3 uses. This is because the conflicting uses can be adequately separated by differences in grade and via landscaping. This is the recommendation made by the Planning Commission in 1994 and is also the recommendation made on November 8, 1995. Motion to deny the request for rezoning as proposed. City Council could select this alternative based on a finding that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the nature and geography of the area as was the finding by one Councilmember in 1994. As you know, approval of a zoning map amendment needs a 4/5 vote of the City Council. In 1994, the vote was 3 in favor (Anderson, Fyle, Maus) of the rezoning, l abstention due to a conflict of interest (Patty Olsen), and 1 vote for denial (Herbst). Herbat's opposition was based on the finding that the placement of the parking at the location proposed will encroach on the R-3 property to the rear and could have a negative effect on the residential uses, thus the rezoning is inconsistent with goals set forth in the comprehensive plan. Staff concurs with the Planner's analysis and the previous recommendation by the Planning Commission, which basically supports the concept of allowing the rezoning to occur as proposed. The rezoning request does not appear to significantly impact the adjoining properties. Under the proposal, the two districts will be separated by grade changes, and it does not appear that the lower area (PZM) could be effectively used with the higher R-3 side without extensive grading. In addition, the conditional use process is in place, which requires landscaping and screening of parking areas and thus gives the City some measure of control in mitigating conflicts between the 14 Council Agenda - 11/13/95 residential use on 7th Street and the commercial use proposed. As you will v note on the conditional use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission, there are conditions listed that are designed to assure harmony of land use between the multi -family and the intensified mall use. February 28, 1994, staff report to Council which includes previous Planning Commission recommendation, comprehensive plan excerpt, Planner's report, and area map; City Council minutes of 2/28/94; Correspondence from developer, Application. Council Agenda • 2/28/94 Consideration of an amendment to the zoning man which would chance the zoning district designation of a portion of Lot 4. Block 1 Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition. from R-3 (multi-familv residential) to PZM (performance zone mixed). Applicant. Vaughn Veit. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In conjunction with the proposed establishment of a restaurant at the Hillside mall (otherwise known as Sixth Street Annex), Vaughn Veit requests that the City allow rezoning of a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, from its present zoning designation, which is R-3, to PZMI. The rezoning is needed to accommodate additional parking needed for a proposed restaurant replacing PJ's Pizza. As you recall, some months ago the City Council approved an amendment to the original conditional use permit which allowed establishment of PJ's Pizza. As one of the conditions of operation, the developer was required to guarantee that an additional 18 parking spaces would be developed in the event that the parking demand created by PJ's Pizza warranted additional parking. As it turned out, the parking demand never reached a critical point; therefore, the additional parking was not required. The present request differs from PJ's Pizza in that the entire restaurant space will be used for seating and kitchen facilities, whereas the PJ's Pizza proposal used much of the space for arcade machines. Additional parking needed under the new proposal amounts to 56 parking spaces versus 18 parking spaces under the PJ's Pizza proposal. It is obvious that the existing site cannot accommodate 56 additional parking spaces; therefore, the parking area must he expanded onto adjacent property (Lot 4, Block 1). In order for parking to occur on Lot 4, Block 1, it must be rezoned to match the Hillside mall zoning designation. At their special meeting on Tuesday, February 22, the Planning Commission reviewed the case and recommended that the rezoning be allowed to occur but limited the rezone area to the perimeter of the additional parking needed in conjunction with expansion of the restaurant use. In addition, it was required that the lot lines he adjusted so that the parking lot area would he combined with the Hillside mall property and taken away from Lot 4, Block 1. The developer was present at the Planning Commission meeting and was satisfied with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Please review the Planner's report for additional insights into this matter to Council Agenda - 2/28/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve rezoning request contingent on realignment of lot lines. which would result in the additional parking area being added to the Hillside mall site. This alternative could be selected based on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the character and geography of the area and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If Council selects this alternative, then it can consider intensification of the Hillside mall site through development of the restaurant facility as proposed. Please note that the City has received no formal objections from the neighborhood regarding the rezoning proposal. 2. Motion to deny request for rezoning as proposed. City Council could select this alternative based on a finding that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the nature and geography of the area. Perhaps City Council does not like the idea of the parking area encroaching into the rear area of the lots originally intended for multi -family development. Perhaps there are conflicts between the parking area and the mall site that could arise. After reviewing the excerpts from the comprehensive plan, perhaps Council feels the proposal is not consistent with the plan because of the encroachment into the multi -family residential area. jl,STAFF RECOMMENDATION City staff concurs with the Planner's analysis, which basically supports the concept of allowing the project to expand as proposed. The rezoning request would not appear to significantly impact the adjoining properties. The conditional use process is in place, which requires landscaping and screening of parking areas and thus gives the City some measure of control in mitigating conflicts. As you will note under the conditional use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission, there are conditions listed that are designed to assure harmony of land use between the multi -family to the south and the intensified mall use. D. SUPPORTING D6M: Excerpt from comprehensive plan: Planners report; Area map. to V Co�►P �lo�•• ��t�Ql� CONHERCIAL POLICIES v 1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing functions should occur both in the central business district and the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94. 2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning ordinance, and other measures and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to properly control such enterprises at the local community level; commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible, and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive. 3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable areas for highway oriented commercial development requiring large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses I ahould be encouraged to develop in new locations along Interstate 91 at Highway 25. e. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an ' adequate market study (market radius, customer potential, suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern. ' S. Commercial arena should be as compact as possible. Compact commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is e benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a better control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason, 'strip- and 'spot- commercial development should not be . permitted. 6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated . to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable as a 'viable commercial etoa'. . 7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the integrated business center developed according to a specific cite plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to ■ be served. 8. All major commercial areas shall be pre -zoned based upon the Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be re -coned to commercial use unless they ars shown to be properly located in accordance with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Boundaries of commercial diotricta shall be well-defined so as to prevent intrusion into residential areae; residential areas must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of adjacent and nearby commoccial area. -48- R E B- 2 2- s 4 T U E 7: 1 7 0 P- 0 FACNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R 0 A N PLANNING • D H S I G N • MARK E T R F S! ARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 22 February 1994 RE: Monticello - Hillside Partnership - Sixth Street Annex Parking Expansion FILE NO: 191.07 - 94.05 This report outlines the procedural steps necessary for the expansion of the parking facilities for the Sixth Street Annex Shopping Center. The proposed parking would be located on a parcel adjacent to the current shopping center, however it is currently a separate lot of record. The most desirable processing is to permit a subdivision of the new parcel and recombine the parking expansion area to the existing parcel containing the shopping center. Once this is accomplished, the zoning of the newly split Lot. would need to be addressed, since the parking expansion area would still be zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. There are two options for the City to pursue. The entire parcel, prior to subdivision. could be zoned PZM to accommodate the shopping centore parking, or the PZM :one could be extended only as far as the newly created lot lino. in the latter case, the remaining land not being utilised for parking would stay R-3, consistent with the land uses on the surrounding Iota. If the PZM zone were extended to encompass the entire subject property, future land uses would be controlled by the Comprehensive Plan. To tho extent that the primary surrounding land use is multiple family residential, the City would have adequate controlb in place to restrict any expansion of ccmmorcial uses. 10T> PE S-22-1.14 T U E T: 1 .S O P . O It would not appear that either proposal would have distinct advantages over the other. Whereas the PZM designation would infer other potential land uses beyond multiple family, any such use would be subject to public hearing and extensive review. This review would also occur if the R-3 designation were retained, but a landowner proposed a zoning change to allow a different use. This review would not occur, however, if the landowner proposed to construct a multiple family project under the R-3 zoning's permitted uses. Regardless of the zoning on the residual parcel, this proposal would appear to be positive in that parking supply has been an issue in previous reviews of the Sixth Street Annex. it could be expected that Without additional facilities, parking will continue to cause problems for occupants of the center. , 6 � , 66 ep �. I 4" J ` Council Agenda - 2/28/94 u s. Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow exnansion of an existine restaurant in a PZM (aerformance zone mixed) zone. Anolicant. Hillside Partnershin. (J.0.) A, REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As noted in the previous agenda item, Hillside Partnership requests an amendment to their conditional use permit which would allow intensification of the use of the Hillside mall through development of a restaurant replacing PJ's Pizza. The new restaurant proposal results in the need for an additional 56 parking stalls. It is proposed that the parking spaces be located in the rear of the structure as proposed under the attached site plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with a number of conditions as noted below under alternative #1. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve conditional use permit which would allow intensification of the restaurant use at the Hillside mall subject to the following conditions: � 1. The developer shall provide a parking, grading, and drainage plan supporting development of an additional 56 stalls. Prior to the City granting an occupancy permit to the new restaurant, the developer shall obtain written approval of the parking, grading, and drainage plans from the City Engineer. 2. The developer shall not be required to install the parking area prior to occupancy of the restaurant; however, a financial guarantee and associated agreement shall be established that would allow the parking lot to be installed at the discretion of the City and at the full cost of the developer. 3. The portion of Lot 4, Block 1, needed for parking shall be split away from Lot 4, Block 1, and added to the Hillside mall property. 4. Prior to the City granting occupancy of the restaurant, the developer shall provide a landscaping and screening plan that meets the requirements of the City as approved by City staff. a IOG Council Agenda . 2/28/94 5. To improve security, windows shall be installed in the rear of the structure facing the expanded parking area to improve visability of the parking area. 6. All other conditions as noted by ordinance The motion to approve the conditional use permit is based on the finding that the expansion completed with the required conditions will result in a use that is compatible with the area and will not result in the depreciation of adjoining land values. Although on paper the site falls far short of the parking requirements (56 stalls), the Planning Commission felt that it was prudent to not require that all of the parking be installed prior to opening of the restaurant. It was felt that the 40 open stalls in the rear that currently exist might be sufficient and it was worth the risk to allow the project to proceed as is on a test basis. At the meeting on the 22nd, the developer noted that he has no problems with meeting any of the conditions identified by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission was somewhat concerned about security and crime problems in the rear of the structure. As you know, the rear of the building is isolated from a public right -of --way and protected from view, thereby creating some questions about security. The following steps have been taken or will be taken to improve security in the area. 1. Tree cover on Lot 1, Block 4, was removed. 2. Additional lighting has been installed. 3. Under the conditional use permit, windows will be open to the rear, which will give restaurant management and patrons a view of the area. 4. Additional traffic in the rear of the building may result in additional security. Motion to deny conditional use permit as requested. ►04 Council Agenda - 2/28/94 This alternative should be selected if the developer is unwilling to meet the conditions as required by Council. Vaughn Veit has indicated that he supports the conditions as noted under alternative #1. Perhaps Council will find additional alternatives that Veit may not be willing to support. If so, this alternative should be selected. If Council selects this alternative, it should make a clear finding of fact as to why the conditional use permit as designed has been denied. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which is to select alternative #1. We are somewhat concerned that the "proof of parking" area or a portion of it will need to be constructed immediately and that perhaps parking problems will be evident soon after the facility opens. On the other hand, it does appear to make sense to hold off on development of the parking until it is clearly known that the parking is truly needed. If the developer is willing to tie up the land for parking and provide the City with an agreement and bond necessary to install the parking at a later date at the City's discretion, it appears reasonable to withhold the requirement that the parking he installed immediately and just see what happens. In conjunction with expansion of the parking area, the landscaping and screening on the perimeter of the site will need to be extended and blended with the existing site. As a final note, the developer has complied with all previous conditional use permit requirements. D. SUPPORTING D&M: Copy of site plan showing proposed parking expansion area (not delivered as of 2125). r elww V Council Minutes - 2/28/94 4. Consideration of an amendment to Lite zonine man which would chanee the zonine district desienation of a portion of Lot 4. Block 1. Laurine Hillside Terrace Addition. from R-3 (multi-familv residential) to PZM (aerformnnce zone mixed). Amnlicant. Vauehn Veit. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that in conjunction with lite proposed re-establishment of a restaurant at the Sixth Street Annex, Vaughn Veit requests that the City allow rezoning of a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, from its present zoning designation (R-3) to PZM. The rozoning is needed to accommodate additional parking for a proposed restaurant at the Sixth Street Annex. According to the city ordinance, an additional 56 parking stalls will be needed to accommodate lite new restauranL facility. There is not enough room on Lite Sixth Street Annex parcel for the 56 spaces; therefore, the spaces must be developed off site on an adjoining parcel. O'Neill reported that at a special meeting on February 22, the Planning Commission reviewed the case and recommended that Lite rezoning allowing parking area expansion be nllowed to occur. The Planning Commission recommended that the area rezoned ho limited to the perimeter ol'tile parking lot expansion area. In addition, it was recommended that Lite lot lines W adjusted so that Lite parking area would be combined with the Sixth Stmet Annex property and Laken away from Lot 4, Block 1. Council discussion focused on site plan issues relating to parking. There was u concern that restaurant customers would not park in Lite rear of the facility as proposed under Lite site plan and, as a result, parking problems would then be created in Lite front of the building and along Cedar Street. Brad Fyle noted that we should be very careful not to approve a site plan or rezoning Lhnt would result in on -street parking on Cedar Street. Ken Maus noted that he has a problem forcing people to the rear of the facility. In response, it was noted by Judy Leming that the rear of Lite facility would be modified to include glass windows and double doors to encourage people to use the rear entrance of the facility to enter Lite restaurant. John Purmort, owner of ilio UcpuL in Elk River and owner of the proposed restaurant, indicated that the restaurant includes on -sale liquor sales. lie noted that no minors are allowed in the restaurant after 9 p.m. without a parent or guardian. The restaurant features a Ground Round type menu. It will employ 30 part-time residents. It is hoped that Lite restaurant will become a gathering spot after 81mirting events. I'urnto•t also noted, as he has done in Elk River, that he plans on Ix. -coining involved in the community and will he sponsoring various youth athletic programs. ioK Council Minutes - 2J28/94 After discussion, a molron was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Ken Maus to approve the rezoning request contingent on realignment of lot lines which result in additional parking area being added W Lite Sixth Street Annex. Motion based on infornhation contained within the City Planner's report and on the finding that Lite rezoning is consistent with the character and geography of the area and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Voting in favor: Brad Fylo, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Abstaining: Patty Olsen. 4r In citing his reasons for voting against the rezoning, Councilmember Herbst noted Lite potential negative impact on die mall tenants that could be created by parking conflicts between restaurant parking and retail shop parking. Herbst also noted that the proposed parking area located toward the rear of the facility will encroach on the residential zone to the rear and could have a negative effect on the residential uses. The boundary of the district as proposed will not be well defined and will result in intrusion into the residential area, which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Al this point in the meeting, John Cries, representing lite Hillside I'art ership, requested that the City Council wusider approval of the conditional use permit allowing expansion of the Hillside mall (item b): Consideration or amendment to it conditional use uvrmit which would allow exaansion of an existine restaurant in a 1'ZM (nerrurmunce zone mixed). zo a onlicant. Hillside Purttershiu. In his proposal, Cries suggested Thal the Hillside Partnership would he willing to allow u portion of die Sixth Street Annex to remain vacant ill order to keep Lite parking stall requirement at a level that the site, us it now exists, could uccommodate. Cries suggested that by leaving 9,100 sq ft of retail space vacant, the site as it now exists could accommodate Lite restaurant use along with Lite existing uses on site. It was noted that this alternative would allow the restaurant facility to be established, which would result in a better understanding of parking demand and patterns. This practical information regarding parking demand would be useful when addressing full utilization of lite structure at some point in the future. Clint Herbst indicated that the alternative proposed is a good solution as long as the developer is willing to leave a portion of lite building vacant. (tick Wolfateller was concerned that the short-term solution as proposed will not solve Lite problem and that it was unrealistic to expect that tto doveloper would be supportive of leaving 0,1041 sq It of building vacant for any length of time. It is likely that as sawn as u tenant is interested in filling the space, anodher amendment request to lite zoning ordinance will he forthcoming. 10L Council Minutes - 2P28/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve a conditional use permit allowing expansion at a restaurant in a commercial mall in a PZM zone. Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. 9,100 sq a of space available for occupancy within the mall shall be how! left vacant for the purpose of maintaining a parking demand that matches the existing capacity of the parking lot. 2. To improve security and to create an appealing entrance point, Oo,,e windows and double doors shall be installed in the rear of the structure facing the parking area, 3. Additional lighting shall be provided in the rear of the facility to improve security. oO�t 4. Parking along the front of the building shall be limited to 15 -minute parking only and signed accordingly. Q�! 5. All other conditions noted by ordinance and nuted in previous conditional use permits. I Motion to approve the conditional use permit based on the finding that the expansion of die restaurant is incidental to the commercial use of die structure and is acceptable in a PZM zone when operated in a commercial mall setting. The operation of the restaurant, under conditions as noted, will result in a use that is compatible with the area and will not result in a depreciation of adjoining values. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus. Abstaining: Patty Olsen. Absent: Brad Fyle. Shirley Anderson was concerned that the absence of Brad Fyle would have an impact on the validity of the vote and requested that staff research the matter. IoM FOSTER. WALDECK, LIND b CRIES. LTD A70RNtr3 AND COU«sew LLS AT LAW T«o«.4 A. Fos— 2300 Merwprou•.« C[«rwe T—o*«r W. W,—C« 333 Sour« S-- S-- Plrcw E. L.A. 55402 Jo««R. G.... (612) 375.1550 Rol/. E. So.N.— F.« 161 21 37S -0e47 JerTwn M. GA— D.— J. Li««...T 100 E. C--, A—u. Brwow M. PercwwY Sr. M,--. M1w«e4or. 55376 S—. E.To".e«e X6121497.3099 Gw[oowr J. v.r. CC- Fu 16121 497.3639 Je««1.ew L. wo. May 24, 1994 P.".• J. D.«c« Reolr to• Illmemol l■ Hr. Jef! O'Neill Assistant Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Hillside partnership and ninutes of February 28, 1994 City Council Meeting Dear Mr. O'Neill: Thank you for sending me a copy of the February 28, 1994 Council Minutes. In regard to those minutes, I have the following comments: 1. At the end of item 4 at the top of page 3 of the minutes, you have recited reasons given by Mr. Herbst as to his negative vote on the rezoning. It is my opinion that the last sentence contained in that paragraph relating to the boundary not being well defined, the intrusion into the residential area, and the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan were not mentioned by Mr. Herbst at the meeting as part of his reasons for voting against the rezoning. In regard to item 5 which appears on pages 7 and 8 of the minutes, I made it clear that the suggestion for obtaining the conditional use permit by leaving space available was only a temporary solution until the zoning issue was resolved. It was obviously not a permanent solution and was only intended for purposes of obtaining the conditional use permit until there was a reconsideration of the denial of the zoning amendment. In addition to the changes in the minutes, I wouldencourage you and the City to find an acceptable solution to the situation that does not involve leaving a substantial part of the shopping cantor vacant. From all practical and legal standpoints, the 10 IV •..p.w,.• L.CI •liO •O P.YI.�C• �w Yi..l tlr., M�KPwI�w ..D Y1llDY.1 rezoning of the lot as requested by the applicant is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Also, the terrain and accessibility to the part of the residential lot to be used for parking would not be practical. Damages to the applicant for leaving the shopping center vacant will escalate and thus it is important for all parties concerned that either the number of parking spaces required at the center be changed or that the zoning amendment allowing additional parking space be granted. i would hope this matter could be worked out. I look forward to hearing from you. Vk.GRIES / J JRG/kls cc: Mr. Vaughn Veit Kr. David Lenhardt 100 v CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case t n '•. 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295.2711 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION Check Requested Action: _ CONDITIONAL USE - $125.00 + all necessary consulting expenses' _ ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - $250.00 + necessary consulting expenses' _ SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - $50 _ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - $250 _ SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + $100/scre up to 10 acres; $25/acre after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per -acre deposit. _ VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setback/$125 for others + nec. consult expenses* _ OTHER - Fee $ • NOTE, Necessary consulting fees include coat to have City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, & conditional use permit requests at the rete of $75/hr. The need for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City staff Applicant Name: Hillside Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership Address: 14000 Veit Place, MN 55374 Phone: Home: Business: 612/428-2242 propertyAddrem: 510 Cedar St., Monticello Current Zoning: (Lot 4 R31 Legal Description of Property: Proposed Zoning PZM 1,+• 4 ; Block- I ; Subdivision: Laurinq Hillside Terrace Addition Other: unplatted Part of NW1/4 of SE1/4, Section 11, Township 121, Range 25 Describe Request: The rPquent in to chanes the rezonina on part of Lot 4. Block 1. Laurinq Hillnifle T mace from R3 to P.M- This part of Lot 4 would then be availahle to the parcel located in the NW1/4 of the SEI/4 which is a shopping center for additional Parking. Tho portion of Lot 4 to be rezoned is not Practically ut6soablo with the upper Part of Lot 4 because of the terrain. Thip FA afiln $rovoi�Af the applicant on this form is true and correct. /9 dt> fry — - Data Property Owner Signature /lar Tit Date Applicant Signature (if applicable) (CONTINUE ON BACK-.) Date Received/Paid: /0 ' Receipt Number: • -7 S VCUSSAM.APP: 2108//98 Public Hearing Date: lop FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning: PZM FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided: See at a h d VOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY. Size of Parcel to be Platted: Acres Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: F4M VAMANCE-GN16- *Teaseide*tifj`lheaa+4Riep rW<afdiAone�ltavdehip{lrabecieeal+et�astifiea grentirrsb-vnrennter hsadelrip-C9*eperl46narnKwroea-shsllowmserehepeT•6esceptionat- twaeerceeditien�eombinee�r9tlret+iet~epplieationbftl+eCerme•eHheerd>nmrctrm)time2eept+onaF TMwider when atilidngikepareel n-a-mannertustem -md4egnliypermissible-wkhnrdre dietrictin "hick the 4eais4oeated.— continued from front... was previously approved and recommended by the Planning commission. In total the request is for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Amendment to tare Zonina Mao and a simple subdivision. That Dart of Lot 4 to be rezoned is the North 100 feet. AoDlicant or000ses that the oarkino lot on Lot 4 not be constructed until the Citv determines that it is needed under some criteria. ttttttttNtgtttgqtttqttqtttttqttq• •ttttttttgttttgttttttt ttgtgtttttttttt •tttttttttttttttttt• •• •• •ttttt (For City Use Only) COWdENTSt VCUSSAM.APP: 2/06988 JOG" Council Agenda - 11/13/95 •1 � : r: 1 1 , ,1 7 � As noted in the previous agenda item, Hillside Partnership requests an amendment to their conditional use permit which would allow utilization of 9,100 sq R of available retail space which has previously been withheld from use due to noncompliance with city parking requirements. Under the site plan as proposed, the additional parking spaces needed to meet code would be located in the rear of the structure. The parking area would be constructed at such time that it is demonstrated that the need for the parking spaces exists as noted in the attached outline of the conditions associated with the permit. Motion to approve the conditional use permit which would allow full use of the Hillside Partnership mall subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall provide parking, grading, and drainage plans supporting development of an additional 56 stalls. Prior to the City granting an occupancy permit to any of the retail area previously off-limits, the developer shall obtain written approval of the parking, grading, and drainage plans from the City Engineer. 2. The developer shall not be required to install the parking area prior to occupancy of the new retail area; however, a financial guarantee and associated agreement shall be established that would allow the parking lot and associated required landscaping to be installed at the full discretion of the Planning Commission at the full cost of the developer. 3. The portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, needed for parking shall be split away from Lot 4, Block 1, and added to the Hillside mall property. 4. Prior to the City granting omupancy of the unused retail area, the developer shall provide a landscaping and screening plan that meets the requirements of the City as approved by City staff. Council Agenda - 11/13/95 All other conditions as noted by ordinance and included in previous conditional use permits issued. Parking along the front of the building shall be limited to 15 - minute parking only and signed accordingly. Additional lighting shall be provided in the rear of the facility to improve security. The list of conditions above combines recent Council and Planning Commission suggestions. This is the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Motion to deny the conditional use permit which would allow full use of the Hillside Partnership mall. This alternative should be selected if the City Council does not approve the rezoning request and thus make land available for the proof of parking area. C. STAFF F. COMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation made by the Planning Commission in 1994, which is alternative #I. We also agree that it would be premature and potentially wasteful to require installation of the added parking spaces at this time. It appears that peak parking for the restaurant use is opposite peak parking for the retail uses, which so far has resulted in ample parking capacity. It will be interesting to see if adding 9,100 sq R of retail space will create parking problems. It is our view that alternative 01 and the associated conditions will not result in a negative impact on the adjoining residential area and, thus, the plan is consistent with the character of the area and comprehensive plan. Seo previous agenda item. Council Agenda - 11/13/95 12. Consideration of a n=est to snhdivide a portion of Lt 4.Bloc" Lauring Hillside Terrace, which would he combined with the Hillaide mall Unperty. AnlicanL Vanghn Veit, (J.O.) A REFRRENCH AND BA .K .RO IND: If the City Council approves of the concept of allowing the lower portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, to be used for parking in conjunction with the Hillside mall, then it should support the proposed subdivision. If, on the other hand, the rezoning and conditional use permit request are not approved, then this agenda item need not be considered. B. ALTFRNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the request to subdivide a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. Planning Commission selected this alternative. Council will be asked to consider approval only if the other two items are approved. It is likely that the applicant will withdraw the request to subdivide the property as proposed if the rezoning and conditional use permit requests fail. 2. Motion to deny the request to subdivide a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. This alternative is not likely to be considered under any circumstance because it would not make sense to deny this alternative if the conditional use permit or zoning ordinance amendments are approved; and if they are denied, then the applicant will likely withdraw the request, and the item will not be under consideration. C. STAFF RR.COMM .NDATION: Staff recommends alternative N1. D. SifPPORTINO DATA: See the previous two agenda items. Council Agenda - 11/13/95 . (F -W.) Liquor Store Manager Joe Hartman will be in attendance at the Council meeting Monday night to review with the Council the third quarter liquor store financial report. The following is a brief summary of the financial report, which is enclosed for your review. In regard to overall sales, sales have increased 7.8%, or $89,000, over the same period last year. The gross profit from the sales has also increased approximately 8% and is up by $21,282. In regard to the operating expenses of the liquor store, they also are up $9,200 over the first 9 months of last year, but this still results in the operating income increasing by a total of $12,000 over the same period last year. The operating income for the first 9 months equals $129,470, slightly above our original budget projections. The gross profit percentages for separate categories of liquor, beer, wine, and miscellaneous appear to be correct, with the overall gross profit percentages being 23.4% of sales. This is the general area we have been targeting, and we believe the rest of the year will be similar. B. ALT .RNAT . ACTIONR: After Council review, the 9 -month financial report can be accepted as presented. Copy of 9 -month financial report. 19 M MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIOUOk BALANCE SHEET 30Sep95 Current Assets: Cash Change Fund Investments Accounts Receivable A/R - NSF Checks Inventory Prepaid Insurance TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS Fixed Assets Land & Parking Lot Buildings Furniture & Equipment less: Accumulated Depreciation TOTAL FISEd ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to EDA Fund Sales Tax Payable Salaries Payable Accrued Vacation/Sick Leave other Accrued Expenses TOTAL LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 83,275.65 1,600.00 567,095.14 (8,764.34) (107.01) 164,830.58 5,995.66 813,925.68 46,591.03 215,451.48 82,393.13 (222,541.75) ------------ 121,893.89 ------------ 935,819.57 nnaeononanee (11,034.23) 100,000.00 12,859.34 16,672.02 1,271.24 ------------ 119,768.37 616,051.20 ------------ 935,819.57 ooaoonnaonao CA Liquor Sales Discounts Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR Beer Sales Cost of sales GROSS PROFIT - BEER Mine Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - MINE Misc sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE Misc Non-taxable Sales Cost of Sales GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAX 1 TOTAL SALES TOTAL COST OF SALES HT TOTAL FREIGCOST TOTAL GROSS PROFIT MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR ENDING SSP 34, 1994 AND 1995 1994 1995 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT 299,242 330,333 222,706 244,949 76,536 25.6% 85,384 25.8% 691,290 731,255 543,847 570,287 147,443 21.3% 160,968 22.02 108,916 123,461 73,429 91,648 ---------- 35,487 32.65 ---------- 31,813 25.82 35,556 37,980 25,328 25,068 ---------- 10,228 28.8% ---------- 12,911 34.0% 1,758 2,763 975 1,747 A 783 44.5% 1 , 016 36.8% 1,136,761 1,225,790 866,284 933,699 4,967 5,300 265,510 0000000000 23.4% 286,792 0000000000 23.41 y 23.4I 8.02 .5I iaC."� MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR REVENUE AND EXPENSES COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR v ENDING SEP 30, 1994 AND 1995 1994 1995 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT SALES Liquor 299,242 330,333 Beer 691,290 731,255 Bine 108,916 123,461 Other Merchandise 35,556 37,980 Mlsc Non -Taxable Sales 1,758 2,763 Discounts ---------- ---------- TOTAL SALES 1,136,761 1,225,790 COST OF GOODS SOLD (871,251) ---------- (938,999) ---------- GROSS PROFIT 265,510 23.4I LGIICDIICC6G 286,792 6DCL6II03�C "NERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN3E Personal Servibes Salaries 77,950 77,928 PERA 3,670 3,390 FICA 5,945 6,110 Insurance 7,304 7,916 Unemployment Benefits ---------- ---------- TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 94,927 8.42 98,013 supplies Office Supplies 328 662 General Operating Supplie 4,512 5,464 Other supplies 74 ---------- 127 ---------- TOTAL SUPPLIES 4,913 •4A 6,273 y 23.4I 8.02 .5I iaC."� MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR 8,223 14,881 REVENUE AND EXPENSES 186 65 COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR �j ENDING SEP 30, 1994 AND 1995 TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) 8,409 •71 1994 1995 125,800 11.11 80.0000000 YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT Other Services & Charges 144,416 11.81 00..00.... Professional Services 3,255 2,743 Maintenance Agreements Communication 1,246 1,462 Travel -Conference -Schools 132 Advertising 4,978 3,411 Insurance 10,481 9,334 Utilities, Electric 8,837 9,600 Utilities, Heating 1,035 765 Utilities, Sewer & water 633 72 Maintenance, Equipment 1,263 8,154 Maintenance, Building 2,085 2,852 Maintenance, other 74 Depreciation--ACgUired As 12,020 12,322 Other Misc Expenses 2,083 2,132 TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH 48,279 4.21 53,036 4.31 TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS 148,119 13.01 ---------- 157,321 12.81 ---------- TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 117,391 10.31 0.00000000 129,470 10.61 00aaeaaaa0 Other Income (Expense) Interest Income 8,223 14,881 Cash Long/Short 186 65 Sale of Property TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE) 8,409 •71 14,946 1.21 NET INCOME (EXPENSE) ' 125,800 11.11 80.0000000 144,416 11.81 .0.00.0.00 Transfers In/Out ADJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE � y 125,800 11.11 .aaa0.0000 144,416 11.81 00..00.... /sD Al Council Agenda - 11/13/95 :,.:,,.., :, A verbal report will be given at the Council meeting Monday evening. 20 'RIVERFRONT AND DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT" presented by Theresa A. Washburn Thursday, November 16,1895 Monticello Sr. High School -Arena Entrance (east entry) 6:50 P.M. - Pizza and soft drinks 7:00 P.M. - Presentation and discussion WHERE DOES MONTICELLO GO FROM HERE? Theresa Washburn has worked on revitalization programs for 11 communi- ties in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, has won numerous awards in the process, and has gained the attention of the Wall Street Journal and Smithsonian Magazine. During the day of November 16, Theresa will walk the downtown, tour the city, and meet with citizens to ask questions and get a broader perspective on community feelings as part of the preparation for the presentation. Sponsored by the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Monticello Area Chamber of Commerce. Endorsed by the Monticello Planning Commission. Call 011ie Koropchak at city hall, 298.2711, for more information Iy g Council Agenda - 1v13/95 15- Consideration of transfer of eguiinment van from the Am depa_rtrnent to the nuh ie works department. (J.S.) The fire department is retiring their 1975 Chevrolet 1 -ton equipment stepvan. The unit was purchased approximately 10 years ago for approximately $6,500 plus the cost of painting and miscellaneous improvements. The fire department has put the unit out for bids to the general public but also allowed the City to reject the bide if deemed in the best interest of the City. Only two bids were received for the van. The highest bid was $863. Consequently, the public works department is requesting that the City Council consider transferring the stepvan to the street and park department and repay the fire department fund $863. The van is in very good shape. It needs only minor repairs. It could prove useful to the park and street departments. Some of the uses would be as follows: It could be used by the summer mowing crew instead of the Chevrolet 1 -ton dump truck currently used. This would free up the 1 -ton dump truck for other uses. Either truck could be driven by summer crews without a "B" license. The push mowers and string trimmers could be stored inside the van rather than left out in the weather in the dump truck when inclement weather strikes. The van would be stocked with irrigation and sprinkler system repair parte and/or other miscellaneous small parte and materials, thus saving trips back to the shop. The van would be used during junk cleanup day and serve as an equipment van and staging area during inclement weather. Since we would be removing from storage other items to place inside the van, the van would not necessarily take up a totally unoccupied parking stall. If we use the van only for the next few years, it is highly unlikely that the resale value would drop below its current value of $883. Consequently, for approximately $100 worth of insurance per year and miscellaneous maintenance, we would have an additional vehicle and free up a 1 -ton dump truck. Council Agenda - 11/13/95 The first alternative would be to authorize transfer of the fire department's equipment van for the public works department and reimburse the fire department $863. It is my understanding that a portion of this money would have to go back to the Township for their share of the investment in the van. The seoond alternative would be to allow the van to go to the previous highest bidder for $863. C_ STAFF RECONMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Street and Park Superintendent and the Public Works Director that the City Council consider the transfer as outlined in alternative #I. There are sufficient funds in the park and street department budgets to cover the cost of the van. Copy of advertisement for bids from the Monticello paper; Copy of the two bids received. 22 NOTICE FOR BIDS The Monticello Fire Department is accepting bids for a 1975 Chevrolet C-30 step van, V-8, auto with 11,000 miles. Sealed bids will be accepted until 1 p.m., Friday, October 27, 1996, at Monticello City Hall, PO Boz 1147, 260 East Broadway, Monticello, MN 66362. For more information or to see the vehicle, contact Asst. Fire Chief Scott Douglas at 295-6300. The Fire Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Published in the Monticello Ti—pa on 10/19/96. lo-aS-q5 ro'k A lq-ts cka-v 3c S�'i2t FSR —7" Z*,ny)o, 9 co 6cl qwzeoa �,4n.�' M"VLS7 C "avF Yok) 5539-&SC3 JR P,c- H 20 -GS'41 EL Im v �� oPos is t c, -?LZ Pvrt.c kt c -- t41s Gtt<-V S—r'1-P VAN FRom (►'74u 7'fK EcLo �r Q E Q.r2T`N►6Arl— Qgapas .p lo✓rtct4As<— prz.1Lc- ; $OC> P"P05& Scl-r. L c ,.,,c ta- R�So ©svis, ary 5T. t4tn. L'& P.�1NING IL Fro etfir, e + a a cwnnlacfal - _ t ao YMn Co1#+W Savin • Coin, PAkbM, Mw a Rr — It Oudy Savko am Appkavm DAVID UNDBERD (612) 978.241$ ' ROBERT LEACH (812) 4774MI ltfG Council Agenda - 11/13/95 :, I 91 1 I I• A 1 Y,1 1M-11MT M. ;IM -TIMI At the previous Council meeting, discussion on the purchase of council chamber chairs was tabled at the request of Councilmember Perrault, as he felt the proposed $75 per chair amount was excessive. This item is again placed on the Council agenda for discussion purposes so that I may get some direction from the Council as to what type of chair and what price range you are looking for. The main purpose for even purchasing additional chairs for the council chambers is that the public works department maintenance building could use some conference room chairs, and also additional chairs are needed at the wastewater treatment plant offices. The existing chairs from the council chambers could be used at these two locations, and I thought the Council may want to consider updating the furniture for the council chambers that is seen more often by the public than the other city locations. At this point, I do not have a firm recommendation as to the type of chair that should be purchased, as the prices could range from $19 to $100 per chair depending on what you want to buy. Some stock chairs are available from Sam's Club Warehouse in a number of styles with limited fabric selections in the $20 to $30 per chair price range. Quotations were also received from St. Cloud Restaurant Supply for a number of examples that were generally in the $40 to $60 per chair category. In addition to these two quotes supplied by Mr. Perrault, Scott Douglas of Golden Valley Furniture was also interested in supplying any type of chair the Council would like. I will have a catalog from Golden Valley Furniture available at the Council meeting for members to review; but likewise, the chair prices typically would range anywhere from $40 to $55 for chairs similar to what we currently have but in fabric material. Again, I'm not sure of all of the available color selections we would have, but Pm sure we could come up with something from any supplier that would either match our existing brown fabric or be coordinated. In addition to the above suppliers, the chair that I had originally proposed was priced at $75 each and would have matching brown fabric. It appears from more research that a similarly styled chair to what I had proposed would be in the $60 to $100 range 1Mm any supplier, and if it is the goal of the Council to reduce the per -chair cost, we should look at other alternatives 23 Council Agenda - 1 V13/95 similar to the type of chair we already have. As I noted, we can buy chairs as cheap as $19 each or spend as much as you want. All I need is direction as to whether we should even consider buying new chairs for the council chambers or whether we should just allow the public works department to acquire the chairs they need for their conference rooms. Since I don't have a specific recommendation, there are no alternatives provided other than to request direction from the Council on the type of chair and pricing you are targeting. Without this general background, it's obvious I could give you 25 chair choices and 25 prices to select from. I've enclosed copies of quotations I have received and will supply additional catalog information at the Council meeting if you desire. 24 s G �-� MemtrershipWarehouse Chrome Stack Sled Base Chair • vendor Stock =114. • Chairs stack for space -saving storage. • Heavy gauge tubular steel plated frame. • Chrome plated finish. • Foam padded seat and back contoured shaped for cocoon. Chrome Stacking Arm Chair • vendor Stock =135. • Chairs stack vertically for space -saving storage. • Heavy gauge tubular steel plated frame. • Cross bracing support bars bemeen legs. • Resin arms that are mar and scratch resistant. Stacking Side Chair • Vendor Stock a105. • Chairs stack vertically for space -saving storage. • Heavy gauge tubular steel plated frame. • Self leveling non -mar feet glides. • Thickly padded seat and back for comfort. Chrome Stacking Side Chair • Vendor Stock °134. • Chairs stack vertically for space -saving storage • Heavy gauge tubular steel plated frame • Cross bracing`: support bars bemeen legs. �t • IOT,t Olefin fabric for Ione %Near and durability (� Flan N,trn P 44 3. ; a VENDORDESCRIPTIONCOLOR STOCK M bAK'b ITEM • JEi.r- PRICE 114.116-01-1'_5 Chrome Sled Base Side Chair - Vinyl Grey 581409 $29.90 114.116-01.143 Chrome Sled Base Side Chair - Vinyl Rose 581410 $29.90 114.116-01.109 Chrome Sled Bax Side Chair - Vinyl Bordeaux 581411 $29.90 114.116-01.145 Chrome Sled Bax Side Chair - Vinyl Red 581412 $29.90 114.116.01.015 Chrome Sled Bax Side Chair - Vinyl Blue 581413 $29.90 114.116-01.005 Chrome Sled Bax Side Chair - Vinyl Black 581414 $29.90 105.115.01.125 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Vinyl Grey 581424 $19.97 105.115-01.143 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Vinyl Rose 581431 $19.97 105.115-01.109 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Vinyl Bordeaux 581436 $19.97 105.115.01.145 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Vinyl Red 581439 $19.97 105.115-01.015 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Vinyl Blue 581441 $19.97 105.115-01.005 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Vinyl Black 581443 $19.97 105.112.01.233 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Vinyl Charcoal 58:828 $19.97 135.211-01.125 Chrome Stack Chair w/Arms - Vinyl Grey 5z1361 521.91 135.211.01.143 Chrome Stack Chair w/Amu - Vinyl Ruse 3:1362 $:1.91 135.211.01.109 Chrome Stack Chair w/Arms - Vinyl Bordeaux 561364 $21.97 I 135.211.01.145 Chrome Stack Chair w/Arms - Vinyl Red 5:1366 $21.97 135.211-01-015 Chrome Stack Chair w/Arms - Vinyl Blue 551367 $21.97 135.211-014705 Chrome Stack Chair w/Arms - Vinyl Black 581368 $21.97 134.222.01.175 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Fabric Burgundy --41627 $20.88 134.222.01.176 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Fabric Grey 41641 $20.88 134.222.01.177 Chrome Stack Side Chair - Fabric Blue 41651 520.88 134.222-01.185 Chrome Stack Side Chair • Fabric November 41807 $20.88 114.116.01.175 Chrome Stack Sled Bax Chair - Fabric Burgundy 41738 $29.90 114-116-01-176 Chrome Stack Sled Base Chair - Fabric Grey 41739 $29.90. 114.116.01.177 Chrome Stack Sled Bax Chair • Fabric Blue 41741 $29.90 105.112-01.178 Chrome Plated Stacking Side Chair • Fabric Twilight 52700 $19.97 105.112.01.189 Chrome Plated Stacking Side Chair - Fabric Haze 52702 $19.97 105.112-01.254 Chrome Plated Stacking Side Chair • Fabric Alabaster 14299 $19.97 105.112.01.280 Chrome Plated Stacking Side Chair • Fabric Claret 52712 $19.97 105.112-01.281 Chrome Plated Stacking Side Chair - Fabric Ocean 32713 $19.97 135.222.01.176 Chrome Stacking Ann Chair - Fabric Gray $7948 $21.79 135•2='_-01.177 Chrome Stacking Ann Chair • Fabric Blue SM7 $21.79 135.222.01.185 Chrome Stacking Arm Chair - Fabric November 3:699 $21.79 Flair Design Page 2. 5/95 10 e ease x :.nc. � "� '` ti•*,,. s� in 001-ki San Dwg* Con�,,,,Von C.V,,. 17 re F9 Chairs gong to form'. I 00'"'WOrd to" of enairs, C"Me'40-O"IfIf climensw is 19,1."~ gang em sta e L 861056 CO& Stacking Chairs d Evtw-Tall Bac'-rc>t t,* loam-paddect backrest I'Wfoarn padded seat N -A — 0807 am Clhv- t,mt F,., r comI;,wlhm, .. " 14.-, - "o., IK : 'r $S0- Chat B'30 flarlo OLYMPIC OwIgUncly of OD"9000co .Oc'02�" to A- Cu"Oo nOjM. AM Sivoorrytats vo C'vC—Otfoma C^a,fs with '()R* to moo) rA~f. 8602 a RANCHIOE Btu- wyi aro ^g 8806 not ctmk wan bocivack DIFMO-St POpltlffi- Upholstered Chairs oft'cr T.%":;: -:t101117 ' * RANCHIDE Vinyl: OLYMPICL El Dorado Bio Char BlaWEIlack szrc ULjRATEXHYDE Virryl: •�..- — ---, u : l �efRcisvta Chmm ir. Value and Comfort C0J`?IbiJ7L'd 31," t0anh-padded backrest with 11/2* loarn-paccec: seat. Plastic glides. EIe,,,?lyic,, LIpgrude 3/." toam-paccect backrest mth 2- loarn-paidilea Sewn seat. Steel -base swivel glides. 8925 Cmor Black/ OLYMPIC Burgundy nowng stack "ULTRATEXHYOEVI":,,.,'m...:... CharBlackPon EIDO GunrnataVx; Adsona is Lj 16 DUCHESS FaDne: Char BLacW TRIBUTE Faonc: Crtaf Black'Toal Grace Char EllawCaocirlhapri Orion J." El Dorado Broruir TRIBUTE 010 Paco "4 4;SCC: z 4,;p , 6 Ire 100 Ruoseveu Road. PO Bo - 1639. St Cloud. MN 56302 St. Cloud Restaurant Supply ~ rI' ;V.. ... ? Ste•; ': �+' 7 =, ri�' .i•.. ' f4' t�.iP� • , : J 4 � n r .. ' • i •( trr .,��.•_ Y�r11 '.�. ; it qtr: .: i^,ti �•.:. "A 667 . 663 668 'ff'rZ►�: j'd 1, .•� .=t �, .. If- .•�,;y 'ri►c w4r.rif100 Roosevelt Road. P.O. Box 1639. St. Cloud, MN 56302 St. Cloud Restaurant Supply " L Na YZa�• �•:•t.��t'.• �' - �. �:r ,' '��i.,, U�Jt;�i i' J" y • t . t .t• L goose" S,.d. ? 0. 80, 11.39. ■ Oulant Supply St. Cloud wes 5225 SAOI FIV ^INvuStRlE�tl` _,..Now