Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 05-12-1997AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL. (� Monday, May 12, 1897 - 7 p.m. Mayor. Bill Fair Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held April 23 and the regular meeting held April 28, 1997. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. b. Consent agenda. A. Consideration of adopting a resolution establishing an ordinance supporting trunk storm sewer funding policy. B. Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a townhouse planned unit development in an R-2 zone. Applicant, Brendsel Properties, Inc. C. Consideration of a preliminary and final plat of the Par West Townhomes subdivision. Applicant, Brendsel Properties, Inc. D. Consideration of approving finding stating that an Environmental Impact Statement on the Monticello High School project is not necessary based on results from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process. E. Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing construction of a high school in an R-1 zone. Applicant, Monticello School District. F. Consideration of a zoning map amendment that would change an agricultural district to a PS (public/semi-public) zoning district. Applicant. Resurrectinn Church. G. Consideration of a conditional use permit request which would allow a church facility in a PS (public/semi-public) zoning district. Applicant, �� \ Resurrection Church. I Agenda Monticello City Council May 12, 1997 Page 2 H. Consideration of supporting annexation of the Resurrection Church site. Applicant, Resurrection Church. 1. Consideration of adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 3, Section 12, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishing antenna and antenna support structure regulations. J. Consideration of hiring Sue Thibodeaux to fill the Bookkeeper position. IC Consideration of improvements to Outlot A, Meadow Oak Park. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of vacation of a portion of Palm Street. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of vacation of utility easements at located on Holker's Hillside plat. 9. Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a townhouse planned unit development in a R-3 zone. Applicant, Chris Bulow. 10. Consideration of a preliminary and final replat of the Holker's Hillside Addition. Applicant, Chris Bulow. 11. Consideration of a request for a special home occupation permit which would allow teaching of more than one pupil at a time. Applicant, Jill Stark, 12. Consideration of renewing membership in the Wright County Economic Development Partnership. 13. Consideration of sale of Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Hoglund Addition, located on Mississippi Drive. 14. Discussion of relocation of animal shelter. 18. Consideration of reopening discussion on sewer access fee increase proposal. 16. Consideration of bills for the first half of May. 17. Adjournment. M MUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 28, 1997 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Bill Fair, Bruce Thielen, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf Members Absent: None 2. Approval of Minutes of the regrular meeting held Ayril 14 1997. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1997, AS WRITTEN. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Conoid ration of adding iterng to thp. nLrenda. A. Councilmember Brian Stumpf requested an update from the Public Works Director on the progress of painting the old water tower. B. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO MOVE ITEM 011, CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER 02 FOR PROJECT 93-14C (WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION), TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AS ITEM bG. Motion carried unanimously. C. Assistant Administrator.leff O'Neill requested that authorization to waive the building moratorium and issue a building permit to Peterson/Grimsmo Funeral Home be added to the consent agenda as item 5H. 4. Vitigpmi eo m n ah►etiaona. mquests- and com ain .s, None. S. Convent A f n a. Councilmember Brian Stumpf requested that item BE be removed fUom the consent agenda for discussion. Councilmember Roger Carlson requested that item 5C be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Page 1 0 Council Minutes - 4/28/97 A. Consideration of approval of final plat and d v lopm n . agreement - Prairie W st Second Addition. Recommendation: Approve the final plat and development agreement for Prairie West Second Addition. B. Consideration of ordering a feasibility study on road_ sanit= sewer_ water main, Rimm sewer. a_ed roadway improv m n s+ associated with the proposed Chelsea Road aliment between Wright County Road 117 and Cedar Street. Recommendation: Authorize completion of the feasibility study subject to the applicant making a deposit of $3,500. C. Consideration of es+lling for a special meeting with Monticello Township to iscuss nrhaniraton Flan m ifi s+tio a. Removed from the consent agenda for discussion. D. Vnwiidpratinn of approving Monticello Knights, of QohimhuA #682b gplication to operate n gamhlOno license at Comfort Inn. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the State Gambling Control Board to issue a pulltab license to the Monticello Knights of Columbus for the Comfort Inn Motel. SEE RESOLUTION 97-14. E.Conoid rang ar�ting nn extenRion to a rnival permit for )dgntiry,lin Mrill M r hantn Aa_sooation. Removed from the consent agenda for discussion. F. Son_aiderntion of Arbor Day Pro lnrnntion and ohs ry nce for Friday. April 25,1997- Recommendation: Support the staffs Arbor Day celebration held on April 25, and declare April 25, 1997, as Arbor Day and the month of May as Arbor Month. G. Consideration cf Chnnge Order No_ 2 for City P%els tl93-14C lwns ewa nr trentm nt pinni exp nA gion►. Recommendation: Approve change order M2 for a net decrease in contract price of $4,1387. H. Consideration of wniving t.holt+fl ingmora ori +m nndautho 'sins iss +ice of n huil ing narmit for the Pe-terson/Grimemo F +ne 1 Homo. Recommendation: Approve waiving the building moratorium and authorize staff to issue a building permit for the Peterson/Grimsmo Funeral Home. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO APPROVE ITEMS 5A, 5B. 51), 5F, 6G. AND 5H OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously. Page 2 9 Council Minutes - 4/28/97 . , : . .: � 1 , . �i1111�110 �%�:L aM.:I 1 •., u . 1 City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that in a letter received from Darlene Sawatzke, Monticello Township Clerk, the Township Board was willing to have a joint meeting with the City Council on May 20 or May 27 under the following conditions: The only individuals allowed to have discussion during the meeting would be the City Council and Township Supervisors. The meeting would be no longer than two hours at the Monticello Township Hall or at another neutral site. The meeting would be presided over by a neutral moderator, which the Supervisors felt should be Pat Sawatzke, Wright County Board member. In addition, Wolfsteller noted that although the Township understands that the meeting must be open to the public, it would not be conducted as a public hearing and would not allow input from anyone, including the Monticello Planning Commission and City staff. One of the agreeing conditions would be that only the Monticello City Council and Township Board of Supervisors would be allowed to participate in the discussion. Councilmember Bruce Thielen stated that because one of the conditions set by the Township was that County Commissioner Pat Sawatkze be the moderator of the joint meeting and he is Thielen's boss, he would abstain from participation and decisions made during this discussion. Councilmember Roger Carlson noted that he was under the impression that the proposal to the Monticello Township Board was to meet jointly with the City to discuss the Urban Service Area boundaries, and he was concerned about the Township setting all the guidelines for the joint meeting without input from the City. Mayor Fair also noted his concern with the conditions specified by the Township. He Questioned whother a meeting should be conducted without Planning Commission and City staff input since they have knowledge of the issue's history. Page 3 O Council Minutes • 4/28/97 Council discussed the role of the moderator and whether Pat Sawatzlke would be considered a neutral party. Councilmembers Herbst and Stumpf noted that the moderator's role would not be to participate in the meeting but only to keep the discussion moving and open and close the meeting. In addition, Councilmember Herbst noted that if motions were going to be made by the Council to change the urban service boundaries at the joint meeting, then the Planning Commission and City staff should participate in the discussion; however, if the meeting was for discussion purposes only, then their participation may not be necessary. Planning Commission Chair Dick Frie requested an update on the Council motion made at the previous Council meeting regarding reconsideration of the urban service boundary issue. After Mayor Fair read the item from the April 14, 1997, minutes, Frie noted that the Council motion was to include the Planning Commission; therefore, the Township's conditions were not in compliance with the motion. Councilmember Herbst noted that although the Township can make a separate motion, the City Council must decide if they want to abide strictly by the City's motion or agree to the Township conditions in order to begin discussions on the issue. City Administrator Wolfsteller added that in talking with the Township Clerk, it was noted that one reason the Township preferred the discussion be limited to the Council and Township Board was that if the City and Township's Planning Commissions participated in the discussion, the group would become too large. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO AGREE TO A JOINT MEETING WITH THE MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP BOARD ON MAY 20,1997, AT 7:30 P.M AT THE MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP HALL, TO DISCUSS THE URBANIZATION PLAN BOUNDARIES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE ONLY INDIVIDUALS ALLOWED TO HAVE DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING WOULD BE THE CITY COUNCIL AND TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS. THE MEETING WOULD BE NO LONGER THAN TWO HOURS AT THE MONTICELLO TOWNSHIP HALL THE MEETING WOULD BE CONDUCTED BY WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MEMBER PAT SAWATZKE, AS MODERATOR. Pago 4 O Council Minutes - 4/28/97 Councilmember Roger Carlson stated that he was not supportive of a joint meeting with another government body setting all the meeting rules but would support the motion in order to keep the issue moving. MAYOR FAIR THEN PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO ADD THAT PAT SAWATZKE WOULD MODERATE THE MEETING, BUT HIS SOLE ROLE WOULD BE TO OPEN AND CLOSE THE MEETING. THE AMENDMENT WAS SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON. Councilmember Herbst noted that if Commissioner Sawatzke was not allowed to express his opinion at the meeting, he would be considered a neutral party. Mayor Fair explained that even though Sawatzke may not be allowed to participate in the discussion, his position as County Commission would put one of the City Council members in an uncomfortable position because he is the Council member's boss. VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT: BILL FAIR, ROGER CARLSON. OPPOSED: BRIAN STUMPF, CLINT HERBST. ABSTAINING: BRUCE THIELEN. Amendment to the motion failed. VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION: CLINT HERBST, BRIAN STUMPF, ROGER CARLSON. OPPOSED: BILL FAIR. ABSTAINING: BRUCE THIELEN. Motion passed as originally stated. Bruce Pankonin, representing Orrin Thompson Homes, suggested that each City Council and Township Board member submit an affidavit of interest since there are Township Supervisors that have an interest in land in the area to be discussed. It was his view that if the public was not allowed to participate in the discussion, board members who have an interest in the land should also be excluded from the discussion in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Ken Scadden, Township Board member, stated that the meeting would be open to the public; however, in order to keep the discussion moving, the Township felt it would be best to limit participation to only the City Council and Township Board members. No additional action was taken by Council regarding the proposod affidavits of interest, and Councilmember Roger Carlson noted that the City has made a good faith stop forward to continue discussions of the urban service boundary issue. Page 5 9 Council Minutes - 4/28/97 City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that in October of 1996, the Council granted the Monticello Mall Merchants Association a permit to allow Chuck's Amusements to operate a carnival at the mall from Wednesday, May 28, through Sunday, June 1, 1997, for a total of b days. The Association recently requested that Council consider allowing the mall to extend the carnival's stay through Sunday, June 8, for a total of 12 days. The reason for the request was that the carnival would be moving their operation to Big Lake on the weekend of June 8 and would like to leave it set up at the mall rather than dismantling it for less than a week. Councilmember Stumpf noted his concern that increasing the carnival permit from b to 12 days seemed to be extreme, and he added that the carnival permit authorized by the City of Big Lake was also for b days, which seemed to be an adequate amount of time. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBSTTO DENY APPROVAL OF THE CARNIVAL LICENSE EXTENSION. Voting in favor. Brian Stumpf, Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson. Opposed: Bruce Thielen, Bill Fair. Motion passed. Mayor Fair opened the public hearing. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that the assessment roll for utility billing accounts included accounts which were delinquent more than 60 days, and the assessment roll would be certified to the County Auditor for collection on 1998'8 real estata taxes if not paid by November 30, 1997. He also noted that in addition to the delinquent amount, an administrative fee of $25 per account was added to each assessment. There being no comment from the public, Mayor Fair closed the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR DELINQUENT CHARGES AS PRESENTED FOR CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 8%. Pago 6 (D Council Minutes - 4/28/97 City Administrator Wolfsteller suggested that Council eliminate the $25 penalty for those residents affected by the flood in the River Terrace Park, as they may not have received their mail in time to pay prior to deadline. BRIAN STUMPF THEN AMENDED HIS MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE $25 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE FOR THOSE RIVER TERRACE PARK RESIDENTS WHO WERE AFFECTED BY THE FLOOD. Clint Herbst seconded the amended motion. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 97-15. In his Council report, Chief Building Official Fred Patch explained that Glen Posusta, owner of Amax Storage of Monticello, requested that Council consider a reduction in the building permit fees previously paid in 1996 for his storage facility. Posusta was concerned about the amount being charged for the building permit and the method by which the building permit fee was determined. Glen Posusta stated that after reviewing the method of calculating building permit fees, he understood how the Building Official arrived at the building permit amount, and he withdrew his request for a reduction in the building permit fees previously paid. However, Posusta stated his main concern at this time was the valuation of $140,000 which appeared on the building permit. Posusta was concerned that the assessor would base the real estate taxes on the $140,000 amount because it appeared on the building permit even though the building would not appraise for that amount. Chief Building Official Fred Patch explained that the valuation used for building permits is based on square footage of the building, which allows the same formula to be used for every property to maintain consistency. He noted that the assessor would look at comparable businesses when computing the valuation for property taxes. No Council action was necessary. City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller reported that a survey of neighboring communities regarding sanitary sewer access unit charges (SAC) was recently enmpleted and presented for Council consideration. He noted that City staff was also in the process of collecting development cost information on other fees in order to provide the Council with a comprehensive understanding of Monticello's development expenses as compered to other communities. Page 7 (2) Council Minutes - 4/28/97 Following is the comparative data on SAC charges in neighboring communities: Becker $ 600/unit St. Michael 3,300/unit Elk River 1,300/unit Buffalo 3,700/unit Big Lake 2,300/unit Wolfsteller noted that the current SAC charge in Monticello is $1,500, and staff proposed that Council consider increasing the charge to between $2,000 and $2,500 and earmarking the increase toward retirement of the wastewater treatment plant debt. I t was also suggested that builders and developers be given a 60 -day grace period to allow builders a chance to pass the cost on to customers on future contracts. Council discussed raising the fee to $3,000 and whether additional research should be completed prior to the increase. Councibnember Herbst suggested that since the City Council had already discussed increasing the fee during the past couple of months, a 30 -day grace period would be sufficient. AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO INCREASE THE SANITARY SEWER ACCESS FEE FROM $1,600/UNIT TO S3,000MINIT EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1997. NOTICE OF THE INCREASE WILL BE MAILED TO BUILDERS WITH PUBLIC COMMENT TAKEN UNTIL JUNE 1. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Bruce Thielen. Opposed: Bill Fair, Roger Carlson. Motion passed. It was the view of Mayor Fair and Councilmember Carlson that a longer grace period should be allowed prior to the increase taking effect. Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reported that since 1991, the City of Monticello has been the local governing unit in charge of regulating wetlands; however, since wetland law and regulations continue to change and staff has found it difficult to keep up with the requirements of the law and technical aspects of administration of the law. In addition, administration of the wetland act is a service provided by the Wright Soil and Water Conservation District to cities without charge. Council was requested to consider appointing the Wright Soil and Water Conservation District as the authority to administer wetland protection laws in the city of Monticello. Page 8 0 Council Minutes - 4/28/97 AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO APPOINT THE WRIGHT SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AS THE 1991 WETLAND ACT LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELL O. Motion carried unanimously. This item was added to the consent agenda. 12. Consideration of bills for the last half of April_ 1997, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARL -SON TO APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE LAST HALF OF APRIL 1997 AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Iterng added to thp. tS; n a. A. Councilmember Brian Stumpf requested an update from the Public Works Director on the progress of painting the old water tower. Public Works Director John Simola reported that the company painting the water tower was notified that the temperature was high enough to continue painting and that the $50 per day penalty would again begin to accumulate. Approximately $1,800 in liquidated damages had accumulated during the fall of 1996. B. Mayor Fair noted that City staff scheduled a flood relief trip to Breckenridge on May 1, 1997. Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that a relief Bind had been established at Marquette Bank; however, very few dollars had been deposited by meeting time, and O'Neill requested that Council consider funding the difference between the cost of the bus and the amount deposited in the relief fund. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO FUND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF THE BUS TO BRECKENRIDGE AND THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE RELIEF FUND. Motion carried unanimously. C. Council set a special meeting for Tuesday, May 13, 1997, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of conducting a prioritization workshop. Page 9 (0 Council Minutes - 4/28/97 D. Mayor Fair reported that he received a call from the Monticello Country Club regarding whether the City would be holding a special election for a referendum on allowing additional liquor licenses within the city of Monticello. They are considering expanding the club but would like to have more information regarding the referendum prior to construction. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that the Council can specify in a referendum the number of additional licenses to be issaed, or the question can be left open-ended by asking if the City can issue additional liquor licenses. City staff was directed to contact the Monticello Country Club for more information and return the item to Council. E. Mayor Fair reported that he received a proposal from Marquette Bank for selling their building on Highway 25 to the City for a new city hall. The appraisal on the 19,000 sq ft building was $760,000, and the Mayor asked Council members if they would like City stauff to proceed with investigating the property for possible purchase. It was noted by Council members that although the location did not match the Monticello Community Partners' plan for a future civic area on Walnut Street, the price seemed reasonable in that the City would not be able to build a new city hall for $750,000. It was consensus of the City Council to direct staff to investigate the possible purchase of the Marquette Bank building and report back to the Council. Mayor Fair requested an update on the Highway 25 project. City Engineer Bret Weiss reported that the property acgUaition process has begun, and MN/DOT has agreed to assume responsibility for paying all fees directly rather than the City paying the cost and receiving reimbursement. In addition, Weiss noted that he is working on obtaining federal approval for the loop ramp, which hm been included by MN/DOT and would likely be constructed with the Highway 25 improvements. Staff is also working with the City Engineer on a proposal for relocating the commuter parking lot, which MN/DOT would like completed in 1997. Weiss went on to report that Wright County plans to terniinato County Road 117 at the now Chelsea Road and not extend it to Highway 25, which would relieve them of any financial reponsibility i_n the project. Page 10 9 Council Minutes - 41'28/97 G. Mayor Fair requested an update on the post office access situation. City Administrator Wolfsteller reported that Brad Larson had requested that the City consider making the access from Locust Street a one-way entering the parking lot. The City does own a strip of land behind the photography building, which Metcalf and Larson have now sold. Wolfsteller also noted that the owner of the post office building may be interested in purchasing the neighboring lot from the City for an additional post office access. Mayor Fair directed the City Administrator to set up a meeting, which he would also attend, to negotiate the access points. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE TWELEN AND SECONDED BY BRIAN S71WF TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. Karen Doty Office Manager C page 11 (2) C Council Agenda - 5/12/97 8A. Consideration of adopting a reimlLHon estate is inQ an ordinance gynno kstormsewer fundLln4policy- (J.O.) A RIFFERRNrR AND BA .K .ROUND; City Council is asked to review the attached resolution and associated ordinance amendment relating to establishment of a trunk storm sewer access charge ordinance. This is a housekeeping matter that formally, by ordinance, establishes the trunk storm water fee access charge. Currently, storm sewer fees are being collected as a city policy. The specific policies governing the design of the storm sewer systems and the method for calculating fees are identified in the staff reports to Council that were approved by Council on March 10, 1997. B. Ai.T .RNAT . ACTION j 1. Motion to adopt resolution and ordinance amendment establishing an 1 ordinance relating to trunk storm sewer charges. 2. Motion to deny adoption of a resolution and ordinance amendment establishing an ordinance relating to trunk storm sewer charges. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; The City Administrator recommends alternative 111. D. SUPPORTING DATA; Copy of resolution; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. U RESOLUTION 97 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE, BY ADOPTING ONE NEW SECTION, 13-1.2 (D), RELATING TO TRUNK STORM WATER CHARGES WHEREAS, trunk storm water facilities serve large portions of the city, connecting various local storm water facilities to the larger bodies of water; and WHEREAS, trunk storm water facilities need to be constructed when the first development on such sewer is desired and cannot be delayed until all property is developed; and WHEREAS, in order to fund trunk storm water facilities, it is necessary to impose a trunk storm water charge on all developing areas which will benefit from such sewer; and WHEREAS, the City desires to spread the cost of the trunk storm water facilities over large trunk storm sewer service areas, to minimize the impact on individual property owners; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 1997, the City reviewed and approved amended policies for administering a trunk storm sewer development and financing program, and the City approved the associated Trunk Storm Water Charge Justification Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the attached ordinance amending Chapter 13, Assessment Ordinance, by adopting one now section, 13-1.2 (D), relating to trunk storm water charges is hereby approved and adopted. Adopted this 12th day of May, 1997. Mayor C City Administrator • ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 18, ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE, BY ADOPTING ONE NEW SECTION, 13-1-2 (D). RELATING TO TRUNK STORM WATER CHARGES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: 13-1.2: (D) Trunk Storm Water Charges Each property located within the area described in the City's Trunk Storm Water Charge Justification Report and addendums shall be bound by such reports and shall be bound by administrative policies governing collection of trunk storm water charges. Each such property owner shall submit to the City the applicable trunk storm water fee at the earliest of the following times or such property owner shall allow said fee to be placed as an assessment against said property. The applicable fee may be evaluated and adjusted from time to time by resolution of the City Council. For residential property being platted: prior to the recording of the final plat; For vacant commercial, industrial, and institutional zoned property or uses: at the time of issuance of a building permit. This ordinance becomes effective Brom and after its passage and publication. Adopted this 12th day of May, 1997. Mayor City Administrator SAa Council Agenda - 5/12/97 5B. Corudderatlan of a oe itio al stse permit llo nQas tom planned sinit development in an R-2 zone. AonLiennt, Brae see, Properties. L= (J.OJS.G.) AND 5C. C.nn_gideration of a preliminary and final plat of the Par West To homes Lqubdivitsion. ApplicauL Brendsel Propels,Inc. (J.OJS.G.) A. RFFRRIFNCF AND BA .K .RO IND: The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on this matter and recommended approval of the conditional use permit request allowing the planned unit development and recommended approval of the Par West preliminary plat. The approvals were based on the finding noted in Grittman's report and included conditions noted under alternative b. The Planning Commission also recommended that the site plan include additional landscaping between driveways. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Staff recommendation is to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation. During the public hearing, there was some concern from the property owner to the west regarding the staggering of the townhomes because it resulted in the view of the golf course being blocked. However, the staggering of the setback is allowed by code; therefore, the Planning Commission supported the plan. B_ ALTFRNATLVE ACTION 1. Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the conditional use permit allowing a townhouse planned unit development in an R-2 zone and to approve the preliminary and final plat of the Par West Townhomes subdivision. 2. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit and preliminary and final plat. r_ STAFF F..OMMF.NDATION: The City Administrator recommends alternative 01. D_ RUPPORTING DATA; Planner's report. N INC NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY rLANNINO - DESIGN - MARKCT RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor And City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht / Stephen GritIman DATE: 23 April 1997 RE: Monticello - Par West Townhomes: Preliminary Plat FILE NO.: 191.07 - 97.08 0 A. REFERS CE AND BACKGROUND Brendsel Properties Inc. Is requesting approval of a preliminary plot for a three unit townhome development on a 1.19 acre parcel ourrently dammed as Lot 5, Block 4 of Par West addition located at 202 Jerry Llefert Drive. The subject parcel Is =nod R-2. Single and Tvm Family Residentlal District Townhouse dwellings are allowed by Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development within the R-2 District due to the uniftse lot configuratlon of the plat As such, approval of the preliminary plat will also require CUP - PUD approval. Agjacont Use& The uses ak$acertl to ft mA* d parcel are outlined below for reference; South: Golf Course East: Townhome units West: Single Family units North: StrsaUSingle Family C S6 k 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITL 055 5T. LOU16 PARK. MINNESOTA 5541 e PHONE e 1 2.505.9636 PAX a 12.695.0837 ttil,a'd iM6 56S E19 W1 KIM u6T-M-8'" The proposed residential townhome development would be similar In character to existing uses In the area with an existing townhouse development to the east of the subject parcel. Special atterdlon will be necessary, however, to insure adequate screening and buffering of the proposed development from the single family residential use to the west Compmhe nsive Plan. The proposed use Is generally consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan policies in that it promoles the efforts to provide a wide range of housing choices. Zoning. The subject parcel is zoned R-2, Single Family and Two Family Residential District. Townhouses are allowed in this disbul as a Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development Section 22-1(D) requires the Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The judgement of the Planning Commission shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors. 1. Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depredate the area In which It is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. S. The demonstrated need for such use. PUD Processing. The applicant is required to request approval of a PUD/CUP for this towmhome development due to the base lot / unit lot oadigumtion d the development The processing of single phase developments occurs in two steges; Development PUD Plan and Forel PUD Plan. The Development PUD Plan of single phase developments requires subatantlal compliance with Zoning Ordinance provisions on which the Final PUD Plan will ultimately be based. If the City Council approves the Development PUD Plan, the applicant will submit a Final PUD Plan along with the final plat that addressea all outstanding Issues or conditions of approval regarding the proposed development Pwfbmwca Standards. The following table illustrator all lot performance requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed development's oompllanee with the applicable requirements. TTi80'd LM ffis M ObN oc19t iMT-M-&" CLots Lot Wkhh Lot Area Setbedca- Per Unit F_rmrt Side _ Rear RequUed 12,000 100 R 5,000 30 fL 10 R 301t sq. tt sq. ft- Proposed LProposed 51,975 148 fr. 17,225 301 10 R 100 R sq. R sq. R 8slbaft apply On* Me WrAMW of Oro dwabptnard for PUD. Access. The proposed three townhouse units are to access Jerry Liefert Drive by individual driveways. Section 22-1MA requires a minimum of 20 feet of frontage per unit With approximately 119 feet of frontage, the proposed development satisfies this requirement. The proposed driveways are setback from the side lot lines of the development property IIme over five feet There is approximately 20 feet of separation between the proposed driveways internally. The City Engineer should comment if this Is sufficient area to accommodate snow storage. Landscaping. The applicant has indicated proposed site landscaping on the submitted 0 ( site plantpreliminary plat and on a landscape plan that Illustrates proposed landscaping around the foundation of the structures. Between the single family use to the west and the subject property, there are a number of mature oak tnew. However, beyond the existing oak trees, Owe Is minimal landscaping provided along the west property line to screen the proposed townhome uses from view of the adjacent single family use. The applicant should be required to provide substential additional plantings along the length of the weal property line, subject to review and approval of the City, as part of the Final Plan PUD application. Oulldtng EJavatlons. The applicertt hes not submitted proposed building elevation plana to date. The applicant should be raqulrod to submit proposed building elovations as part of consideration of the PUD Final Plan application. Of note, buildings within the R•2 District are limited to 2'A stories in height. Protective CovenanUL The appl icmt hes submittod proposed protective covenaarttc to provide for the maintenance and caro of common areas In accordance with Section 20- 2(E)3. of the Zoning OrdUlanca. Sold covenants shell be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. It/W'd LM15 S65 2;19 7W SC191 (,rpt -M -tidy 3 Golf Course Access. The City staff has been made aware of Interest in preserving an access easemerd through the subject parcel for neigt►borhood residents to the golf course. Such an easement should be handled as a private matter between the property owners and is not an Issue for City review. Parte Dedication. The applicant will be required to provide an appropriate cash contribution for parte dedication. All park dedication contributions shall be paid at the time of final plat approval. Grading, Drainage and Utility plans. The submitted preliminary plaUsite plan includes proposed grading and drainage as well as proposed utility lines. Said grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works. ..� nl' :hr•.' Decision One: Request for a Conditional Use Pemdt for a Planned Unit Development, a. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Development PUD Plans as presented. Potential findings supporting this decision would be: • The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • The proposal Is consistent with the erosting land use in the area. • The proposal Is consistent with the provisktns of the Zoning Ordinance. • The proposal is consistent with the CIWs use of Planned Unit Developmont. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Development PUD Plans, subject to ^y the following conditions: 1. Submission of a detailed landscape plan that Includas substantial additional plantings along the west property line, prior to Final PUD Plan approval. ii. Approval of street accesses by the City Engineer prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Iii. Submission of proposed building elevations for review, prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Iv. Approval of grading, drainage and utility Issues by the City Engineer and Public Works. Potential findings cuppoting this decision would be: • The proposal Is conalstont with the Comprehensive Plan iti0t'd 4M 565 LT9 7W Sct9t aAt-4C-b* ► The proposal is consistent with the existing land use In the area. • The proposal is canlstent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, with approval of proposed building elevations. ► The proposal is amsistent with the City's use of Planned Unit Development with appropriate landscaping and archftecWral design. C. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit PUD. Potential findings supporting this decision would be: ► The proposal is inconsistent with the existing single family land uses to the north and west Declelon Two: Request for a Preliminary Plat for Par West Townhomes. a. Approval of the Pre imiM Plat for Par West Townhomes as presented, subject to approval of the PUD, and comments of the City Engineer and Public Works. b. Denial of the Preliminary Plat for Par West Townhomes as presented. The proposed project is generally consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehen3ive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and is also generally consistent with the existing land uses in the area. However, the leclt of detalled landscaping pians for areas of the site other than directly adjacent to the proposed structures raises concern over minimizing impacts to the adjacent single family uses. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant be required to submit revised landscaping plans that provide substantial additional plantings along the west property line. As such, staff recaronends approval of both the PUD and Preliminary Plat with conditions as cited in Decision One, alternative b and Decision Two, alternative e. D. Exhibit A - Zoning Map and Site Location Exhibit B - Preliminary Piet I Site Plan Exhibit C - Landse2ping Plan Exhibit D - Proposed Protective Covenants TT/TT'd iMX SES ET9 ot" S[191 "PILICZ ZMJ7VA.KY J'Z.AT Or t .P -A -R VMR!r 7v4o4VAW40M.,&S_ Crl-V OF Af01V"X7CWZXV, tib -WChVrY MAP- Dnr col oro, [1), • THE GREENS 1� ol 0 b000 1. rOURTH ADDITON - - - - - - - - - - -EIMBIT I ti-i,S: :': :'L'*;.; ..w ,. 's;a.`(,, .,J,f,. .. .,'+: 'a-.., .1 •^r' ii r4i•- _ ?r;a.: ..: rr.; �.i.��•p..•: 1•,; •,i,� _ f; A,•v::sy: f'i;• /,:t''. it r.`7aig: ,.: "-rh'�:'C7J�J?'l:�•:?• t'. .'?::}�•I�•,1•,i�f. �•i{t:HF , •�1,••� 4•.'�: �, �',�' � ° C, •r`,�• 'l11 '=.p .S1 ��F 1 A. ff Y ,L d.��:: �iF i. Ih,l `Cr,t •f,`. i� !�, 'f f • A^ ':�(:...y: e ij!' ;r„ v, . ia`"t,,} fk� '{ N'l. , •`'}f lii:' :.�y �,:: .a : L.^ 'S�/4;? 'b ..iy r-i •:�•`:. i:1a`. ;',�:'4r; '. •.•:4.': 1, Ili ..•',.'fir :1_ ., }. fjj3 }':'2:� '.°J', _ y y.....i .�'.:�.'?:;�:1 e;�r:1`:.Sr ":a;j "�•:• ,qtr ;. s f•.• '�����/� a, ..f.• .)47 :1.. -di la ' i ` r\ ;;�': islr' t: rr+� f: ''3�9:i: ✓: C�,J: �. l:'` .}.��!• i'�"S.4♦ ;'T'• �r::l `i.�i:. II'' 'i�l. �.t: .'li.'• ,nJ'J.:. '•.'�. �. '.\'•:, . • r' ."{77' 111 ' ,'>. :'.tl :"•. �rci':'r; r:5`j•;'rTp.n. a.�•. '` w:.} . . s; •-c.:: i ' .•(,'' t*; r:i: :�i :E.:,% ; •.k;t'Tl'�..";r,,... •:moi••. Y•t'.�:' •.T- '.ray' J•+C,•c�{f'? ,.i�; . ��: .;y .,,•..,• '':T. i 'T,,, �•' :.'. Yr .,t .,,1, 1 . t.�i::rj ;,_ . S % ,.i� :`Y ���r• �.b, '11`1' rl..,• :.', ':T'( ,7j'. �'.. f '•'Lr.''.i`' •:r," ,9.,1 a .,l 'l[a 1' r r•`+�t ti• , .7 �• il. �!"t�. 1,?' .1*s:. ,i'r.� rsY\:•sr'- :�t•, irei„t'•,a:',•'o i;'i.,+�. :,i' 'a', I� •,� +:<:�'f,:y ,,T:•- '.,^,>.:r..%•sat' ,, �';. �.�: ..:4:;; w, :.`i; 'i�.: r•;>•j�i4'4.:2:..•'e� .,1.� •,fit, �' r•:�'a.4'r": .�r� •:,C;• •.{�r, �•".% �� � � ••�; „s..y...: K '.1r'>~3 � rr;••; ':J�' �; 1. {�f• •i r! .�' :}r�' .�''r. .l. • ��: �� � •it•�_ ,5 �'�,'s l'�tti:�Iw•i���'� •off+ .:�� tirt•'1y�•{`(�rj ,.: •t�. tri. r .5 � : a:7,• .{.:j •.6' .'t�. s �'•' t ��. ! , )� �;�°�'� ' t•'' ^ °' ice-, W ' •,. .;.,t•7 ?: �.%•.. :��i.• 'v1"�^'�•�.;7.��t '7 ,,i.,.t, -. :17�/�..�1Yeth����, y�� �,�.�, ,. ><'•'�1,` ,'>''� :,gin ' �!' 1�' �.' .'I {'.}:'i«`,:t.:! .� q,r,µCi' !r'!!IF'"'•r:. • � •' . ,,•, l'•,�Y ti'; t�'1ri'{+ _ �tl.: .tp ,.'` }(O�y Sy�t� t,':. ., J' , • ,.r Y '�'�'��tr�� �' �+T ''�� � , �',�r1i•W.r.1i,�'RNJw ...........�+.i....,.i.1.xt.?.:i.�.-...:...�.iw..l.....+:..t;..:+a•.r�.�..,..........:i..�..::.y:.`.t.:.�..c�'.>r::.'.:.:L�M..�iw:..':,.j{:�. i..«:«:.:. �_. CI Council Agenda - 6112/97 N 1 1 11 1 1 '!1 •1 1 h=1:1:.: • :rill Il 1 / • The comment period for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process has now expired, and the City has received few comments with regard to the environmental effects of the development Therefore, the City Council is asked to review comments made, the engineer's response to comments, and then consider adopting the attached findings of fact which state that the impact of the development of the high school as determined via the EAW process does not warrant completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. Motion to adopt a resolution stating that an Environmental Impact Statement on the Monticello High School project is not necessary. Motion to deny adopting a resolution stating that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. C. STAFF RF.COUNIFF.NDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the resolution based on results of the EAW process. n. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of roport and findings of fact. May -08-97 OH:14A CITY OF MONTICELLO P.03 In the matter of the Decision on the FINDINGS OF FACT Need for an Environmental Impact AND CONCLUSIONS statement for the Proposed Monticello High School, Wright County, Minnesota independent School District No. 882 in the City of Monticello proposes to construct a 282,000 square foot high school. The project site is located between an existing elementary and middle school on School Stmt Boulevard the corporate boundaries of the City of Monticello. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 14. 0.2, the City of Monticello has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project. As to the neW for an Environmental impact Statement (EIS) on the project and based on the record in this matter, including the RAW and comments received, the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project This project involves the construction of 282,000 squat toot high school complex and appurtenant facilities. The apputUmume facilities include two parking lots, two lane bituminous road. storm water rete control and treatment pond, concrete storm sewer pipe, three soccer/football fields, and four softball fields. Also as pan of this site, but to be constructed at a Aam date are a football stadi run, eight tennis courts, a softball field, a baseball field, expart" puking Meas, uW school building additions. B. Project Site The area proposed for conantctlon of the Monticello High School Is along School Boulevard between the existing dententary school to the west and the existing middle school to the east. A pared of property on which the school is proposed to be conunutod etumntly is an opal field and is consistent with the City's current land use plan. Paas lard uses which could pose envlronmeatsl eoncem include underground or above ground dosage petroleum to" at fbnaer farmsteads, as well as unpe mitted fill and/or dumping. There aro vimmtly no known environmental problems at the site, and none are antitipased to be discovaed. AAWPOaA MAW( ► 5�1�} May -09-97 08:14A P.04 U. PROJECT HISTORY A The project woe eubjod to the mandatory preparation of a EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.43110, aubp.14, B2. B. An EAW was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other intanted parties on Much 27,1997. C. A press release containing the notice of availability of the F.AW for public review was provided to media serving the project area on April 2, 1997. D. The EAW was noticed in the April 7, 1997 EQB Monitor. The pubfic comment period coded on May 7,1997. Cormnent letters were received from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Wright County Soil and Water Conscrvstion District (WSWCD). Copia of the kters are hereby incorporated by reference. 117. CRITERIA FOR DETERMIt41NG THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Minnesota X4410.1700, subp. 1 states that "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant enviroemental effects." In deciding whether • project has the potential for significant enviroatzscatall effects, tho City of Monticello must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota 8.4410.1700, sabp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City fiords as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City of Monticello must consider is "type, extent and mvenibility of envirmuncital effec%" Minnesota 8.4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The DepaRment of Natural Resources and the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District raiM the following issues concerning "Ute type, extent, and rovenibility of environmea d effects." The City of Monticello flndinga with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. WdUnd2ratect m The Wright Canty Soil and Water Comervation District eapMad an interest in the presence of wetlands located at the proposer! Monticello High School lila Their site investigation detamhred that Uro two existing stern water norsge and treatment basins may fall under the Jurisdiction of the Wettaad Conservation Act of 1991 and thereby be susceptible to all rules governing mansganeat of them wetlands. 2. Surfaw warn! Tsostmmi The Department of Natural Resources encouraged a no act change in sun off characteristics post -project Born pre -project condition. r.,asruw,wor 5D8 May -013-97 08:25A C3. City of Manticclln Findinw The City of Monticello finds that thcrc is adequate measures in place to inure that storm warm management issues anal wcdand managem>cut issues are addressed in coat^^^•^« with the Welland Conservation Act of 1991, and that appropriate controls are available to mitigate any impacts on storm water nun off quantity gad quality through the use of storm water tteatmeat and rcuntion basins. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELAYED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City of Monticello mud consider is the cumulative potential effmu of related at anticipated iilame projects, "Minnesota RA410.1700. supb. 79. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. The proposed project has many l4ture eapatuiom me uding the construction of a stadium at the proposed site fan sports facilities. Preparadam of this EAW does not necessarily supply adequate inf=wdon to address the ., — ..-11 Impacts oflhe construction of the stadium at this time. 2. The City of Monticello finds that the envitonmcotal aaswunent --shed dew rot adequately provide detailed informaden for tusesunent of tho environmental impacts of this haste stadium. 7berefm, the Odium construction will need to adhere to the eaviremncual assessmern criteria and be evaluated upon determination of the stadium's final design. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MMGA71ON BY ONOOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY The fbllowing permits or approvals will be required for the project: 11ni1 of C*ovcEwnant limit or . MPCA State Disposal System • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syatem (NPOES) City of Monticello Building/grading pmnits 2. Storm water management must confatm to the NPDES permit requirements and to the regulations and policies of the City of Monticello, as well as the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 thmigh the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District. 3. The City of Monticello finds that the potential mviromnenW affects of the project are subject to mitigation by oogoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS not be prepared. P. O6 .,...r,. mow top CJ May -08-97 08:16A D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City of Monticello must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects coo be anticipated and controlled as a result of other envirorancntal studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EISs previously Prepared an simiLr projects," Minnesota 84700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City of Monticello finds that with respect to this factor are act forth below . The proposed project is the type of project which is frequently reviewed and permitted by City of Monticello. The City finds that the environmental efrwu of the project can be anticipated and coatolled as a result of the environmental review and permitting processes undertaken by the City on ssimilsr projects. CONCLUSIONS 1. The EAW, the permit development pmess, and comments received on the EAW have gettceted information aft au to domicte whetherthe proposed facility hes the potential for significant environmental effects. 2. Areas whom the potential for sigil5canl environmental effmta may have crusted have been identified end appropriate mitigative mewwu have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The proposed facility is expected to comply with all the City of Monticello standards and review agency standards. 3. Based on the criteria established In Minnesota 84410.17000, the project does not have the potential for significant envimmuenW effects. 4. AnEnvimmmentalImpact Statement unot required. S. Any findings that might properly be tamed concl d ms and any conclusions that might Property be termed findings aro haft adopted as mch by the Monticello Cary Council with appropriate sigrsatute blanks below. P. 06 sb D Council Agenda - 5/12t97 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter and discussed the site plan with the Architect, Paul Youngquist. Subsequent to the discussion, the Planning Commission selected alternative #1, which is to approve the conditional use permit subject to modifications to the site plan as noted. In representing the School District, Youngquist had no objections to the recommendation by the Planning Commission. Motion to adopt the reoommendation of the Planning Commission, which is alternative #1 under the attached report. No adjustments were made to the curb locations with the exception that the School is at liberty to remove curb where future panting is planned. This applies to the western boundary of the parking lot, which may be extended farther to the west at some point in time. Motion to deny adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation. C_ STAFF II`F.CnMMF.NDATION; The City Administrator recommends alternative #1. n. SUPPORTINP DATA; Staff report to Planning Commission. Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97 I :. I! • I 1' Y: I I 1 Monticello School District requests approval of a conditional use permit which would allow construction of a senior high school in an R-1 zone. The 40 -acre site is located between the Middle School and Little Mountain Elementary School. Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, which provides a complete description of the propused facility and surrounding land uses. The balance of this report identifies various issues or unique aspects of this site that may require special discussion. Buffer Yard Requirements High SrhnnVfnd (atrial Bo Indaa . The buffer yard requirement is intended to buffer incompatible uses and was, in part, deve!oped for the very situation that is faced today. Under the code, for adjoining vacant properties, both property owners are responsible for installing one-half of the total plantings required in the buffer yard. Typically, the plantings are installed when development occurs. It is somewhat unusual that the School District landscaping plan satisfies the entire planting requirement for the buffer yard for both sides of the property line along the high school boundary. The site plan proposes 200 6 ft -7 ft pine trees planted every 12 ft along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the business campus zone to the north. The tree line is interrupted by the retention pond in the center of the site. Little. Mountain Elem entail/] nduRtrinl BOLda n, The plan also shows the full buffer yard installed the full length of the Little Mountain Elementary (LME) School site. This is appropriate because the code says that "now development" must install 100% of the buffer yard when there is existing development. It is necessary to install the bufTeryard along the elementary school site at this time because it is currently nonconforming. Thus installation of the full complement of trees along the LME boundary places the LME site in conformance with code. General Landscaping Landscaping plan for the balance of the site has not been submitted to City staff. Staff has some concern that the School District believes that the extra trees in the high school buffer yard should be subtracted Brom the balance of the landscaping requirement for the remainder of the site. Please note that 5Ff} Planning Commission Agenda - 5!6/97 we have urged the District Site Planner to submit the landscaping plan and have provided considerable advanced notice of the need for the plan prior to Planning Commission review. Staff accepted the application based on a letter from Dan Johnson, site engineer, stating that "Our office will be working with City staff to satisfy city requirements with respect to landscaping issues pertaining to the subject site." Later, after the submittal had been accepted, we received a letter from the same office stating "We trust the number of trees (over the required minimum) proposed for the landscape buffer will reduce the internal landscape requirements." Curb Locations The site plan as proposed, to a great extent, complies with code with regard to installation of curb and gutter; however, there are a few areas where curb is not being proposed. Please see the site plan for detail. The areas where curb is not being proposed will enable water to drain directly into adjoining swales. As you can see, curb is proposed for all areas that border play fields and open spaces. This is intended to discourage vehicles from driving on grassy areas, which is a common problem today. Please see the attached note of May 2 from Dan Johnson regarding curb locations. Curb Island/Parking Stall Alignment Delineators Referring to the main parking lot at the front of the high school, the site plan shows development of 224,000 sq ft of blacktop surface, which results in the need (by code) to develop 7,884 sq ft of island delineator space. The plan as proposed results in 3,660 sq ft of delineator space resulting in a deficit of 4,224 sq ft. The site plan reveals two sets of curb islands in the center of the high school parking lot along with sets on both ends of the lot. There is approidmately 400 ft between the center curb island delineators (football field + 100) and the end delineators, making room for over 40 cars per row. It is suggested strongly that the Planning Commission look at the amount of blacktop and the potential need for enforcing the parking island delineator requirement by requiring additional island delineators at midpoint between the middle islands and the end delineators. Adding the additional landscaped delineators as proposed by staff will help break up the expanse of black top and provide a guide for parking in the winter months when striping is covered. If the site plan included 12 small delineators (87151 per unit, the total square footage of delineators would increase to 5,100, which remains short of the code requirement. With regard to the bus loading and parking area to the rear of the site, the site plan also reveals a shortage of island delineators. It is suggested also that this parking lot be redesigned slightly with the goal of adding delineators to improve identification of parking stall alignment. This is sF8 Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97 particularly important in this case because the stall row is over 300 ft in length and it curves besides. Imagine having to find the proper alignment in the winter months on a curving stall alignment line without visible striping or island delineators to go by. R ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing construction of a high school facility contingent on the following conditions: A. Submittal of a complete landscaping plan meeting the minimum landscaping requirements in addition to meeting the minimum requirements of the buffer yard ordinance. B. Complete revisions to the site plan as identified by the Planning Commission that are necessary to improve parking stall delineation and adequately break up the monotony of the parking lots. This applies to both front and rear parking areas. C. Make adjustments to curb locations as determined by the Planning Commission. Motion to approve the conditional use permit is based on the finding that development of the school facility at this location under the conditions noted is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city. Motion to deny approval based on the finding that the site plan is inconsistent with city code and, therefore, the code needs to be changed or variances granted. The Planning Commission should select this alternative if the applicant is unwilling to meet minimum requirements or unwilling to make adjustments to the site plan as requested by the Planning Commission. Motion to table consideration of the conditional use request allowing construction of a high school in an R-1 zone. Planning Commission should select this alternative if it desires to have the School District redraw the site plan with amendments made as requested prior to forwarding it to the City Council. SEG Planning Commission Agenda - 516/97 y : AM 1,711 "I : W Staff recommends approval under the conditions noted under alternative q 1. It is our view that the plan needs to move toward meeting the minimums of the city ordinances with regard to curb island delineators and landscaping. The requirements of the ordinance make sense and should be applied to this site plan. Additional trees and improved parking lot design will enhance the impact of the site in the area and will improve internal traffic flow. If the Planning Commission feels that the requirements of the ordinance should not be applied to this site in terms of curb, landscaping, and island delineators, then perhaps the code should be changed. Copy of site plan; Copy of Environmental Assessment Worksheet; Copy of May 2 memo from Dan Johnson. SCD z 0 _j J ANDERSON -JOHNSON og�_M 71 ASSOCIATES,A AIA �. INC. .4� pkw" - C4 APRIL 14, 1997 N E W CCCCICC_CC B I C C C C C C C C I Gy¢�g4y,*�,t 40 - AUSTRIAN PINE (6' HEIGHT) 4 TIP. 30 - NORWAY SPRUCE (7' HEIGHT) it 60 - AUSTRIAN PINE (6- HEIGHT) (SPACE AT 12' ON CENTER - STAGGER ROWS) 70 - NORWAY SPRUCE (7- HEIGHT) SOCCER/FO TEAL LI I (SPACE AT 12' ON CENTER - STAGGER ROWS) 4 POND I I � TENNI I ou SOCCER00,001 :PHY. I �SER' 'ICE 4STA"OSED RAffkap RT 3R , s. �_1 l HIGH 0, FppT BALL I M ni .-- i T STAFF 4 *pO L L i In's IR, 6- ur btiPJ SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE BUFFER PLAN EXISTING ML r -IN L !FO f BALL SOFTER BAIL L T 1 OCCER IF 0 ALt (S 'OFTB JA z :DARK AFF PPFOSED D LINEAtORS t O�F :TB Aj XA S �SE 11A is's tq� APRIL 9. 1996 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) NOTE TO PREPARERS "his worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Gevemmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply any tsonabryaccessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. K a complete answer does not in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. Forassistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Ouahty Board (E0B) at (612) 296-8253 or (toll-free) 1.800.652- 9747 (ask operator for the EOB environmental review program) or consult 'EAW Guidelines', a booklet evadable from the EOB. NOTE TO REVIEWERS Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30 -day carmem period Mooring notice of the EAW in the EOB Mondor. (Contact the RGU or the EOB to team when the comment period ends.) Commem should address the accuracy and completeness of the information, potential Impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. lithe EAW has been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. 1. Project Title P_roposedtdlontice0o.bigh.Scnoo'i 2. Proposer lndependenLSchooLDlstticLNO._882 3. RG U.City_Of.MonticeM Contact person Sheldoa.D_Johnson ___ Contact Person Jef-O.Nein— Address_P_O_Box_8Q7 and title Assistant Administrawr______ _ Monticello_MN_553F7 Address 25O.East_Broadway ___ Phone _295-51AA Manticello_MN-55362_9245 Phone_2953ZL1 4. Reason forEAWPreperadon o EIS scoping ■ mandatory EAW C citizen petition 0 RGU discretion a Proposer volunteered It EAW or EIS .s mandatory give EO8 rule category number(s) 44.10A300..subp_14_B. 2 3. Project Location 114 114 Section _1.3— Township J21N_ Range _25W_ County M4t^,,' City/Twp _C4.of Mentleeltn Anach cap»x of "0 W Me bCo n to the EAW e. o county map showing the general location of the project; b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy 4 009 indicatlnp the prryecf boundaries,; c. A site plan showing all signi(konf project and natural features. S. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project end ancillary facilities (affach adrditlonal sheets as necessary). Emphosi:e construction and operation methods and factures that will cause physical m"puladon of the envitonmew or produce wastes. Indicate the firming and duration of construction activities. Independent School Diotrid No. 882 te proposing to construct anew high school In the Cny of Monticello, Minnesota. The location of this project is shown on Figure 1. The proposed high school Is approximately 282,000 square feet and thus necessitates the preparation of an EAW. This prcloct involves the construction of on Inctitutional building, 2 parking W. a Vine biluminous road, storm water rate control and treatment pond, concroto storm bower pipe. 3 eoccorflootball flolds, and 4 softball gelds. Alto proposed as pan of this are. but to be constructed at a future dote are o football stadium, 8 tcnnla calls, a sohbae Hold, a baseball Held, expanded parking areas, and ad+od building additions. The proposed project is shown on Figure 3. The location of this proposed high school is along School Boulevard between the existing olomentary school to the wost and the existing middle bchcal to the east. The construction and aperotlon of the proposod Senior High School facility, will have physical and environmental Impacts. Physical Impacts Include a change In land color from open field to on institutional use with haeseed impervious surface area, This change in surface cover will incroato the roto and volume of storm water nsaE which is generated from the alto, as wag as hwooso pollutant loads in storm water runoff. Thorn may oloo be Impaeio oowdoted with sb qua(ey from Inuaasod traffic. Proven a to a ta~ .oro acvoa tv uM in Ella Id_1TCC naxo C 7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) An Number of Residential Units Unattached or Length (miles) Attached C Commercial I Industrial I Institutional Building Area (gross floor space) Total 182.1 square feet: Indicate area of specific uses: Office Manufacturinr Retail Other Industrial Warehouse Institutional—Nigh_Scho^r Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Building Height(s) an.1• 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required.- Unit equired:Unit of Government Type of application Status Minnesota Pollution Control Agency State Disposal System Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES City of Monticello Building/Grading Permits 9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lends. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as sell contamination or abandoned storage tanks. The area of the proposed project has been an open farm field for many years. This area is located between an existing middle school and elementary school. The land is currently farmed. This site currently contains a drainage ditch which receives water from properties located to the south, and conveys the water to the north Into an existing storm water pond which will be provided an outlet in the future to the Mississippi River, in accordance with the City's storm water plan. This ditch Is proposed to be replaced with reinforced concrete pipe of adequate capacity to accommodate the current off-site drainage received by this storm water conveyance system. The project is compatible with the City's current land -use plan. Past land uses which pose environmental concern Include underground or aboveground storage petroleum tanks of former farmsteads. as well as any unpermitted GII and/or dumping. There are currently no known environmental contamination problems on the site. 10. Cover Typos Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after foists should be equal); Before After Before After Types 2 to B Wetlands _0.0— _0.0_ UrbaniSuburban Lawn _D.0 413_ Wooded/Forest _0.0_ _0.0_ Landscaping Brush/Grassland Imo_ _0.0_ Impervious Surface _0.0_ _JB.S_ Cropland X0.0_ _0.0— Other (describe) —D.O— IL0_ 11. Fish, WRdllfe. and Ecologically Sonsidvo Resources a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affoctod by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse Impacts. The silo currently contains no significant fish or wildlife resources or habitat. Storm water runoff generated from this alto will be treated prior to discharge Into the Mississippi River which is the receiving waters from this site. IS. Aro there any statodisted endangered, thmatonod, or special -comm spados; taro plW cansrnndUos; Colonial watorbird nesting colortles; native prairie or other ram habitat; or other sonswoo ecological resources on or near the Me? D Vas ■ No fl yes, describe the resource and how It would be affected by ore pigbel. Indicate Un silo survey of the resources was conducted. DosCnbo measures to b0 token to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The Minnesota Deportment of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program was contacted regarding the location of any state C listed endangered, threatened or apodal concern species. or rare plant communities located at this proposed site. Attached to this EAW IS a letter from the Minnoaota Department of Natural Resources Natural Herbage Program Indkaling that to their knowledge, none of these resources are acro" present at the etre. sra 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, rifling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? ■ Yes ❑ No if yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged or rig material., area affected; length of stream diversion: water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. N The site currently contains an open ditch drainageway which will be replaced with a reinforced concrete pipe storm sewer system of adequate capacity to maintain drainage through this parcel into the Mississippi River. This is not a county ditch system but a local trunk storm water ditch used for local drainage, which was constructed as a temporary system to serve the properly to the south until the school property was developed and a permanent solution constructed. In addition, the project as proposed includes expanding an existing storm water treatment pond and constructing an additional treatment pond in accordance with the City's storm water plan for this site. Storm water rate control and treatment will be provided prior to discharge from the site. 13. Wateruse a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? ❑ Yee ■ No For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpennided wells, give the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (it known). An old farm well on the site was previously abandoned. b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? ❑ Yes ■ No If yes, indicate the source. quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and ONR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels. c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? ■ Yes 0 No If yes, Identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. The estimated dairy water usage for the proposed school is 38,840 gpd based on ultimate occupancy of 1,832 people using an average of 20 gpd per person. Water will be supplied by the Gty of Monticello. The DNR water appropriations permit number for the City of Monticello well which serves this site is 841099. Groundwater aquifers are the source of Monticello's public water supply. a. Water•rolated Land Use Management Districts Does any pan of the project site Involve a shoreland zoning distdct. a delineated 100•year flood plain, ore state or redoraity designotod wild or scenic river land use district? ❑ Yes ■ No If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. 13. Water Surface Use Wig the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ❑ Yoe • No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users at fish and wildlife resources. 18. Soils Appro,/mato depth (51 root) to: Ground water. minimum 10'. average Bedrock: minimum .20t_ average Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS clasmllcotons, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring legs need ant be attached.) SM • Silty Sand, fine-grained. dark brown to black (TOPSOIL) SP • Poorly Gradod Sand, Moto madium-grolncd, with a trace o1 Grovel, brown, moist, very loose to modium dense (GLACIAL TILL) Elated on subsurfaco onv'uonmental and gootechnical investigations, the general soil profile encountered In those bo"s as 1 to 2 112 fact of topsoil and underlain by poorly gradod and. Silty sand was encountered between the topsoil and poorly graded send in Borings ST -3. ST -1 1, AND ST•14, to depths of 3 to 7 feat. Soil boring loge are available upon request. Nether water nor bedrock was encountered in any coil borings that wont to o maximum depth of 20 foot. 17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cuoic yards of soil to be moved., acres _80_; 132,000 cubic yards of cut; 102,000 cubic yards o1 fill. Describe any stoop slopes or highly orodiblo colts and idomily them on the alto map. Doscnbo the erosion and codimontation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. Temporary erosion and aedimentatbn measures to be used during construction Include alit fences and possible seeding (depending on tho length of time sod is exposed) of exposed sale. Permanent erosion control measures include oodhaeding or placement of Impervious surfaces over exposed aoi;a. The City of Monticello wig require Not the conatnrctlon contractor comply with applicable codes end regulations. The contractor will be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Ellndnatbn System (NPDES) 9enerol storm water pemdl program, Standard erosion control measures required by the City of Monticello, Wright County and the State of Minnesota will be followed during and after construction of the facility. Final site preparation and erosion control will require repair and re-establishment of vegetation on all disturbed areas. The contractor will develop a temporary erosion and sediment control plan. These measures will consist of the placement and maintenance of erosion and sediment control devices such as silt fences and bale checks. /- 1. Water Quality -Surface Water Runoff l a. Compare the quantity and quality ofsite nmoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and open field. Storm water runoff that is not collected by sod infiltration is collected in drainage ditches that eventually drain into the Mississippi River. The City of Monticello receives approximately 27 incites of precipitation annually and the 100 -year, 24-hour rainfall is 5.9 inches. The volume of nmoff generated from this site in the existing and proposed conditions is outlined below. Runoff rates and volumes on the project site will increase due to the addition of impervious surfaces, Volume of Runoff From Site in Acre -Feet 1 -Yr Storm 10 -Yr Storm 100 -Yr Storm (2.3' in 24 His) (4.1' in 12 His) (5 W in 24 His) Existing Condition 0.70 4.30 9.70 Proposed Condition 4.00 11.00 18.95 Surface waver runoff at the project site will be routed through storm water detention ponds prior to discharge from the project site. These ponds will provide both storm water rate control and treatment to NURP recommendations. b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the s•'!e. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (if tM nine# may etc: a m4 came -EF W Gwaat+ni abort "aegr a ft"m evagat anaryts 4 nahpas ) All storm water from the City of Monticello ultimately discharges into the Mississippi River. The project site Is located In e sutrwatorshad of Monticello previously identified by the City. As the subwatershed Is developed (this Includes the project site), culverts and ponds will be modified or constructed to regulate the discharge of storm water runoff to the Mississippi River. Storm water runoff will be treated through the use of wet detention ponds to remove pollutants prior to discharge to the Mississippi River. The proposed treatment ponds will be constructed to meet NURP recommendations and are ostimated to remove 730%.80% of total suspended solids and 5O%.70% of total phosphorus. The proposed storm water treatment methods should fully mitigate the effects of this development on the quality of water being discharged to the Mississippi River. 19. Water Quality - Wastewaters a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of o0 sartifary and Industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the silo. This alto is anticipated to generate normal domestic typo aowago. b. Describe any waste treatment mothods to be used and give estimates of composition after troatmont or d tho project involves on -Sita Sowago Systems, discuss the sultabiby of the Site conditions for Such SysfdM& Idontdy rocoiving wafers (iftlullft ground watotl and estimate the Impact of the discharge on the quality of the recolving waters. (ear. 44dbary0auy AftU alike ddaa4a -Ctw Gurde!sea- aacuf wae!hw a rwtr*M budirO and a,,*W3 a needed) e. If wastes will be dlvehargod into d sower systom or protmatrrlom system, ldonfity the system and dlocuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identity any Improvements which will be noeossary. City of Monticello Sewage Troolmani Plant will have adequate solver copacity to aCeommodato the anticipated volume of wastewater goncrated from this silo, of which time the school opons. The Cly is curremty, undertaking an expansion of the woatowotor treatment plant, which will be fully operational by July, 1998. The Cly of Monticello sanitary sower oyatcm was deoignod to acconhmodato the anticipated construction of the high school an this site. 20. Ground Wator- Potential for Contamination o. Appre+iniDto depth (in loop to ground water, , .20'o . minimum; . __ _ _ average. - 4 5FZ b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identity them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow limestone • tormationsnkarst conditions; sods with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. There is an abandoned farm well on the site which was abandoned try the school district in accordance with state laws at the time �f the property was purchased. 1 c. Identity any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. An exterior 8.000 -gallon underground p2 fuel oil storage tank is proposed. This tank will be equipped with an approved electronic monitoring system to prevent contamination of groundwater and soils by this system. 21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks a. Descrbe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be genersted, euJu lim erdmal manures, sludges and ashes. Identity the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan: list typo(s) and how the project will be modified to Oow recycling. The proposed high school is expected to generate normal municipal solid waste (MSV). MSW will be collected by one private waste hauler under contract with the City of Monticello and licensed by Wright County. b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). The site is proposed to contain one 8,000 -gallon e2 fuel oil underground storage tank. The tank is 8'0' in diameter and 16' in length. The location of this tank can be seen on the proposed site plan, which is attached to this document as Figure 3. 22. Traffic Parking spaces added _B22— Existing spaces (f project involves expansion) —N/A_ Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated _3100_ Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and as timing: 100_ act &ak_Hr. For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which wig be necessary. It is estimated that, based on a 282,000 square foot high school, the following traffic would be generated: Time Period Generation Rete Number of Trips AM Peak Hour 2.34 trips/1000 SF 660 PM Peak Hour 1.94 Irips/1000 SF 548 Daily 10.00 trips/1000 SF 3,074 The estimated trip generation is based on Information found in the 5th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. The primary Impacted roadways adjacent to the site ore School Boulevard on the south and Chelsea Road on the north. Access to the site will be provided by two driveways from School Boulevard and a bituminous service road to Chelsea Road. The atte plan indicates the tocation of those aIle occosaes. Traffic will be distributed to the local regional roadway system (le. TH 25 and CR 118) by School Boulevard and Chelsea Road, Figure 4 I Appendix A Illustrates the existing and proposed Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on the impacted roadways, as wall as the astimatod traffic distribution from the proposed site. There ore critical areas that would Indicate operational problems duo to traffic generated from the proposed site of the driveways to the site and major intersectlona. The primary access drtvewoyo to the site are from School Boulevard which Is a two-lane roadway (one tans In each direction with nine -foot shoulders). The roadway section will accommodate any traffic which would be turning into or out of the proposed site. The accede onto Chelsea Road ie a secondary access and will not be impacted by the proposed traffic into or out of the site. The regional Impacts would be at the Intersections of School Boulevard and TH 25, and School Boulevard at Fenning Avenue (CR 118). The Intersection of School Boulevard and TH 25 is planned far Improvement In 1988, This Intersection Is proposed to be a signalized Intersection when traffic volumes jusbfy its Installation. t;rlhod Boulevard at CR 116 has 5416ent capacity to handle the Increase of traffic due to the proposed high school. However. CR 110 is proposed in the CiVe Transportation Plan to be upgraded from School Boulevard to CSAH 75 around the yew 2000. M i-- SCO0,80 Based on this data, the proposed site traffic, now and In the Uwe, will have lisle impact or no Impact on the existing roadway systems. The onty roadway Improvements that should be considered is One acceleration of the improvement of CR 118 from School Boulevard to CSAR 75. 13. Vehicle -related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. taw prq+n mvoner 300 u mon O•rha apK.., consua'EAw Guod.rin.i .Doff »e.rror a daxv d wWar+h' •+•b.I. U n..d d ) The proposed project will involve development of 282.000 square feet of building area and the development of 822 new parking spaces. The development does not require an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) because fewer than t,000 new parking spaces will be provided. In addition, a computer simulated carbon monoxide analysis was performed to document compliance with applicable ambient el quality standards. To screen the project for potential air quality conformance problems, the Mn/DOT Simplified Analysis procedure was utilized. One receptor location was used for the analysis. The background carbon monoxide levels used for the analysis were non -rural, one-hour and eight-hour levels Indicated in Mn/DOT's guidelines. which are 2.5 PPM and 1.5 PPM, respedivey. The results of the analysis indicate that the roadways adjacent to the proposed site will be within the current MPCA guidelines of 30 PPM for a maximum one-hour reading and 9 PPM for an average eight-hour reading. The following table represents the results of the analysis for the proposed project. Year Period Estimated level MPGA Guidelines (PPM) (PPM) 1998 1 Hour 3.8 30.0 199a 8 Hour 1.8 9.0 2000 1 Hour 3.9 30.0 2000 8 Hour 1.9 9.0 24. Stationary source air emissions Wig the project invoke arty stationary sources of air emissions (such as bolters or exhaust stacks)? 0 Yet • No C If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emlWorm the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities and composition of the emisslons offer treatment; and the effects on air quality. 25. M the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction andAvoperation7 ■ Yes a No If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or Intensity, and any proposed measures to midgets adverse Impacts. Also identity the locations of sensithv receptors In the vicinity and estimate the Impacts on these receptors. Dust: During construction, particular emissions will temporarily Increase due to the generation of fugitive dust. The following dust control measures will be undertaken as noes"": 1) Minimize the period and extent of area being exposed and regraded at any one time; 2) Spraying construction areas and haul roads with water, especially during periods of high wind or high level of construction octivlks: 3) Minimize the use of vehicles on unpaved surfaces; a) Covering or spraying materials pilon and/or truck foods. Odors: The proposed project Is not onticipatod to Involve any processes that would generate arty odors outside of the buildings. Noise: The noise standards applicable to ft proposed development aro those developed by the State of Mlnneacts in Its Noise Pollution Control regulations. The following tables outlines Nese noise standards by land use type. SEK (1) MPCA - 2 Noise Standards; Minn. Rule 7010.0400 The existing and projected 1898 and 2000 noise levels were determined at a receptor adjacent to the site at the Rocky Mountain Elementary School playground. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Level 2 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, Stamina 2.0, was used for this analysis. The traffic noise model on which this computer was based was developed by the FHWA and is documented in a report entt0ed FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-R-0.77.108). The model uses 1) Traffic volume and type o1 vehicles on the roadway; 2) The vehicle running speeds; 3) The physical characteristics of the roadway (le. horizontal and vertical alignment); and 4) Any physical features between the roadway and the receptor that may mitigate the noise, such as buildings or noise wails. Output is Issued in a form of L 1 • and 1.5• values. The noise levels analysis for the roceptor indicated that the levels will Increase in 1999 and 2001 over what they are today. However, all levels are well within the noise level standards for an Institutional facility as Indicated In the previous table. The following table illustrates the results of the existing, predicted, and projected noise levels. Period Noise Level Standards - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (1) I.S. 1B9a Without Site 48 43 Nightime Noise Level Category General Land Use Types Daytime Noise Level (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) NAC - 1 Residential and Institutional LID of 65 dBA 1.70 of 55 dBA L50 of 80 dBA L50 of 50 dBA NAC - 2 Commercial and Recreational L10 of 70 dSA 1.10 of 70 dBA L50 of 85 dBA 1.50 of 65 dBA NAC - 3 Industrial L10 of 80 dBA L10 of 80 dBA L50 of 75 dBA L50 of 75 dBA (1) MPCA - 2 Noise Standards; Minn. Rule 7010.0400 The existing and projected 1898 and 2000 noise levels were determined at a receptor adjacent to the site at the Rocky Mountain Elementary School playground. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Level 2 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, Stamina 2.0, was used for this analysis. The traffic noise model on which this computer was based was developed by the FHWA and is documented in a report entt0ed FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-R-0.77.108). The model uses 1) Traffic volume and type o1 vehicles on the roadway; 2) The vehicle running speeds; 3) The physical characteristics of the roadway (le. horizontal and vertical alignment); and 4) Any physical features between the roadway and the receptor that may mitigate the noise, such as buildings or noise wails. Output is Issued in a form of L 1 • and 1.5• values. The noise levels analysis for the roceptor indicated that the levels will Increase in 1999 and 2001 over what they are today. However, all levels are well within the noise level standards for an Institutional facility as Indicated In the previous table. The following table illustrates the results of the existing, predicted, and projected noise levels. Period Lt• I.S. 1B9a Without Site 48 43 1998 With Site 49 ad 2000 Whh Sito 51 48 MPCA Standard 55 50 A 25. Aro any of the following rosourooa on or in proximity to the site: a. orchoebgk:al, historical, or architectural rosouroos? a Yes § No D. primo or unipuo farmlands? a Yes • No c. dosignotod parka, rocrooba t oroos, or malls? ■ Yes O No d. aconic viows and vistas? O Yes • No a. olherunipuorosourmos? O Yes • No Lfany dams are answorod Yea, desedbo tho rosoun o and identiy any brrpocls on the resource duo to Mo proJed. Describe any moosuros to Do takon to minimizo or avoid advofao impacts. Tho school la going to be comwood Into an existing trail system that currently serves the City of Monticello. Figwe 4 shows the bcatlon of this trod system relative to this projod. 27. Will ft projodt croato odvorro 4=1 impacts 7 (fiamyw, aca4t par. eva iea oa abm Vn soft in .ewwwas "ar anti sRe K,ee pwmts oaf mwr,ae,nsuuaural a Yee • No It yea, oxplabr. 7 GO 160011 28. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable lend use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional. state, or federal agency? I Yes D No if yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), atW explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan($) will be resolved. If no, explain. p The school site hes been included in the City's comprehensive plan and storm water systems have been designed in conformance with the City's rnanageme t criteria. 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Service Mil new or expanded utiL'Ues, roads, other inlrashucture, orpubGc services be required to serve the project? ❑ Yes ■ No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastnxture/ services needed. I"rmaumc-e awua •ccower-d Seen• wrh rrpaa to we WW mus be as,nrad in dus EAW' ,aa'EA W Gumbnei M datala ) Connection to City utilities. The City of Monticello will allow connection of existing utilities and establishment of 2 entrances to School Boulevard. 30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts a. Are future stages at this development planned or likely? • Yes o No ll yes, brieflydescribe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review. The proposed future expansions of the Monticello Migh School include expanding the classroom and school portions, as well as the parking lot, and the addition of a future football stadium, a baseball field, a sattrall field, and tennis courts. b. Is this projed a subsequent stage of an earlier project? o Yes 0 No If yes, brielfy describe the pest development, its timing, and any past environmental review. c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands 4Xoutots? a Yes ■ No Ifyes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project. Of. 11 a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental krnpads resulting from this project and the other development. 71. Other potential Envlronmontal Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 to 28. identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation / None O ` .. Summary of Is,ue9 Phi nabs need not be o+ry,red d w Eaw u"CWW &Ens scarp: i OW, adaeu ramawa uaue, h en inert scge,q Daaavn CxunaN curies mull eecmnii" area EAWJ Ust any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investgotion betare the project is commenced. Discuss any aflemotives of midpative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues including Nose that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. None Idontlfied. CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (ad ] certdkaUorns must bo signed for EOB acceptance of the EAW forpublication of notice in the EM 6ioalta0 A. I hereby certify Nat the Information contained In this document is accurate and conWor to the best of my knowledge. Signoturo B. I horeby ceUty that the project deaaibod In this EAW Is the compote project and there aro no other projects, project stages, or project components, other than tlroao described in this document, which are related to the project as'aonnoded actions' or 'phased actions,' as dented, rospectivety, of Wren. Rules, pto. 4,410 0200, subp. 9b and subp• 60. Signahuo __ C. I hereby cortify Mut copes of the completed EAW are being card to lig points on the otlidol EOB EAW distribution gat. Signaluro Tido ofsignor _—Dote—`,_,— Crwww,+owteEAwrna -- a---�- G 11 FM 1 �1 A Wwadmo d owb. 7S///�/�iST�(j �r'w = .110/4" IYI" Im Monticello Senior ifigh School CAW City of Monticciiol Minnesota wswwepm, ma cmraw" t%tw Project Location Figure 1 �� 1 ' � ' r�,: Vit" ' '/�j,,"�\�f'"'j • `i.t .. j , �--%'�` "�:,:,_ . �' -. `.�', 30 It Al Sia-�'' •�j . �r _~��"� 1`- '� �� tto. Min+ .��` i^ - �»°"' City oCN►p°�1ca X I i I i i i rr J= u'aoarn lana o � ! I _ I ranaY..enou�co �u 1 1-�.om[o Imfna v: I 1 I urmlfrwwo ruu and .woYo ' 1 ro0 O 1 •Oi9 ! 1 �� Irlfll \ lVrwfla Ifllr4 Irlfll ruluft ��� �rin('1 F=I IY`\OI ---/ IrYOKI 1 W I�KI 1 III I JY� �Ir y gj9I � � � I wuu dpl J L Ck 1 [[[ppp 1 1 �- F nnnw I �� I I rur1A r ' I 1 \ LILL�� �ilu1 1 1 — --- "'- -- ren Rlillr; talon—a*Mach a tool w 1�� Monticello Senior Iligh School EAW Site Plan *� mMri '""""` City orMonliccllo, Minncsota Figure 3 ♦ y_:. � 1.. i. - - '- �� R C kl� cr'E SdwWBIvd ` IITLQ��-1 mno(17_00j-?1(�7"'�, �._. 1` I �.�•�() II00 UlOo)'- JI1-I.0 LII �S2? ,.(U1111�` od , A A, 7]OMyYm01..m _IV�A` B Irq�11M Wi _�-- �.1ru/� d I4M1/1� Monticello Senior Iligh School EA W Cily of Monticello, Minnesota I iw xxx Ivosi�r" (XXX) Iou 71air10 ( Quell m W Modkaw I Mvwmim Hr) u 7n(Ik INIu116atloo .. --- - - -- WORPOND 10107E Do moon tw Traffic Volume 8 Distribution Figure 4 r MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY C March 10, 1997 Mr. Todd E. Hubmer WSB and Associates 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Dear Mr. Hubmec RE: EAW for Monticello Senior High School, S13, T121, R25 Monticello, Wright County SHPO Number: 97.1275 Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced project. There are no reported historic properties in the projw area, and we feel that the probability of any unreported properties is low. Therefore, based on available information, we conclude that project is unlikely to affect any historic properties. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit. it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency. Please contact us at 612-296.5462 if you have any questions regarding uur review of this project Sincerely, Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer RE,EIV Eu OR 19 1997 ViS8 s. ASSOCIATES 343 NCLLOGG BOLLOA110 WEST I S11\T PAL L, MINNESOTA 53102.19061 TELE"96.6126 t-,.'u, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5fq Laia�eur Road St. Pact.MinncMia 55155-t0 February ll, 1997 Layne Otteson WSB & Associates 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Blvd Minneapolis MN 55426 Re: Monticello High School Construction Project, T12 IN P25W Section 13, Wright County Dear Mr. Otteson: The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the above referenced project. Based on this review, there are no known occurrences of rare species or natural features in the area searched. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the Nongame Wildlife Program, units within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in fostering better understanding and protection of these rare features. The information in the database is drawn from many pans of Minnesota, and is constantly being updated. but it is not based on a comprehensive survey of the state. Therefore, there are cunerstly many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the database. We are in the process of addressing this via the Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS), a county -by -county inventory of rare natural features, which is now underway. Because survey work is in progress for Wright Counry, our information about natural communities judged to be significant by our program is quite good for that county. The MCBS survey work for rara and endangered animals and plants is less comprehensive; it is therefore possible that occurrences of these features exist in the project area for which we have no records. Because there has not been an on-site survey of the biological resources of the project area, it is possible that ecologically significant features exist for which we have no record. Thank you for consulting us on this rarer, and for y=!rte-.est In minbr:sfig irnpaea on Minnesota's rare resources. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heriuge and Nongame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. An Invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are be ing billed for map and computer search and staff scientist review. D5R Information: 61::96.6157. 1•800.7m.KW • rrY:61=•_96•5434. 1400.657.39:9 RECEIVED A. r,," Ot•rw..tin r..n+r•� A v�.tl.a .. tr.>,wa v,K, c...,,,�.s, FEB 13 1991 141Wv,.,.. tw,.,.i�r C� «��,,,,„,,,, r,., r.w,�..�.,...,r wsau t.,ejs Sincerely, -IAI I, -Yl e -&&j Sharron Nelson Endangered Species Environmental Review Assistant Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program 6121296.8324, FAX 612/296-1811 nhp #970420 01, 05/02/1997 10:10 5440531 AJA A55W., INC. 1a ul Fax TRANsmisSION ANDERSON -JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 OOLoo+ VALLEY Raw. SWE 200 Na41EAPOUS. 141 55427 612-544-7129 FAX: O 12-544-0531 To: Mi. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello Fax p: 295.4404 Phonal: 295-2711 From: Daniel. L. Johnson, P.E Subject: Proposed Monticello High School CUP Application COMM]E TS: Due: May 2, 1997 Pages: 1, including this cover sheet PURSUANT TO YOUR REQUEST THIS MORNING, PLEASE FIND ATTACHED TWO REDUCED COPIES (1"=200' SCALE) OF THE CURRENT SITE PLAN (I OF 2 - g54"s I M ON ONE OF THE COPIES I HAVE HEAVILY MARKED THE LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED CONCRETE CURBING. AS YOU WILL NOTE, WE ARE PROPOSING A CONCRETE GUTTER ONLY (NO CURB) ALONG THE WEST LIMIT OF THE WEST PARKING LOT. THE REASON FOR THIS IS TWO FOLD. THERE IS FUTURE EXPANDED PARKING PLANNED WEST OF THE PROPOSED LOT. ALSO WE WILL NEED A CONCRETE GUTTER TO ENSURE PROPER SURFACE DRAINAGE OF THE MINIMAL NS GRADES IN THIS AREA. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. CCs PAUL IIAGEN / ARY ARCHITECTS 5E (A Council Agenda - 5/12197 The Planning Commission conducted the public hearings on the two requests above and did not receive comments. After discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with conditions as listed in Steve Grittman's report. Motion to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission as identified --rezoning approved under alternative N1 and conditional use permit approved under alternative tt1. Approval is subject to completion of the annexation process. Motion to deny approving the rezoning request and conditional use permit request. C. STAFF OMMF.NDATION; The City Administrator recommends alternative 01. n. M IPPORTINO DATA; Copy of Planner s report identifying Planning Commissions recommendation. C NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS N IC COMMUNITY PLANNI NO - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: MonUcallo Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: April 23, 1997 RE: Montic2Go - Resurrection LL&*ran Church CUP FILE NO: 191.07 - 97.08 CONSIDERATOIN FORA REZONING USE PERMIT OF AN APPLICATION BY RZESURRECTION LUTHERAN CHURCH TOPS. PUBLIC -& SEMI-PI.IBUC DISTRICT. AND ACONDITiNAL TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH ON A TEM ACRE PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION A REFERENCE OF COUNTY HIGHWAY 118 AND FENNING AVENUE AND BACKGROUND Resurrection Lutheran Church has applied for a rezoning of their parcel at County Highway 118 and Fenning Avenue (east of the midde school) from A-0, Agriculture to P- S, Public and Somi-Public District. The P -S District is intended for land uses which are institutional in nature, and which have patterns of use which are different from other large land uses. Church facilities are Conditional Users in the P -S District and as such, the Church has requested approval of a CUP as well. All action taken by the City on this application is conditioned upon final annexation of the parcel Into the City limits. 1. Annoxation The parcol in question is within the Urban Service Area of the Orderly Annexation Area. As a result, annexation should be a matter only of administrative procossing. 5775 WAYZATA 60ULItVAR0. SUITL 585 PMONE O 1 2.595.0530 5T. LOUIS PARK. M114MESOYA aaA I e /AX 618.595.0637 sFA- I Rezoning The purpose of the PS District is to accommodate the unique issues raised by institudonal land uses. It is acknowledged that such uses can occupy single parcels in the midst of differing land uses. With the opportunity to control the impacts and compatibility of institutional uses through a separate zoning district, spot zoning need not be a concern. Indeed, the Resurrection Church property is ten acres In size, permitting adequate area to manage off-site impacts of the proposed use. 3. Conditional Use Permit The P -S District lists four ccnditlons for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a church in the P -S District These are as follows: 1. Religious institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on, and access to, a collector or arterial street 2. The buildings are set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining residential setback. 3. Parking areas are developed to accommodate the most intense concurrent uses of the facility so as to minimize overflow parking onto the public street 4. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. As noted previously, the Resurrec'Jon Church site is Iccated at the intersection of County Highway 11 t3 and Fanning Avenue, across Fanning from the middle school. Both of the adjoining roadways are considered to be collectors, The Wright County Highway Department should comment on the locations of the proposed driveways, one of which is proposed for each frontage. Consideration may be given to an attempt to coordinate the westerly driveway with other accoss point In this area of Fanning Avenue, particutarty the middle school. The only adjoining residontial land is to the east of the site. In all directions, the size of the site has permitted the Church to locate the building in such a way that setbacks are significantly in excess of tho requirements. The Church has proposed a 168 stall parting lot to serve the initial phase. with a 192 stall expansion availablo for future phases. The proposed parking amu appear to well in excess of the Ikoly demand of the building. In addition, there would be overflow on-site in the driveways during extracrdinary pock events. Nonetheless. any approval should SF'8 allow the City to impose a requirement to expand the partdng area based on demonstrated need, in the event that the current phase of parking construction does not accommodate the demand. With regard to Improvement of the parking area, the City Zoning Ordinance requires paved parking and driveway areas, with perimeter concrete curb. The area to the northwest adjoining the future parking area need not be curbed. However, in the event that runoff or traffic control are an Issue, a rolled asphalt edge can serve as an adequate interim improvement Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance relates the compatibility requirements of the proposal, as well as the compliance with Comprehensive Plan objectives. The size and location of the site permits the Church to avoid compatibility problems with the adjoining neighborhoods. In addition, a portion of the adjacent area (the schools campus) is already developed for Institutional land use. One issue for the Church and City to consider topether is the connection of pathway links between the residential am to the east, and the School Boulevard pathway to the west Along the Church's south boundary, a wide power line easement crosses the property. This easement would provide a natural connecting route, rather than requiring a Jog in the pathway due to the cave of County Highway 116 as it proceeds east past the property. Although dedication of pathway easements is a matter for subdivision applications, Staff would recommend that the City work with the Church to create an attractive routing solution fcr both parties. Finally, to Church has sut;mitted a grading plan, but no landscape plan. Approval of the CUP shculd be subject to the Engheefs acceptance of the grading end drainage plan for the site. With regard to landscaping, there does not appear to be any screening issues present However, the disturbance of the existirp vegetation by construction will require some landscape treatment The applicant should submit a landscape plan illustrating its intent prior to dovolopment As noted Initially, each of the decisions should be contingent upon the final annexation of \� the proporty into the City, p t� Cecislon1, RozoningofthosAectpropertytoP-S,Public&Send-Pubtic01sthicxQL�,rf CP Alternative 1. Approvo tho Rezoning based upon a finding that the proposed use iso In conformance with the cboctves of the Comprahanalve Plan, and is compatible with the surrmnding neighborhood. Alternative 2. Deny the proposed Rezoning based upon a finding that the proposed use is not compatible wlth the area. Decision 2. Conditional We Permit for a religious Institution In a P -S DIWctt Altemative 1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit for Resurrection Lutheran Church based upon a finding that the proposed use has met, or will L r° meet with appropriate changes, the conditions as defined in the Zoning Ordnance, Including adequate traffic access and management, adequate setbacks to protect the neighborhood, adequate parking to accommodate the proposed use, and compatibility with the neighborhood and Comprehensive Plan objectives. Alternative 2. Deny the proposed CUP based upon a finding that the proposed use can not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We recommend approval of the rezoning (Decision 1, Alternative 1) and Conditional Use Permit (Decision 2, Altemative 1) upon the following conditions: a. The temporary terminus of the paved parking area Is constructed to control drainage and traffic to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A rolled asphalt curb (as opposed to the required concrete curb) In this area would be an Inexpensive suggestion to provide an Interim improvement. b. The Church agrees to expand the paved parking area prior to building expansion In the event that domonstrated parking demand exceeds the current supply. C. Tho Church works with the City to appropriatety route the pathway around and/or through the property to connect with pathway routes to IN east and west d. The Church provide a plan Illustrating landscaping Improvements, Including the control of stornwater and erosion after construction Exhibit A. Site Plan Exhibit 8, Currant Zoning Map X12 J 5-1 y 1� MIN ILEMEmi, -d Exhibit A - Site Plan �• "• • • • ti •,,;� Jam• •� • ' K& palm= 1►L "'° (OMT QO. m"WA1/ m N �. .--•testi .e.ar._• �A • �} �•;, , a urauurrmr ivrvrau �s 1.: y 1� MIN ILEMEmi, -d Exhibit A - Site Plan �• "• • • • ti •,,;� Jam• •� �A • �} �•;, , a urauurrmr ivrvrau �s 1.: y 1� MIN ILEMEmi, -d Exhibit A - Site Plan Council Agenda - 5/12/97 .a:1� r�:.M1 t t • t • The City Council is asked to consider granting preliminary approval of annexation of the Resurrection Church site. The site is located within the Urban Service Area boundaries and, therefore, is eligible for annexation via the joint resolution with the Township. A site plan has been prepared, and the underlying zoning has been established under the previous agenda item; therefore, the site appears to meet the requirements of the urbanization agreement. Under the urbanization plan, the request needs to go before the Township for review prior to final approval by the City. 1. Motion to support annexation of the Resurrection Church site. Under this alternative, the site plan and petition for annexation will be presented to the Township by the applicant for review and comment. Comments will then be reviewed by the City Council prior to final consideration of a joint resolution by Council. 2. Motion to deny support of annexation of the Resurrection Church site. City Council should select this alterative if it denies the rezoning and/or conditional use permit request. 3. According to the urbanization plan, the final decision by the Council should oocur after comments by the Township. However, I do not foresee the Township objecting to this annexation; therefore, perhaps to save time, Council could approve the annexation subject to Township approval. C STAFF RF.COMMRNDATION: The City Administrator recommends alternative p1. n MIPPORTING DATA: Excerpt from the urbanization plan. 2. LAND USE GUIDE PLAN The Town of Monticello and the City of Monticello, upon their adoption of this policy, approve the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Plan, which is attached as Exhibit "B" (hereinafter referred to as the Guide Plan). // 3. URBAN SERVICE AREA The area identified within the Guide Plan as the "Urban Service Area" is an area that abuts the City of Monticello and is presently urban or suburban in nature or is about to become urban or suburban. Further, the City of Monticello is now capable of providing municipal water and sanitary sewer to this area. 4. ANNEXATION PROCESS Annexation should be allowed to occur upon the following terms and conditions: A. The property must be located within the above-described "Urban �orPl'�5 Service Area% B. Tie property owner must petition both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello for annexation; C. The property owner shall submit a development plan to the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello showing the need for municipal water and sanitary sewer for at least 80% of the property petitioned for annexation; D. The development plan must be of sufficient detail to show it will meet the standards and requirements of the City of Monticello's zoning and Lc 4y planning ordinance, land use plan, comprehensive plan, utilities plan, / assessment procedures, and financing plan; b E. Municipal water and sanitary sewer shall be installed and ready for Lor f' use within two (2) years from the date of annotation; and F. There shall be no future petitions for annexation until all previous conditions in the development plan have been complied with. -;)E- Prior to final City approval of the development plan, said plan shall be submitted to the Town of Monticello for review. Concerns expressed by the Town of Monticello shall be addressed prior to formal approval of the development plan by the City of Monticello. All efforts will be made to establish development plans that incorporate the land use planning efforts of both the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello. No development plan shall be considered by the City under this agreement without URBANPLN.RES: 2/24/95 60- Page 2 Council Agenda - 5/12/97 5L Congiclerationof an ordinance am .n ino (:hates, Section 12, of the Montieel o Zo in nirOrdinance estabLhinQ antenna and ante (F.P. ) A public hearing was held at Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 6, 1997. The only public comment was from Michelle Johnson of Cellular Realty Advisors, who stated that the proposed ordinance is acceptable to the industry and understandable. Antennas and antenna support structures are allowed as permitted uses where by design and placement they will most likely not be unsightly or incompatible with adjoining land uses. Other antennas and antenna support structures, including those used for personal wireless communications services, and radio and television broadcast transmission are only allowed by conditional use permit. To reduce the number of new antenna support structures, the ordinance encourages co -location of antennas on new and existing antenna support structures. Placement of antennas on existing structures and buildings is also encouraged. O This draft is simpler in form and is intended to be more enforceable. Design and aesthetic concerns are more specifically addressed. Move to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt an ordinance establishing antenna and antenna support structure regulations as proposed, finding that the ordinance is necessary to manage and reasonably accommodate wireless communication technology and the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunication Act. Move to not adopt the proposed ordinance The City Administrator recommends that tho City Council adopt the ordinance establishing antenna and antenna support structure support regulations as proposed. Copy of proposed ordinance with strike -out and underlining to show amendments; Copy of Chapter 3, Section 12, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as it will appear if this ordinance is adopted. ORDINANCE NO. �y CITY OF MONTICELLO �1 WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE REGULATIONS. THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN: Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item [EC) of the City Code is hereby ascended to read as follows: [ECI ESSENTIAL SERVICES: " :_ _... L .., A. :_., _::: rtr ..,., _f `c.b _.„ _r._,-.1 Public or private utility_ systems for gas eleetriesd elactriSdpt, stearn sewer or gpd ............ rvoice- television and damsel communications systems; :, , t!1: t!: _. :, d _. _i!:_ e , _...._ ls:.-e_ .:_•., : :!..: ,, ! i:f. 1, . and_ waste disposal and recycling services. Wireless radio frequc yLcacplion and transmission antennas and su=rt structures shall not he considered an essential service. Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Items [AI.11, [AI.21, [AI.31, [AI.41, JAI.51, [A1.61, [SA.11 and [SP. I 1 are hereby added to the City Code to read as follows: !11111111II 1111 '. :11: 1'�' 11 :I :II ;111.1 ` 11:111 ;11 y 1' 1 , 1 1' :.11 y11 7 1' nl�a::YY�:isI:�;�7raj:�.`I7111�I1f�P1T.TrIP.�J;i/7:�►:a1:3.wili�5►`�9�tL'{.YCaI\ :I 1t 4 11 Ila 1: 11M,1 .111 11 ; 1 : 1 •:_y r1 1 y/ 1 1!1 r•un 1' :► 1 \I\: •►: .l: �1 a I\ /• :1 1 1 •1111 1 1 1: 1 II 1 1 : 11' :y;11 1 1 1 ,1 ;� � .1 11 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 .11 ;• 1..111,11' !; I .;1;!111 •.1111111 111+: . 1,1 :.:\I y' 11 11 1,• 11 .�1 :\ •\: 1 N P1119111.:I 111 ;11.� I1y1111.1. 1: 1' l'it ;y. l' :'I1 t'•• 11 .; 111x1 . 11 1 ..I •.1111. 1.• 11 1! y1l1111y11111 "W3. 1 411,: 11 1'.11 1 y y 11 1 1! py 1 I I '• '11 ; 1,; . :11 11171 1 :. •.1 • 1 1 111 .: III 1 :111 .�.11u 11 1:•.-11u1 l 1•`. ;1111 11 :� 1t 1 41 1 . 1 .1 1 Id 11 ;. 1 .11 .1 : 1 !1111111�1l11 111;11 :1 � 1 1 l.• 11 r�� 1 • 1 •II •111 1 .1 • 1 1 : 1 11 11 . I yl 1.. 6,X 04 ♦YY ♦h : . � ; a I : 1 � : 1 :.n al.l 1. r � 7n '.' ' 1 :.a 111' r:' ' Ir .' ar: 1 •.al :-.' 1'11 •.f: 1111 hill I C srB Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 12 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 3-12 COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS 3-12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS: JAB) 11 • 1 14 ! 11.11•. .li !1111 I. II li 1; .J11 Ii\Il =.']III!' 1; . ILS. 4.1 • .' 41 41. IL ! II 11 I ► .I Il ILN 1 1 1.' .1 ! 1 4•.' 4'1 1 1 " �111I:1i .11' � 11111111:1 �! ! •JI �!IL1 • 91�L•11111141 � 11 41 1 �. � 1 • 11 4111'i 1111.111 `.II 1:1 .lin :�\ 1. l%•� 1L^II '.11 1 IL4• .T .I 1 1 4l\ LI 11111. 1117F.' / 41.1 .i.14 '4.7'11 :11 'I1' 7:,11.' •ff-TN1 M W. R. 174-717rl. 9 1: I : II 41.1: .• 1 7 1 MI T .1 L1 ' 14•. 1 ' 1 � 11 %. .Hl 1 11 1.41. •1= 1 • 1 1 1 M .1� �1 .1.111 : II ' 1 1 1 .4 • 411 411: �.1 1 1/ �.! 111 ..' 1. .. 1 II ' •11! � 11111111 :• � 11 41 1 � •: .• 1 �1 1 h l� ' �.1 ' 11 1 1 ' ' .• 11111 1.1,;1 ' 1 H. �.1 yl 1 �.� I • 1 4 :11 IL' 11 1111.4 I � 11 41!1.1 Il! lil 7 1 hl Ili: 1.4 •t' w �.4\ 1' • 111 1. w1reless communications service wntennas.:,..::I:':. mrtemms, .: d ✓ . I. :.. .,.,'nxepdondeoieea are permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts provided that they meet the following conditions: I. 11..:61.:.:,,,....:�.......,:l....,.....,,;.•.::-.. !.�',,.:,.'�;.:.�,.11 , .: 1 : I yl I1 �1 11 11 • 11 1 1 1 : 1 4 : 1 � 1• . 11. .`F 7 1 ' 1 1 ' 11 1 •7 1• 1.•1111 I I .1 11 1 .l 1 1 4.1 � ILs1 11• 1 •1 I •114 � 1 � 11 41 1. 1 111.1 1 l 1 41 l 1 'I 1 .• 1 � II 41 I � � 1 1: 11 ILII 1 1 Il• 11 YI 1.. 111.11 .ik hl 1• 1.y •III 1 1 1,4111 3 S= C.00� 2. XA� Mittimunt setback mqukements fo ant antenna goo structures shall in all zoning distficts be the same as those for pcm2itied accessory bufld*ng& uses and w,Wp= (See Section 3-2 I`DII_Y J fi_t j =1, L,. L._., _ J Anterm and antenna w=rt structures shall not be located within a public or utility easement. R—F.. 71- 21--jr— .-JE.... SA.. 1. uddl� M7 W4 T q TVI , T M. 7 j 11 6fi I.; it -1 T. -T- MT 'It fit 1,111 III.I. MZMMM' zn R-ME7,751 6. NLighbofina Propmy IMpact: L _I Antenna antiant enna suport structures shall be s -=.b Fg. i9) sq.t fee. BA.::.,, A. T L!. —I low codes. 8. COIQU.C.Q=: C. .. I . , * — Z12 Antennas and antenna sjWM stnSUM sUl be constructed ofa Cortosion resistUl material or bLVAjnjCdA neutral color, and "I not be painted with scenes or contain letters or messages which qualify as a sign, 177MIOT MW R - I K q* 9 -Tim JBI Condifianal Uses Elk_ P:-_ -�I. .. " ' �/.' . —.1 ' ' " I ­ . L .'.,: . , A. Antennas and antenna lippUrt 9WCIUrCs IuOQrI SIMMUMS Mt QWiW- AN ammiacd acne mix mKiALPmAdcLasubdivision tAl I Jbmu&hjD.Ab= includiruz but not limbed to radio and teky.1slan broadcAturmnkittion This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of 1997. CITY OF MONTICELLO ATTEST: By: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator AYES: NAYS: By: Bill Fair, Mayor sz if CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE REGULATIONS. Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item [ECJ of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: [EC] ESSENTIAL SERVICES: Public or private utility systems for gas, electricity, steam, sewer and water; voice, television and digital communications systems; and, waste disposal and recycling services. Wireless radio frequency reception and transmission antennas and support structures shall not be considered an essential service. Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Items JAI. 11, [A1.2], [Al.31, [AIAJ, [Al.51, [A1.61, [SA.1] and [SP.1 J are hereby added to the City Code to read as follows: [AI.IJ ANTENNA: A device used for the transmission and/or reception of wireless communications, arranged on an antenna support structure or building, and consisting of a wire, a set of wires, or electromagnetically reflective or conductive rods, elements, arrays or surfaces. [AI.21 ANTENNA, RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCAST TRANSMISSION: An antenna used to transmit public or commercial broadcast radio or television programming. [AI.31 ANTENNA, PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE: An antenna used for the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including cellular. personal communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services, [AIA] ANTENNA, SATELLITE DISH: An antenna incorporating a reflective or conductive surfbce that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, torte, horn, or corrwcopia. Such an antenna is used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based transmission or receiving systems. This dentition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and satellite microwave antennas. [AI.SJ ANTENNA, SHORT-WAVE RADIO. An antenna used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for federally licensed short-wave radio Ccommunications. C [A1.61 ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCfURE: Any freestanding pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports an antenna and is not a building or attached to a building or structure. [SA. 11 ACCESSORY USE: A use of lend or of a building that is subordinate to a primary use, and not the primary use of the land or budding. (SP. 11 STRUCTURE, PUBLIC: An building or edifice of ary kind which is owned or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or local government agency. 2 6-z%7 P Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 12 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: l SECnON 112 COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS C 3-12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS: [AA] ase. In order to accommodate the communication needs of the residents and businesses while protecting the public health safety, and general welfare of the community, the Council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to: I . Provide for the appropriate location and development of antcru s and antenna support structures to serve the residents and businesses within the city; 2. Minimize adverse visual effects of antenna support structures through careful design and siting standards; 3. Avoid potential structural failure of antenna support structures and possible resulting damage to adjacent properties through structural standards and setback requirements; and, - 4. Maximize the use of existing and approved antenna support structures and buildings to accommodate new antennas in order to reduce the number of anemia support structures needed to serve the community. [AB] Pmnitted U Antenna support structures and antennas of all types, other than radio and television broadcast transmission antennas and personal wireless communications service antennas, are permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts provided that they meet the following conditions: motion: Antennas shall be located on existing buildings and structures, if possible. Antennas located upon a public building or structure shall require the processing of an administrative permit issued in compliance with the procedures established by the City Council. Where an antenna support structure is used to support antennas, the installation of more then one (1) antenna support structure per property shall require the approval of a conditional use permit. ss K 2. Xatds: Minimum setback requirements for antennas and antenna support structures shall in all zoning districts be the same as those for permitted accessory buildings, uses and equipment (See Section 3-2 [D))• Antennas and antenna support structures shall not be located within a public or utility easement. 3. Hdaht: a. Antenna Heights: Antennas shall not extend more than ten (10) feet above the highest part of the building or structure to which they are attached riot more than tet (10) feet above the highest roof elevation. b, Antenna SrlppQrt Structure Height : Except as permitted by conditional use permit, antenna support structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the maximum allowable building height for the zoning district in which the antenna support structure is located. 4. SSY: Anterum support structures shall be constructed, fenced or secured in such a manner as to prevent unauthorized climbing. No barbed wire, razor ribbon or the like shall be used for this purpose. 5. Sons=: Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure or screened from view from any public street. 6. Nei ho„__borate Pmp= Loact: Antennas and antenna support structures shall be designed and located such that in the event of structural failure, neither the antenna not the antenna suppon structure will fall on adjoining property. 7. ani p: The use of guyed antenna support structures is prohibited. The design and installation of new antenna support structures must utilize an open framework or monopole configuration. Permanent platforms or structures accessory to the antemts support structure or anterum that increase visibility are prohibited. No pan of the antenna support structure shall exceed 500 square feet in horizontal area. 8, Color/Content: Antennas and antenna support structures shall be constructed of a corrosion resistant material or be painted a neutral 4 S x L. i I. color, and shall not be painted with scenes or contain letters or messages which qualify as a sign. 9. Illumination: Antennas and antenna support structures shall not be artificiafly illuminated unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect public health and safety. 10. mph : Antennas, antenna support structures, electrical equipment and connections shall be designed, installed and operated in conformance with all applicable federal, state and local laws. [B] Conditional Uses Antennas and antenna support structures, not qualifying as permitted accessory uses as provided in subdivision [A) I through 10 above, including but not limited to radio and television broadcast transmission antennas and personal wireless communications service antennas. are only permitted as conditional uses as provided by Chapter 22 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such antenna and amenna support structure installations that are subject to conditional use permits, mug comply with all requirements for Permitted Uses as specified in [A] above, except as specifically provided below, and must O i meet the following additional conditions: ` I . New antenna support structures allowed by conditional use permit and exceeding eighty (60) feet in height shall be designed so as to accommodate other users including but not limited to other personal wireless communications service companies. The applicant shall demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that opportunities will be made available for co -locating other antennas on the antenna support structure. 7 2. Satellite dish antenna of more than one (1) meter in diameter, but not larger than three (3) meters in diameter are allowed as conditional uses within residential zoning districts. Satellite dish antennas of more than one (1) meta in diameter and used for radio and television broadcast trensnission are allowed as conditional uses only within the Industrial (1-1 and 1-2) zoning districts and are not limited in size. 3. Antenna support structures for radlo and televbioo broadcast tranemiaaioa antennas are allowed as conditional uses only within the Industrial (1.1 and 1-2) zoning districts and shall not exceed one hundred sixty-five (165) fat in Dight. 5 I C fi 4. Antenna support structures used in the rederally licensed amateur radio service are allowed as conditional uses within all Zoning districts and may extend a mardmtun of seventy (70) feet above grade. 5. Antenna support structures for personal wireless communication systems shall be allowed as conditional uses provided: a. Minimum spacing between personal wireless communications service antenna support structures shall be 1/4 mile. Based upon information provided by the applicant, the City Council may gram exceptions if the City Council determines that any one of the following reasons makes it impractical to locate the planned personal wireless communications service equipment upon an existing antenna support structure within 1/4 mile of the proposed site: 1. No existing building, structure or antenna support structure meets the structural or height requirements, or 2. No casting building, structure or antenna support structure meets the fixquency reuse and spacing needs of the personal wireless communication system, or 3. the location of the proposed new antenna support structure is necessary as demonstrated by the applicam, who shall provide to the City Council evidence demonstrating that the planned equipment would Ouse interference, materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the antenna a mn structure, and the interference carrot be prevented at a reasonable cost. b. All new antenna support structures for personal wireless communication system antennas shall be a single ground mounted metal, concrete or plastic composite (i.e. fiberglass, graphite fiber, tic.) pole. Such antenna support structures shall not exceed seventy-five (75) feet in height in Agricuhund-Open Space (AO), Residential (R -I, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R -PUD), Performance 7.one (PZ -R and P7,M) and Business (B -I , 11-2, B-3, and B4) zoning districts, and shall not exceed ono hundred sixty-five (165) feet in height in e S= Al A Business Campus (BC) and Industrial (1-1 and 1-2) zoning districts. [C] Wit. Every subdivision of this Section is declared severable from every other subdivision. If any subdivision is held to be invalid by competent authority, no other subdivision shall be invalidated by such action or decision. Where an applicant for conditional use permit demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Council that a subdivision of this Sectionuaerferes with specific rights granted under the laws of the Federal Communications Commission [FCC], that subdivision shall be waived; however, the City of Monticello reserves the right to otherwise regulate in order to mitigate negative impacts and accomplish the Purpose of this Ordinance. S.= 0 Council Agenda - 5/12/97 SJ. Consideretioni pusitin- (K.D.) As you may know, Marlene Hellman retired from her position as Bookkeeper for the City of Monticello effective March 28, 1997. After advertising the vacant position, reviewing the 142 applications received, and interviewing 4 candidates, the position was offered to Sue Thibodeaux of Big Lake, who is currently employed by the City of Monticello as a part-time Receptionist/ Development Services Clerk. Sue's experience prior to employment with the City included managing an office with responsibility for computerized bookkeeping and payroll, job cost reports, monthly invoicing, tax reports, end of year reports, work -in -progress spreadsheet reports, etc. Most of Sue's experience has involved a small office atmosphere where employees must be able to work with interruptions to help customers, answer phones, etc. Because the Bookkeeper pnsition with the City is the main backup for the Receptionist, small office experience was an important consideration. In addition, during her employment with the City, Sue has proven her ability to handle many duties and responsibilities at city l hall and has the knowledge and understanding needed to operate the necessary computer programs. The Bookkeeper position is a Grade 4 position with a 1997 pay range of $10.59 to $13.24 per hour. Because Sue is currently employed at city hall, she would be able to fill the position immediately on May 13, beginning at Step 1 at $10.59 per hour. B. AITFRNATfVR ACTIONS: 1. Approve hiring Sue Thibodeaux to the position of Bookkeeper for the City of Monticello at Step 1 of Grade 4, $10.59 per hour. 2. Do not approve hiring Sue Thibodeaux and recommend that staff interview additional candidates for the position. C. STAFF FZFCO MF.NDATION: It is the recommendation of the Office Manager that the Council approve hiring Sue Thibodeaux ns the Bookkeeper for the City of Monticello. None. Council Agenda - 5/12/97 For the past two years, the Parks Commission has been planning for additional improvements to Oudot A of the Meadow Oak Park. Budgets for 1996 and 1997 show $12,000 for construction of a concession standlstorage building/shelter, $26,000 for parking lot improvements, and $2,000 for a basketball court (original park). A small plan has been drafted for the concession building, approved by the Parks Commission, and the materials have been priced by a local lumber yard. Building materials are expected to cost in the neighborhood of $4,500, and we are hoping to have the building built with the assistance from the Lion's Club. A concrete slab will be constructed by the public works department at an estimated coat of $2,500, and electrical is estimated at $1,000, bringing the total to about $8,000, which leaves a comfortable cushion between the estimated cost and the budgeted amount of $12,000. The basketball court will be constructed as time allows by the public works department at an estimated cost of $2,000. Construction of a parking lot will be done by outside services based upon a low quota or bid. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative is to approve improvements to Outlot A, Meadow Oak Park, consisting of a concession stand/storage building/shelter, along with a basketball court and parking lot improvements, not to exceed the total budgeted amount of $40,000 without authorization from the City Council. The second alternative would be not to proceed with one or all of the improvements. It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Public Works Director, Street & Parka Superintendent, and the Monticello Parks Commission that the City Council authorize the improvements to Outlot A. Meadow Oak Park, as outlined in alternative 01. C D_ SUPPORTINO DATA: Copy of building plan; Copy of site plan for Oudot A, Meadow Oak Park. _J� x 9 20 Benchmark � TNM•9$D.id i T r % Fu7ur• / CoeKnaien. � �ro.o4• AQP f �- =0—�►- �a. —4` ¢C o, J SKIS c l I 6'O' i 6'O• I Y•IO' I 6'0' I r'•Y RANCH � SrORaGE o � el AB ON GRACE I �I NOTE 'tVW u.WLLA 9 i I RANCH II r'r' I A b -------vaiaa--- - - - - -- 4 9 b a G- 9 • PAy. TNRLL sr,�MONaO�V LbMBEP t=CWrh.CA RD NONTCCW MN (6 12) M-1110 I& C Council Agenda - 5/12/97 Public Hearing --Consideration of vacation of a portion of Palm 81reSh (J.0.) This is a housekeeping matter. It appears that the formal record of the vacation of Palm Street adjacent to Steve Conroy's office (old ]Pitt Funeral Home) has been misplaced. This problem arose when Conroy was completing a title search on his property. City maps show that this street has been vacated already; however, Conroy needs a formal record of the vacation in order to obtain a clear title. Motion to approve vacation of the portion of Palm Street directly adjacent on the north of Broadway and south of River Street. Motion to deny vacation of a portion of Palm Street. C_ STAFF RF.COMMRNDATION: The City Administrator recommends alternative #I. D_ 3I IPPORTING DATA: Map of area to be vacated. Council Agenda - 5/12/97 8. Pahl- �—ring--Con_Qideration of vacation of utility Pasempnts l .ated on Ho ker'a illside pink (J.O.) AND 8. Con- sideration of a conditional use permit allowinga townhouse planned unit develppmenk in a_n R-3 zone. Applicant. Chris Rulow. (J.O.) AND 10. Consideration of a orelisninsry and final replat of the Holker's Hillside Ad1 itiorL Applicstnt. Chris B slow. (J.O.) Chris Bulow requests approval of a conditional use permit which would allow construction of three twinhomes at the site of Holker's Hillside Addition. In order to develop three twinhomes, it is necessary to replat the site. Please see Steve Grittman's report for further recommendations and alternatives. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat pending the condition that the site plan be re-examined and adjusted to meet required setbacks. After further review of the ordinance, it appears that the site plan actually does meet the setback requirements if one makes a literal interpretation of what constitutes the side and front of the lot. A literal interpretation places the front of the lot along the Wright Street right -of --way and would result in a 20 -ft setback requirement on Wright Street for the unit farthest to the south. A 20 -ft setback at this location will not be a problem because the right -of --way at this location is very wide, and there is considerable distance between the curb and the garage door opening. Also, the other two units fronting Wright Street will be set back at least 30 ft as though Wright Street was the front. Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and motion to vacate utility easements to enable the replat of the Holker's Hillside subdivision. The vacation of easements will erase easement lines between the existing lots. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit request, preliminary plat, and vacation of utility easements. The City Administrator recommends alternative M1. CD. SUPPORTING DATA; Staff report to Planning Commission. The final plat is on file. Ll NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS N IMC COMMUNITY PLANNINO • DESION - MARKET RESMARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Krnis / Stephen Grittmen DATE: 24 April 1997 RE: Monticello - Hillside Tewnhomes Preliminary Plat FILE NO: 191.07 - 97.07 Mr. Chris Eutaw has requested preliminary plat approval of six unit Wnhome development entitled Hillside Townhomes. The proposed development Is to overlay a 1.07 acre tract of land located north of 7th Street and west of Wright Street The subdivision will constitute a rapist of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Holkere Hillside Addition and require the vacation of drainago and utility casements which correspond to the existing lot layout The subject site is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. Because a unit lot/ base lot subdivision design has been proposed, the processing of a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit is necessary. Zoning. The subject site is =nod R-3, Medium Density Residential which lists'multlple family dwelling structures containing twelve (12) or less dwelling units" as a permitted use. Land Use Compatibility. To determine the compatibility of the proposed use, It is considered beneficial to Identify the types of uses which surround the subject site. The following iso listing of uses and zoning designations which surround tho subject property. 9770 WAYZATA OOULEVARO. SUITE 663 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINN900TA 60,16 PHONE 6 1 II -905-0630 FAX e 1 A-506.0037 F- /M C Direction Use Zoning North Rall Une/Single Famiy R-2 Dwellings I South Industrial 1-1 I East Four Plexes R-3 I` West Apartments R-3 As demonstrated above, the proposed townhome development is considered similar to existing uses in the area and compatible with surrounding development Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan in that it promotes an effort to provide a wide range of housing choices within the City. PUD Processing. The applicant has requested approval of a PUD/CUP to accommodate the base lot/unit lot configuration of the development The processing of single phase developments occurs in two stages - PUD Development Plan and PUD Final Plan. The PUD Development Plan of single phase developments requires substantial compliance with Zoning Ordinance provislens on which the PUD Final Plan will ultimately be based. If the City Council approves the PUD Development Plan, the applicant will submit a PUD Final Plan along with the final plat that addresses all outstanding Issues or conditlons of approval regarding the proposed development. Performance Standards. The following table illustrates all lot performance requirements of the Zoning Ordinanco and the proposed development's oomplis = with the applicable requirements. Lot Area RagUlred 10,000 sf Wised 48,842 d Lot Width 80 ft 1340 ft Lot Area Per Unit 6,000 of 7,774 of Setbacks: East Front Yard 30 ft 30 ft North/South Side Yards 20 ft 20 ft Wost Rear Yard 30 ft 20 ft 2 Ad Recognizing that the three existing parcels of land are to be combined Into a single base �A n lot, a 30 foot rear yard setback must be imposed along the west lot line. To comply with • ti3O Qapplicable periphery setbacks, the southernmost twinhome stricture must be shifted to lie not less than 30 feet from the referenced west lot line. Should it be determined that a 30 foot rear yard setback cannot reasonably be achieved, consideration could be given to providing two threeplexes rather than three twinhomes upon the property. Such alternative Is presented in recognition of higher density residential uses which border the subject property to the east and west The Zoning Ordinance does not stipulate a minimum building separation requirement. As a general rule, however, it is recommended the Interior separations between buildings be not less than one-half the sum of the building heights of the structures in question. To fully address this Issue, it is re=rrmended that building elevations be submitted which identify proposed building heights. Access. The proposed three twinhome units are to access Wright Street by individual driveways. Section 20-12 (M) 2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 20 feet of frontage per unit for townhomes. With each wit lot having 38 feet of frontage, the proposed development satisfies this requirement. Landscaping. According to Section 20-2.K of the Zoning Ordinance (PUD general requirements) a landscaping plan must be submitted which Identifies the location, size and variety of all site plantings. As a condition of PUDICUP approval, a landscape plan should be submitted for review. Building Height Within R-3 Zoning Districts, a maximum building height requirement of two stories is Imposed. To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, the applicant should submit a building elevation (or elevations) as part of the final PUD plan consideration. Protective Covenants. It has not boon indicated whether any protected covenants are to be applied to the proposed development If covenants aro to be utilized, they shall be subject to review by the City Attorney. Utility/Drainage Easement Vacatlon. As noted previously, the proposed subdivision represents a replat of thrco existing lots of record. To accomplish such replat, the vacation of side lot line drainage and utility easements will be necessary, (see Exhibit C). As a rosult, vacation of the easements will be made a condition of ultimate final plat approval. w Perk Dedication. The City should review the proposed development In regard to lam° appropriate park dedication requirements. 9—/00 A Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans. The submitted preliminary plat (Exhibit B) includes proposed grading and drainage. Said grading, drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City EnGineer and Public Works. 13. ALTERN TBM ACTIONS 9(' r ^aP Decision One: Request for a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit a. Approval of the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit Development Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The southernmost twinhome is shifted so as to comply with the applicabie �k that 30 30 foot rear yard setback requirement Should it be determined a foot rear yard setback cannot be reasonably achieved, consideration should Cr° • k be given to providing two tfvee-plexes rather than three twinhcmes on the/ 5" property. 2. Building elevations are submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable �L height requirements and ensure that proper structure separation eodsts. 3. A landscape pian Is submitted which Identifies the location, size and variety of site plantings. 4. The City approve the vacation of exisbng aide lot line drainage and utility easements. 5. The City review the proposed development in regard to appropriate parts dedication requirements. 6. Approval of grading and drainage issues by the City Engineer and Public Works. Potential findings supporting this decision would be: • The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • The proposal Is consistent with the e>asting land use In the arca • The proposal is consistent with the provision of the Zoning Ordinance, with approval of proposod building elevations. • The proposal is consistent with the CRY use of Planned Unit Development with appropriate landscaping and architectural design. b. Denial of the Planned Unit Development Condrbonal Use Permit Development Plan. Potential findings supporting this decision would be: • The proposal is inconsistent with higher density land uses to the east and west Decision Two: Request for a Preliminary Plat for Hiltslde Townhame& a. Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Hillside Townhomes as presented, subject to approval of the PUD, and comments of the City Engineer and Public Works. b. Denial of the Preliminary Plat for Hillside Townhcmes as presented. The proposed project Is generally consistent with the intent of the Chys Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Is also generally compatible with the existing land uses In the area. As such, staff recommends approval of both the PUD and Preliminary Plat with the aforementioned conditions. . - :•T�r:r�m�1 Exhibit A -Zoning Map and Site Location Exhibit 5 - Preliminary Plat Exhibit C - Site Plan C AN Ir- It I A'•r �'c�••„ .re' ip CO) % • ;:sem i i• ;w •.'i �� , � � �` i� }}iii'' I St It Ij jt bJ „ %t SP yb.,, YENry i •.. , N ,,, 109 �y .HI,.LLiz),E rove i gil4omH ' v _ALJ\ <t • •,,. yr ♦ • � .r._■ n;��J, / / \ of ..�t•�i +�o oto+* nnm ,t arae„ -0 r -!o f- Council Agenda - 6/12/97 C11. Consideration of a request fore sped al home occupation permit which would allow teaching of more then oneUuoil at a time. ApplieanL J Ili StLr1__ (J.OJS.G.) A RFFPRFNrF AND SA •K .ROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter and voted to approve the request for the special home occupation based on the findings identified in the Planner's report. The request generated significant concern from the neighborhood as you will see in the attached petition and other comments submitted by area residents. There were also positive comments regarding the plan from the public. It was the unanimous view of the Planning Commission that the preschool activity, being conducted during school days only, on a staggered schedule would not be a detriment to the neighborhood and is therefore consistent with the comprehensive plan. The preschool use was considered by the Planning Commiasion to be akin to the operation of a daycare, which is allowed as a permitted use in the R-1 zone. It was their view that a need for this type of use exists. Also, the Planning Commission suggested a requirement that the special home occupation permit be evaluated after one year of operation. Please see the attached report from Steve Crittman for further information and alternatives. R. kt TFRNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and findings to approve the special home occupation permit which would allow teaching of more than one pupil at a time. Motion to deny approval of the special homo occupation permit. The City Administrator recommends alternative q 1 per the Planning Commission recommendation. CPlanners report and findings recommended by the Planning Commission. N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNINO - DE316N - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob IGrmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: 23 April 1997 RE: Monticello - Lir Red Preschool (Stark) Home Occupation FILE NO: 191.07 - 97.04 CONSLOERATION OPERATE A PRESCHOOL OF A SPt:CIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR JILL STARK TO AT HER RESIDENCE AT 2910 OAK ORNE 1 A. REFERENCE ANQ BACKGROUND Ms. Jill Stark has requested a special home ccupation permit to operate a preschool at her residence located at 2910 Oak Street E amuse the home occupation involves the teaching of more than one pupil at a time, R qualifies as a 'special home occupation'. According to the Zoning Ordinance, special home ocoupatlon ep licat.ons must be processed in accordance rvttlh the City's conditional use permit provisions�The subject site Is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Business Descriptlom According to information provided by the applicant, the proposed preschool is to be operated from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM, Monday through Thursday. There is to bo a total of four three-hour preschool sessions as summarized below. 1. Monday and Wednesday Momings: 9:00 AM to Noon 2. Monday and Wednesday Afternoons: 12:30 PM to 3:30 PM 3. Tuesday and Thursday Mornings: 9:00 AM to Noon 4. Tuosday and Thursday Afternoons: 12:30 PM to 3:30 PM The applicant has indicated that each session is to have s maximum of ten students. 5770 WAYZATA DOULCvARe, SUITC See ST. LOU15 PARK, MINNCSOTA 55410 PMONC 6 1 2-505.65345 FAX 61 8.565.6837 WR -2e. -159'e yb: 7M t+,A- o.c Evaluation Criteria As =tad previously, special home occupation applications must be applied for, reviewed and di2posed of in accordance with the City's conditional use permit requirements. In this regard, the Planning Commission must consider possible adverse effects cf the proposed use. Judgement should be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such usa will land to or acivalty depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not include arty specific policies relating to home oeapaGon establishment. it does. however, specifically promote compatible land use relationships. While the City Zoning Ordinance makes allowance for such home occupations i.n residential areas, it Is the Gear intent of the Comprehensive Plan to allow such uses to the extent that they do not jeopardize the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods. Nuisance Characteristics, According to Chapter 3-11.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, no C home o=pation may produce light, glare, noise, fumes, odor or vibration thatwill in any way have an objectionab to effect upon adjacent or nearby property, The proposed use is not anticipated to produce any adverse nuisance effects upon neighboring properties. Non-compliance with this provision of the ordinance will justify revocation of the special home occupation permit Building Alteration. According to the applicant, no alteration to the etdsurV residence is proposed to accommodato the proposed home occupation. Fire/Building Codea, Asa condition of hcmo occupation epprovel, the applicant must demonstrate eornpllance with all applicable local state tiro and building codes. This issue should be subject to furthor comment by the City Building Inspector. Traffic Generation. Awarding to the Zoning Ordhw=, no home occu; don may be permitted which results In or generates more traffic than one car for off-street parking at any given time. While the proposed use h not anticipatod to generate any long term off-street parking In o literal acne, it will gemerste troffia Such tratflewould, however, utilize adjoard Meadow Oak Court for'on-street' parking (west of tho applkartt's residence. The applicant has indicated that each preschool session is to have a mardmuun of ten students. This equates to a maximum of ten vehicles providing drop-off/pick-up activities at one time. Acknowledging that two school sessions per day are to be offered, a total of four drop- cffs/pick-ups are to occur per day, each generating a maximum of ten vehicles. To be specifically noted is that the preschool sessions have been staggered to conceivably minimize traffic volumes and vehicle drop-off/pick-up overlap. To further mitigate adverse impacts resulting from pick-op/drop-off overlay of vehicles, the city may wish to consider a greater time separation between morning and afternoon preschool sessions (i.e., one hour). For reference purposes, a typical single family residence averages ten vehicle trip ends per day (Institute of Transportation Engineers). In this regard, the proposed use can be thought of as generating traffic equivalent to four additional dwellings on the Meadow Oak Court cul-de-sac, Considering that only six residences currently exist along the cul-de- sac, the addition of 40 vehicle trips per day is considered well within the capabilities of the street While tra rlc generated by the proposed use Is believed to be within the capabilities of streets serving the property, question exists as to whether the offstreet parking requirements for home occupations can be satisfied (no more than one car for off-street parking at a given time). Technically, the proposed drop -off -pick-up activities constitute -on-street' parking, which Is not specifically addressed by the home occupation requirements. As a condi:ion of special home oaxcupation approval, the City should determine that the proposod use satisfies the Intent of the ordinance in regard to traffic Generation. Outdoor Play Area. According to the applicant. an outdoor play area Is proposed In the rear yard area of the subject site. This area should be fenced and/or screened in accordance with the State Dopartment of Human Services to minimize potential adverse Impacts upon neighboring residences. Slgnago. According to the City Zoning Ordinance, the exterior display of signage which is visible from outside tho dwelling is prohibited for home occupatlons. The applicant Ana not specified whether any business related signage Is to be erected as a result of the proposod use. Hours of Operation. The ordinance states that no home occupation may be conducted between tho hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, unless the occupation is contalned entirely within the principal building and will not require any off -*cot parking facilities,. As noted previously, the preschool Is to be operated from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM, Monday through Thursday in compliance with City requirements, Employment. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that no person other than a resident may conduct the home occupation except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual (� or unique conditions. This employment requirement must be upheld as a condition of home v occupation approval. Inspection. According to tf•,a Zoning Ordinance, the City reserves the right to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with applicable ordinance standards. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Approve the special oc upation permit for one year under the conditions laid out in the staff recommendation section of this report , p c It, a co M n+cn d.0.4, a ,% 2. Deny the special homy occupation permit based upon a finding by the City Council that the proposed activity is not in character with the area in which it Is proposed. C. ,STAFF RECOMMENDATION While special home occupations are permitted in the applicable R-1 Zoning District, the City should make a determination whether the proposed use satisfies the intent of cup Pe. sP j3 CWs Zoning Ordinance, particularly in repard to off-street parkini7 and traffic generation. p k If the City judges the proposed use to be acceptable, we would recommend approval of the requested special home occupation permit for one year subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant re -appy for a permit atter the initial one year period. Renewal of the permit shall be processed with the procedural requirements of the initial apeciol home occupation permit. 2. Consideration is given to expanding the time separation between morning and afternoon preschool sessions to eliminate or minimize pick-up/drop-off vehicle overlap. 3. The home occupation "I not produco light, glare, noise, odor or vibration that will In any way have an objectionable effect upon agjacent or nearby property. 4. No equipment shall be used In the home occupation which will create electrical Intorferenc a to surrounding properties. 4 (D 5. No internal or external structure alterations shall take place which are not customary to residential dwellings. C6. No exterior storage of business related materials take place on the site. 7. No person other than the resident conduct the home oaxrpatiorn. S. The special home occupation comply with all applicable fire and building codes. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Building Inspector. 9. There shall be no exterior display or exterior signs or interior display or interlor signs which are visible from outside the dwelling with the exception of the resident identification sign. 10. Hcme occupation activities occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PK 11. The City reserves the right to inspect the premises (within reasonable hours without notice) to ensure compliance with the conditlons of special home occupations license issuance. 12. All applicable licensing requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health are saUsfactoriy met 13. Comments from other City staff. C D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Ucatlon Exhibit 8 - Detailed Site Location i li 5 I, II� II IN CITY OF MONTICELLO W=GW eou"T rdrno,u► MgAlDow oAK. vs ca"Ir NA /3N � Ko�� OAK P.IIDC--S PRIVF- OAK it (WC75 A 11 7o p 00 OF lexpvx.Tr,,,D TRAM I f. EXK3ff a TOTAL P.oB I OAK RIDGE ADDITION PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED PRESCHOOL IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO BE LOCATED AT 2910 OAK RIDGE DR., MONTICELLO MN Points of cuncern: • Adding a potential of60 car trips duuugh our neighburl", using Meadow Oak Drive and Oak Ridge Drive as ace" on a daily basis • Monetarily devalue our properties. • Limits piuspeclive buyers fur resale. • Sets precedence for more preschools in the immediate area. All those signed below express opposition to the Lil' Red Preschuul being located in our residential neighbuihoud. NAME ADDRESS /►lfrtiC,e;.] Oz/: ILL l250 &WWO) Oo k Cau.t ias�/IIEA�/aw�•4t' �+e� �SLQ��JIDa ti Ia�iS m4&Aaj Qo►.k' C4- S T�oMbicy CNo MQai4- oak flr. a 9.(".; 9-4 or 9. A ax N PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED PRESCHOOL IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO BE LOCATED AT 2910 OAK RIDGE DR., MONTICELLO N1N Points of cuncern: • Adding a potential of 80 car trips through our neighbutbood, using Mleaduw Oak Drive and Oak Ridge Drive as awess on a daily basis • Monetarily devalue our properties. • Linuts prospective buyers fur resale. • Sets precedence fur more preschools in the immediate at ea. All those signed below express opposition to lite Lil' Red Pieschoul being located in our residential neighborhood. )AME ADDRESS 0 — W 2 r & 2).1/ v#K fj/fes, Qr i i., /', / �1 Ga l ��J0— Dc ar8i� c✓1'r .a au 1P - �7/o or DMZ 10 "012-0/7 it X- City of Monticello 250 Broadway E Monticello MN 55362 May 5, 1997 Re: Lil' Red Preschool Dear City Officials of Monticello: We wish to express our opposition to a license being granted to allow a preschool to operate in the Stark residence, which is located immediately adjacent to our home. This preschool, bringing a potential of 60 additional cars through our devel- opment, would have a significant impact on our neighborhood, and particularly on our cul-de-sac. We chose a lot in a cul-de-sac anticipating minimal traffic, privacy, and a relatively quiet, safe and pleasant atmosphere. Plans for this preschool specifically direct traffic into the cul-de-sac, pushing our minimal traffic up to a potential of 40 unfamiliar cars looping through the cul-de-sac 4 days a week. This level of traffic would be unreasonable in a residential zone. Car pooling is a variable that cannot be guaranteed day to day or year to year. Mrs. Stark emphasizes car pooling and her intention to escort the children into the school in an attempt to minimize the inherent negative aspects of this situ- ation. Once the preschool is operating there is no way to enforce or police this. Zoning restrictions are imposed to protect neighborhoods from this very situation. There is a safety factor involved here, as well, due to the close proximity of our driveway to the Stark's back yard and play area. Our driveway to sloped enough to severely restrict visibility as we back into the cul-de-sac, and the play area is only a short distance from our driveway. This situation was apparent last fall when Mrs. Stark operated day care from her home, and those children often opilled over onto our driveway during playtimo. The added risk of 10 preschool children is very distressing to us and of groat concern. Another issue for us is resale marketability. If we choose to sell our homo in the future, our prospective buyers aro then limited to only th000 who want to live next to a preschool. Selling a home is difficult enough without this disadvantage. We invest tho largest part of our incomes into our homes. Mrs. Stark would be putting our investment at risk without our consent and against our wiahea. A local roaltor, when approached for hia professional opinion, was unablo to give one, because "in his experience there has nevor boon a preschool in an "R-1" neighbor- hood; they aro only found in transitional or businoso aroas." He was only able to say that if it bothers uo to live next to a Cpreschool, then it will bother others no well. It T We understand Mrs. Stark's desire to run her preschool out -of tier home. The convenience of staying at home, and the profit with no overhead are very appealing and tempting. One resident turned down our petition because she felt she should be able to run a floral/bridal business from her home. Establishing the variance to allow a preschool in a residential zone would open the door for other high impact businesses to operate here. While this preschool would be a good thing for the Starks, we don't think they have considered its detrimental impact on our neighborhood, namely the accompanying traffic and the precedence it would set for the operation of other businesses in the area. Our home is our refuge and sanctuary from the workplace and its less pleasant ensuing aspects. We personally find the traffic, safety, and resale factors too great an imposition and we are asking that you maintain our present zoning status to protect our neighborhood from this situation. This preschool can be more efficiently and less intrusively operated in an area that Is already zoned for that caliber of business. We wish the Starks every success with their preschool located in a transitional or business setting. Thank you, Nichaol and Janollo Doerfler 1250 Meadow Oak Ct Monticollo MN 55362 295-4182 it k 0 1 7 I i= is a �hotc co - pp of the ac that rap. in the March 30, 1997 c` the Monticello Shopper Opening to The Fall .il' Red Preschool • Personalized learning environment • Maximum 10 children per class • For ages 3-5 • Certified teacher • Private in-home setting e Jill Stark • 295-3846 Call now for more Worm bon and regisbatlm form _ 1 FILA C My family and 1 ale sti ongly opposed to lin popused pre-schoul (ur ally olher business) bung opened ill out iesidcutial neighbmhuod. I am hume doing the day with my 3 yi. old sun, and lite ttaflic it would being to our cul-de-sac biings points of MAJOR wiaxia to lite. Safety, uuise amt speed conhul. We have aheady lead expeiience with a day wee located at lite popowd pie -school addiess. The peisun imwing lite day nue dhe ud Ilse traffic fur lite day cele into line cul -dc -sac so the people could use the back dour enhance to her house. This caused pi ublems fur us in lite cul-de-sac by way of people speeding inly lite cul-de-sac, whipping mound it and pai king in it. The ,vise of lite vehicles cuming and gui,g also. Mien we weie looking fur a lot to build our house, we putpusely chuse a lot in a cul-de- sac fur least anlounl of haffic- given we have 5 childiero, privacy, and quiet. When we weie Iuuking fma lot to build our house un, we putpusely chose a RESIDENTIAL aiea, and NOT a business dish ict- fur obvious ieasons. We like a icwidential selling,mul having to deal with high h'afiic, iwkhaving to dol with businesses end We noise. To let this person climtge uur tune lu business would being Inst piufit, but it would be a Si eat dehinrout to ,lost of lite people it, out. imisldwi hood. C Q I alb S 1'1'le r:adpvJ �, FC. C�'� Y�ri'l c.e� l YYI V1 110 Council Agenda - 5/12197 12. Consideration of renewing membership inn the Wright County Economic, Development Pstrtn_en hie- (R.W.) A REFERENCE AND BA .K .RO 1ND; The City recently received a notice that the 1997 membership dues for the Economic Development Partnership of Wright County are now due. The notice indicated the City's membership dues for 1997 would amount to $1,004.50, the same amount as last year's; but it should be noted that an additional $500 was contributed by the Monticello IDC, making the total City contribution $1,504.50. The City had originally approved membership in the Development Partnership in December 1993 and paid a membership fee of $1,500, out of which $500 was contributed by the IDC. This same split was true in 1994, 1995, and 1996. With the recent decision by the IDC to turn over their finances to the Chamber of Commerce, it is uncertain whether the Chamber will continue the $500 contribution toward the City's original membership fee. Although our invoice only shows a fee of $1,004.50, I assume the Monticello IDC or the Monticello Chamber of Commerce will get a separate statement for the additional $500 like they have contributed in the past. According to the Partnership fee schedule, the City's contribution without the IDC or Chamber participation would still be in the $1,600 range. In the past, our Economic Development Director, 011ie Koropchak, has been involved with the Partnership as a Board member. 011ie is no longer serving in that capacity, and participation by City staff has been very limited recently in this Partnership. Originally when the City considered membership in this newly -formed organization, there were concerns that many of the activities proposed by the Partnership would be duplications of efforts and programs that the City currently has. With the City having its own Economic Development Director, many of the programs being proposed by the County Partnership already exist locally, including revolving loan programs, marketing efforts, and other consulting services we provide. The basic reason for joining the Partnership was that, although we had our own economic development department, what's good for the county would ultimately be good for the city of Monticello in encouraging tax base increases throughout the county. In addition, I believe there were also concerns that the City of Monticello did not want to be labeled as the only community that did not belong to the County organization and, thus, felt obligated to participate even when we may not realize as many benefits f ern this organization as other smaller communities would. Council Agenda - 5/12/97 Enclosed with the agenda is a list of the members who have paid dues over the past few years. As you can see, most cities have continued membership in the organization, including the largest contributor, the City of Buffalo. IR LTF.RNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve continued membership in the Economic Development Partnership of Wright County at an approximate annual cost of $1,600 based on the current dues structure for 1997. Under this alternative, the City would continue membership but would also agree to pick up the additional $500 that the IDC or Chamber of Commerce had paid in the past. Motion to approve membership contingent upon the City's contribution remaining at the $1,004.50 level as invoiced without picking up the IDC amount of $500. Motion to deny continued membership in the Economic Development Partnership due to the duplication of efforts already being accomplished through our own economic development program and due to the fact that larger cities are required to contribute a larger base amount than smaller communities, which are likely to benefit more. C:_ STAFF O MF.NDATION: While the staff certainly believes that programs being initiated by the Partnership are, without a doubt, duplicates of programs and activities we currently provide, we would hate to be the only community not participating in the Partnership for that reason. Wright County has begun to supply funding in the amount of $30,000. Based on the 1996 membership list, it appears that most communities are still members of the Partnership, and we are not aware of any that are not planning on renewing in 1997. Although we only received an invoice for $1,004.60, it is assumed that if the City is going to continue membership in this Partnership, you would have to support alternative #I if the Chamber does not wish to contribute the $500. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter and invoice for membership dues; List of communities who have paid membership dues. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA A Nor+- Pntrr PWYATe / Pua=?^ffr rexumr April 10, 1997 Rids Wolfateller, City Administrator City afMonucello 250 E. Broadway, Bos 1147 Monticello, MN 55162 Dear Rids Wdrsteller, It has beronm time ngain to renew Monlialb's ippon of the Economic Devehpment Partnership of Wright County (EDPWC). The partnership, established in 1993, has a mission to pnmote Wright County as a desirable place to live, work our own a business. The EDPWC's focus is on supporting developrtsem on a county -wide basis to enhance and improve the quality of life and economic well being of Wright County. The group numages and administers the Wright County Emaprise Loan Fund. The purpose of the bars Mad is to encourage economic development by supplementing conventional financing sauces maitable to new and existing businesses. The revolving loan fund can help banks put together ban packages for their cuslomers by appleamming owner equityto mat bink lending guidelines while providing a lower than market source d (meds for a portion of a company's financing steeds. In keeping with both economic and community well being the tains mutt serve a public purpose by Ccreating new jabs that pay a livable wage and also increase the comnumity, tax base. EDPWC is funded through membership dues and a $30,000 funding grant from Wright County. Key members dready in the alliance, along with Monticello. include most cilia in the county u well as four townships. All of the utilities in Wright County ty aPPont the partnership through active membership. ObLr important support comes from the Wright Technical Center and the Private Industry Workforce Council 5 (PI WC 5). who are committed to provide the trainingand usppat rneeacd for a productive local warkfwce. We encourage you to have any Monticello businwa and individuals who wart more information about the panwslup, voluntary board mnnbership or the application and lam preoep for an Enterprise Ford loan to contact any EDPWC Baud Member or their local bank for further assistance, Agan, we ttoank Monticello for their past and present apport of ilio partnership. Sincerely, Cathy Thisius, Tmastrrer a: Maya Bill Fair we Us am MW&M k 69010 t]swio Driv0. PO Bax 325, Loclfbrd, MN 55373, (612) Inaori12,0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP OF WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA A Nor . PROFIT PRIVATE r PUBLIC PAWMERSMP DATE: April 10, 1997 To: Rick Wbifsteller, City Administrator City of Monticello 250 E. Broadvray, Box 1147 Monticello, MN 66362 cc: Mayor Bill Fab DESCRIPTION OF DUES STRUCTURE AMOUNT DUE Municipalities' due structures are based on their 1980 census. The following due's structure Is currently In place: Under 1000 pop. S 100.00 plus 10 carts per capita 1000 - 2500 pop. S 500.00 $1.004.50 2500 - 5000 pop. S 500.00 plus 10 cents per capita Over 5000 pop. S/000Ao plus 10 carts per capita SUBTOTAL $1,004.50 TOTAL DUE $1,004.50 Make all checks payable to: Economic Development Partnership of Vkight County Please mall checks to: Cathy Thlslus, EDPWC Treasurer c/o Security State Bank PO Box M9 Maple Lake, MN 66366 It you have any questioro concerning this Invoice, call: Neil McMillin. 477-078. THANK YOU FOR JOINING IN OUR PROGRESSI WiI is ow tliim n I 6t00 Electric Drive PO Dovn 523 723. Rectlbrd, INN 33313. (ell) 477.307e 94-24-97 08:33 SECURITY STATE BANK ID -320963616:1 N•0� r "nor nlc Development Partnership of Wright County, Inc. Membership Listing DOCS Paid a5 0f 4/23/97 Ewa 1"41i- �ifst Ift _1L Albertville 500.00 500.00 500.00 Clearwater Annandale 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Buffalo 1686.30 1685.00 1685.00 1685.00 Clearwater 159.70 159.70 159.70 159.70 Cokato 500.00 500.00 500.00 .00 Delano .00 00 .00 .00 Hanover 193.90 178.60 178.60 Rockford Howard Lake $00.00 500.00 500.00 .00 300.00 Maple Cake .00 500.00 500.00 .00 Monticello 1016.90 1004.50 1004.50 Wu oodland Montrone 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 Ouego .00 50.00 1000.00 Rockford 766.50 766.50 766.50 St. Michael .00 .00 .00 • Ith Haven 119.30 119.40 119.40 .verly 160.00 .00 160.00 Albion .00 .00 Buffalo .00 .00 Chatam .00 .00 Clearwater 215.00 215.00 Cokalo .00 .00 Corina .00 .00 Frarddort 393.50 393.50 393.50 Franklin .00 .00 French Cake .00 .00 Maple lake .00 .00 Marysville .00 .00 Middleville .00 .00 Moatkao .00 .00 Rockford .00 .00 Silver Creek 300.00 .00 300.00 Southside .00 .00 Stockholm .00 .00 .00 .00 Wu oodland 210.00 210.00 210.00 G 04-24-97 88 34 SECURITY `'TATE BANK IU -3209h36163 I'•UJ cconoixuc ueveiopment Partnership of Wright County, Inc. 14 Ufffiffes 1"41 lm m Mitm 9LV_ 1%5.00 2313.00 2313.00 2313.00 Northern States Power 2300.00 2300.00 2300.00 Wright -Hennepin Electric .00 2300.00 2300.00 "ecommuni ns AT & T .00 .00 1000.00 i.akedale Telephone 1691.00 1550.00 .00 U.S: West 00 . .00 .00 BanksdAndine institutions Annandale State Bank 750.00 .00 .00 Citizens State Bank of Waverly 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 Oakley National Bank 500.00 .00 .00 Rockford State Bank 250.00 250.00 250.00 Seauity State Bank of Maple Lke 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 State Bank of Cokato 250.00 .00 .00 ( jlland Bank - St. Michael .00 .00 .00 750.00 Assodam Clearwater Area E.D.C. 50.00 50.00 Minnesota Technical 2500.00 .00 MomiceLlo Lndustrial Development S00.00 500.00 500.00 Uoitod Power Association 500.00 .00 Wright Technical Center 50.00 .00 50.00 Businemen Deck Raate Phu 00 .00 7$.00 KRWC Radio .00 .00 100.00 Westwood Profusion- l Savkes .00 .00 100.00 OEDP CoWbutors (19%) City of Cokato 500.00 Wright -Hennepin 500.00 N innegssoo $00.00 T Omni 2500.00 nght County 2500.00 i�D Council Agenda - 5/12/97 13, Conaid ration of sate of Tats 14 nnd 14, Block 4._Qglend Addition, located onMii_aslasippiDrive. W.S.► A RFFFRRNCE AND BACKGROUND: In 1980, the developer of MacCarlund Plaza and owners of the Thomas Park development approached the City in regard to "exchanging these two lots for the $3,368 they owed in park dedication fees for MacCarlund Plaza and also requested that these lots cover the expenses owed on the Thomas Park plat development, which they recently purchased from Stuart Hoglund." Park dedication fees for Thomas Park still owing amount to $2,600, with additional engineering fees owed on MacCarlund Plaza in the amount of $1,600. After more discussion, the City agreed to accept these two lots in exchange for park dedication fees and engineering fees owed on MacCarlund Plaza and the amount still owing for Thomas Park. The above total is $7,568. In adding the 1976 assessments for sanitary sewer, water, storm and street of $9,280, the new total is $16,848, or $8,424 per lot. There are also assessments against the lots for the street overlay project. These two lots abut the north edge of the MacCarlund Plaza townhouse development and abut the southerly side of Mississippi Drive. The rear portion of the lots are taken up in rough hillside with a significant elevation change. The lots themselves are elevated somewhat above the street, but unsuitable soil conditions and wet conditions make the lots almost unmowable. We have gotten our mowing equipment stuck on more than one occasion in this area. We also get numerous complaints from the MacCarlund Plaza townhouse residents about the non -manicured condition of the hill. In 1990, the City contracted with American Engineering & Testing, Inc., to perform a geotechnical exploration of the lots to determine the suitability for building homes on the lots. The soil investigation indicates that the house pad areas contain 6.5 ft to 10 ft of organic peat swamp deposits and peat/silty sand fill mixtures. In addition, the ground water was found from within 3.5 ft. from the surface. The geotechnical firm recommended that the organic materials be replaced with a granular fill and the homes be supported on shallow spread footings. They also recommended that dewaterimg be performed. A couple other alternatives were suggested, one included placing the homes on spread footings on top of a deep foundation system of driven pilings. A rough estimate for the soil correction for both of the lots if done at once, back in 1990, was in the area of $10,000 to $15,000. If the lots were given to the City in lieu of payment of park dedication fees and engineering fees and serve no real purpose as a park and are a nuisance to maintain both the weeds on the hillside and the soft lower ground, it may Council Agenda - 5/12197 be in the best interest of the City to liquidate these two lots at a reduced price so that the buyers could do the necessary soil correction, hillside stabilization, and build single family homes on the lots and put them back on the tax rolls. The first alternative would be to sell the lots to the highest bidder (hopefully at least $8,424 each, our original investment) based upon procedures recommended by the City Attorney and have the new owners responsible for soil correction and erosion control and maintenance of the hillside. The second alternative would be to do nothing. C. STAFF F,COMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator and Public Works Director that the City liquidate the two lots as outlined in alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING nATA; Copy of text from soils report; Copy of map showing the two lots. M M N REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION/REVIEW FOR LOTS 13 AND 10, BLOCK 3, HOGLUND ADDITION NONTICELLO, KIRMOTA M MC AET /90-795 M PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO 250 EAST BROADWAY MONTICELLO, MN 55362 I 1 OCTOBER 31, 1990 1 13#4 1 I AMERICAN CONSUWMi3 ENGINGEorEmNICAL EERING • MATUTALS • MATF.�lAl3 TESTING, Inc. a, October 31, 1990 4 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: John Simola RE: Geotechnical Exploration/Review Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Hoglund Addition Monticello, Minnesota AET 090-785 Dear Mr. Simola: This is our report on the subsurface exploration program and associated geotechnical engineering review we recently conducted for your two referenced residential lots within the Hoglund Addition. This report documents the exploration/ test results and provides our opinions and recommendations to aid you and your design team in planning and construction of the project. Our work was performed per our letter proposal to you dated October 11, 1990. Your purchase order number for this project is 1823. Please do not hesitate to call if you have Questions about the report, or if we can provide additional services to you. I can be roached at (612) 659-1305. Vo truly yours, v p �- ` Joffery K. Voyon, PE Manager, Geotechnical Engineering JKV/sk 1 Enclosures V 38 2102 Un,rcw1y Me, W SL Paul. MN 3311 Phone 612.639.9001 Fu 612.639,1379 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION/REVIEW FOR 1( LOTS 13 AND 14, BLACK 3, HOGLUND ADDITION MONTICELLO, !MINNESOTA AET f90-785 Purpose You are considering the sale of 2 residential lots within the Hoglund Addition and need to evaluate whether the lots are "buildable" prior to sale. The purpose of our work on this project is to obtain subsurface information, and based on this data, prepare a geotechnical engineering report presenting comments and recommendations regarding preparation of the lots for residential construction. Scope To accomplish the above purpose, you have authorized our firm to drill 3 test borings at the site, and furnish a geotechnical engineering report. Findinas organic peat swamp deposits and peat/silty sand fill mixtures extend to depths ranging from 6h' to 10' beneath the surface at the test locations. This is then underlain by interbedded layers of clayey sand, silty sands and sands with silt. Portions of the clayey sands are soft, based on the penetration resistance. Ground water was encountered within the bore holes as close as 3%' from the surface. Recommendations These recommendations are in condensed form for your convenience. It is important that you study our entire report for detailed recommendations. • To support residences on shallow spread footings, a significant amount of soil correction is needed. To properly perform this work, dewatering should be performed, followed by organic soil removal and filling to grade with a granular fill. • An alternative to dowatering would be to excavate organic soils with a baekhoo or dragline beneath the water level. The approach includes risks of future building movement, as observations are limited and poor soils can be trapped below or within the new fill. • Since soft clayey soils will still remain after excavation, we recommend filling the lots to final lawn and garage grade and allowing tl- Ljilding pad to remain at this grade for a period of two months prior to building construction. I3C-00 r I AET /90-785 - Page 2 • An alternative to spread footings vould be to support the structures on a deep foundation system of driven piling. Since borings were not extended deep for piling evaluation, additional exploration and analysis vould be.needed for this approach. /3b HOGLUND ADDITION ..... CT 3 2 I $ EJ h H . EShdrT 10p. 'V 13 12 II O 10 ? pVC 103 ' �s 100--_- 100' 100' v100 is s. S.D. u 16. / / - 100' 15 10 '00' 12 11 O 9 6 7 0 ADD. 11- W=LSC[• loo' 100' D � � 40' PERMANENT EASEMENT r.-.r-T-T-�-1--; r-T-1-7--�--r'1 �-�'-r-1-�--� r-T--r- T-� r" �-�--r-rte ! �� i 1 i i 1 10 9 i � 1 i �- 1 i �- 1 :(p7 i. 1 i / I 2 aid 518 11 21419,6 1 2 314 , 1 2 3,415;61 1,2 315�6 1 1 i 1 �� 1 J L i j 1 5 161 i ; 1 1 1 ' 1 I I 1 1 1 T -n r', 1 11s' \ 1 r 1 149' 1 1 1 i, 1 J 4 I l 1 1 J li i rl r f ,1r� r' �'-1 r ,-,1 1- IL 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 �� - 1 I � �.� L 1_i LJ_l �1 1 LJ� LL:1 1___! J LJ-.J LJ.J 1. J_.. LJ.� �•L� LS_1 WX11- 4 1 1 I 1\�' �-rrr, rr �l-n I'1'l-rrl•l `------- I123i456 11i2314i916I 112131415161 11127341561 111213 LQ-J 4,5161 / L lZf1_LLJ -LLLJ , � 1�LL1L1.lL 1J LL1 JJL _l / © O O ® C{© t O2 QO 1 I (� PROPOSED MACARLUND PLAZA 66, Too' -B* P. V. C. STUB INVERT ELN. AT MANHOLE 944 00 1 ANI �AR� INVERT ELEV, AT STUB END 944.2E _ C, • T- 4 LI94o•2 ,.t•1 eL w+.r� Au;...l r i _ r_ _ wsi fv�F+eue► td� r� ra'FIR AND fieC.PII1_ ar LAroult coMlrAucrloN WATQA MAIM IrN S I t E Nc YAWL MAMMoL.0 (MT ST&TrON 14R SCALE i ► i Ne{l� Uu1ssS s7etcahlt darn: AtE 30"Tre p r *,K 7'e' 1 "4 'o t I 12 4 x t2 2 P AiLtiA t.M f.aW C.lwata ✓>�l�Ek y � �t, V � r7i+ Pvt TSP — ' 9 r o' laic 12, rri J b D 18X 12" f� �'� Y 44 V Boarding tee paid by city Operating Expenses Animal contract, Supplies, etc.... Total expenses Sheet4 Projected Annual Costs Cost with city Cost city shelter Cost W/O shelter owned shelter W/ contracts & W/O contracts by city A contracted W/ PUPS SO- $ 4 $20,732.00 $31,482.00 $27,471.00 $31,482.00 $27,471.00 Revenue Impound charges $20,829.00 Administration Fee. 12 contracts at 550.00 y $8,800.00 Boarding increase $2,000.00 Total Revenue $29,429.00 Net cost to city $2.053.00 (800.00 Page 1 $23,890.30 $44,822.00 $800.00 S-0- $-0- $800.00 -0- $-4$800.00 $43,822.00 Sheet2 Monticello Animal Control Program IM MIS Total 0 Animals 401'(129) 410'(130) Expenditures $31,571.39 531,175.88 Revenues $20,855.00 $21,185.00 Net costs $10,718.39 $10,010.88 • (number of dogs for Monticello only) Page 1 11"0 Awraue 408'(123) 408'(127) $31,099.24 531,482.17 520,487.00 520,829.00 $11,232.00 $10,853.09 10 Sheet 1 Shelter for Monticello animals Phone Survey Results Inquiries were made to help determine our options for shatter and disposal fee's this is a summary of the findings. Facilities that said no. 4- Area Vets 1 -Humane Society 3-Prtvate Boarding Kennels Facilities that said yes Pups (Pets Under Police Supervision) Cost to City of Monticello to use PUPS for shatter (Monticello animals only) Boarding $12.00 per day X 7 days $84.00 Disposal fee $20.00 $20.00 Mileage cast .30 X 40 miles $12.00 sub total per animal $118.00 X 127 Animals per year $14,732.00 annual administration fee $8,000.00 total $20,732.00 Page 1 Ig6" 1CC CHELSEA;CAO /CNIICELLC PN 55362 612-295-2120 C MON710ELLC CITY CF 1517 FO 60X 1147 •ESTI►PT= MCNTICELLC PN 55362-1147 33298 -Cl 10:39pP 110P9 //ESTIrATE//ESTIRA TE//ESTIMATE //ESTIPATE//EST IM.ATE//EST IMATE//ESTIP ATE//ESTIMATE/ 11AFP97 CfARCE DAN HEPPINCER 11AAY97 C1/C --'t0'-4" -f'CAP--INSLLA7ING -SILL-SEALEF 2 2X4-16 %W TREATEC ALL HEATHER 2 2X4-12 WW TREATED ALL WEATHER ---4- 2X4 -12 -CONST -SPF---- 5 2X4-16 CONST SFF ISO 2X4-104 5/e" CCNST SPF - 2 -2X10 -IC- HEM/FIR- 2 2X10-14 NEN/fIP 4 2XIO-1E MEM/FIR -4----2X4-1f CCNS7-SFF - - 4X4-12 YW TREATEC ALL WEATHER 1 SET CF RCCF TRESSES AS PER FLAN 4 2X6-14 CONST SPF 4 2X6-16 CONST SFF 28 4X8 15/32 OSE - - 90 1/2 GALV PLYICCO CLIP 2 SHINGLE UNDEFLAY 4/SCR RCLL e1S 27 SEALDCN 25 ALTUPN 69CWN 12 STYLE 0 ROCF ECGE 1V WHY GALV 12 6"X10' WHITE STEEL FASCIA 10 F CHANNEL 12' WHITE 12 16"X12' CTR VENTED ►HT SCFFIT 1 1-1/2" WHITE STEEL NAILS 2 4C20 WHITE GARAGE SLIDER k --70715---6C.C- 299E 21.3 2994 1t.0 - - 34- 3E 53.3 31 9CC.0 -112 33.3 116 46.E 12C 12C.0 4C 48.0 3094 128.0 CC65C 1.0 6C 56.0 62 64.0 1C242 2E.0 1C8'_C5 9C.0 6073C 2.0 t040C 27.0 1C5C3C 1i.0 1CS275 Ii.0 10526C 1C.0 105e5C 12.0 1C5'_CC I.0 e2t23 2.0 CCNTINUEO CN NEXT PACE - C.12/L-FT- 7.2 M.00/HEFT 19.1 867.CC/MEFT 13.8 743.00/1'EFT-----i?:7 791.00/MeFT 42.1 745.00/MeFT 670.5 874.00/MeFT-- -i9.1 935.00/HEFT 43.6 951.00/MeFT 114.1 927.0[/MeF7 --- 44.5 869.00/HEFT 111.2 1142.00/EACH 1.142.[ 799.00/re FT - - 44.7 8ii.00/MeF7 52.6 E.06/PC ' 225.6 C.C779/E►CX 7.0 14.99/EACH 29.9 1:.99/BDL 35C.7 '_.79/EACH 45.4 7.49/EACH E9.E 6.99/EACH 69.9 16.99/EACH 2C3.9 t.44/BCX 6.4 7C.5C/EACH 141.0 /4f 10C CHELSEA ROAD MCNTICELLC NA 55362 dli-i95-212C - -MONTI CELLC CITY OF - --- 1917 FO EC Y 1147 +ESTIFATE MCNTICELLC PN 55361-1147 33298-01 10:39AP 11APFE9 //ESTIP.ATE//ESTIMATE//ESTIMATE//ESTIPAT E//ESTIRATE/ /ESTIMATE//ESTIPATE//ESTIMATE/ IIAPR97 CHAFGE DAN HEPM3NGER 11PAY97 C2/C I ua-1C"-2-TE1RVICE-CCCR--COE50 1:C-161:00'/E-AC1i 1t't.0 1 SCHLAGE F511 C98605 KEYD 91FAC 97Ci5 1.0 31.5[/EACH 31.5 1 SCHALGE 8T dM C5 S6LCYL 0/8 8XPC 96990 1.0 25.99/EACH i5.9 1`17061C�S15�E-A3`d-ETF'RiEE-CEDAR--- 616- -S-C 1841:OC/MSFT ---9.2 1 1X6-14 S1S2E 03 8 ETR RGH CEDAR 62C 7.0 1841.00/MSFT 12.E 24 1-1/412" 61EC FINE ERICK MLCG 2C549 24.0 C.92/LFT i2.0 ----2--1 1/i -1 -1/Z -AL P-DRIP'CAP 1C' --105CSC -2-G' -3 39/EACH-----6w.7 8 1X4-10 SIS 21 43 8 ETR PGM CEDAR 604 26.E 156t.00/MSFT 41.7 12 4X9 5/8 71-11 E" CC FGH FIR/SYF 'CC47 tE.0 39.65/EACH 713.7 MINN - — — C.00 4.353.55 0.00 C.00 C.00 295.98 4.849.5'. II1.00 — 1 2.00 1q G Council Agenda - 6/12197 1 15. Conigiderationnfreopeninadimmssion on sewer nccesF1 fee incresase A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting, the Council voted 3 to 2 to increase the sewer access fee from $1,500 to $3,000 effective June 1, 1997. As part of that decision, the Council indicated they would be accepting comments on the proposed fee increase over the next few weeks. The reason this information is being placed on the Council agenda for Monday night is because Councilmember Brian Stumpf has indicated to staff that he will be entering a motion to have the Council reopen discussion regarding the fee increase Monday night. Brian was one of the Councilmembers who voted for the $1,600 increase, and a motion would have to be made by one of the three Councilmembers voting in favor of the increase for the Cowicil to reconsider the previous action. t I• L%1 Because a previous decision has been made regarding an increase in the fees, before the item can be reopened for further discussion, a motion would have to be made by one of the three individuals who voted for the increase and be passed by a majority before reconsideration takes place. Assuming this may happen Monday night, I wanted to provide the Council with some additional information that may be useful in your discussion about the effects of a large sewer access fee increase. This information may help you to discuss the matter Monday night without waiting an additional two weeks to review the subject. Some of the comments stall' has received concerning the fee increase are naturally the amount of the increase and the timing of when it becomes effective. While I believe most developers and builders had expected the fee to keep increasing over the next number of years, comments from developers such as Tony Emmerich (IOein Farms) and Bob Murray (River Mill) feel the increase may substantially cut into the lot sales and housing starts in the near future. In reviewing the cost associated with the I4ein Farms development south of School Boulevard proposed for this year, the improvement costs have increased substantially over phases I and 11 and are approaching $18,000 to $20,000 per lot in improvement costs, including storm sewer charges without even figuring in land acquisition costs, administration and overhead, let alone any profit. The fact that a builder has to add another $1,600 to his cost when marketing a home may not seem to be extremely excessive when looking at the overall cost of a home, we need to be aware that other development costs aro rising also, and we do not know which straw will break the camel's back. 20 Council Agenda. 5/12/97 Now that the wastewater treatment plant is under construction, it's obvious we will need to have additional users on line to help pay for not only the operation cost but the debt service for its initial construction cost. If our hookup fees become too excessive or development costs reach a point where housing starts drop off'substantially, we've defeated our own goal of having new homes which provide additional market values, which help pay the taxes needed to support the debt. At this point, I don't think anyone has any firm facts or figures that ran show that our building permits will drop off because of the high sewer hookup fee, but we did prepare four models showing the impact of a sewer access fee increase under different sceneries for your review. The models only show projected revenue for 15 years and are simply meant to give you an idea of the impact under various options available. Model "A" simply shows the revenue that could be expected based on 120 housing starts per year with our present fee of $1,500. Model 'B" attempts to show the amount of revenue that could be generated at the proposed $3,000 fee if the number of housuig units drops in half for the next three years and gradually works its way up to the 120 units we have had in the past. At this point in time, nobody knows whether or not this will happen, but it's simply to show you what the aocumulative effect would be if it did happen. Model "C" shows the eifl'ect of gradually increasing the fee over the next three years by $500 per year until we reach $3,000. This model assumes a slight decrease over the next five years and then averaging 120 units per year thereafter. It's interesting to note between Models "C" and "B" that simply phasing in the increase over three years could generate more funds than the immediate doubling of the fee if the result of doubling the fee is that our housing units drop off'. Naturally if we do not experience any reduction in building permits because of our proposed $3,000 fee, Model "B" would generate more total revenue over 15 years than any of the other examples. If you look at the wastewater treatment plant expansion as a $20 million/ 20 -year project, them may certainly be merit to letting the public know that the access fee will be increased to $3,000 or whatover in the near future, but phasing in a fee and giving ample warning to the increases may be much more acceptable in the development community. I think we all recognize that we want to obtain as much revenue as possible from the now users, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if we make the fee too high and housing and businesses are discouraged from locating hem, we haven't accomplished anythimg, and the burden will still he on the taxpayers to pay for tho debt. While we recognize if we slowdown growth that the wastewater treatment plant will simply last longer than the projected 20 years, we can't unfortunately spread out the debt for the plant longer than the 20 years, so the existing property owners will still be responsible for meeting those obligations. These aro issues the Council will need to discuss if this item is reopened for consideration. Council Agenda - 5/12/97 ( ��: \I :til •► Council could leave the fee as proposed. The $1,500 increase could be phased -in in steps over a number of years. Establish some other form of increase. r STAFF RRrC)H FF.NDATION; While the staff is aware of a few developers who have indicated their concerns over such a large increase in a short period of time, we don't have a crystal ball to determine how high the fee can be without discouraging development. As you will recall from the original agenda item two weeks ago, the staff was concerned that any increase provide sufficient lead time to builders and developers so that they could build the increase into their cost. I think from a public relations standpoint, phasing -in the increase even over 2-3 years, which gives everybody plenty of advance notice of the pending increase, makes it easier for everyone to accept. While we may forego some revenue if we have a large increase in housing starts before the next increase would occur, it will have a very minor impact on the total revenue we would generate over the next 20 years, the life of the plant. If the Council is willing to reconsider their decision, I would recommend some type of phasing at $300 to $500 increments over the next few years to get up to that $3,000 amount. Thereafter, we could simply look at smaller percentage increases in the future to keep pace with inflation. This would show the City is attempting to work with builders and encourage development over the long run. Impact model for four options. 22 ' VEDRUS °"��°'""�`" CREEK CRAIF'TSMAN Council Members City of Monticello RE: Proposed Increase Sewer Activation Charges PC,O Gentlemen, As a builder in the wrrununity, and MCP chairperson I've been frequenting council meetings over the last three years with issues related to Prairie West Development and other topics of interest. Throughout this same period of lime the new sewer plant expansion has evolved. I've seen the setbacks, the pre construction overruns and the frustrations of the bard choices that you have had to make. In the spirit of long tenn conununity well-being and an effort of dispelling a preconception of nonfriendly government I would request that you review [lie terns of the motion in regards to SAC charge increases. I ahn probably one of the few people in my position, who as a result of what 1 have observed, can actually say that I understand the need for these increases, yet one must question the immediate implementation of a one hundred percent increase in fees. This current 0 proposal could constitute a virtual building moratorium in our community, a result conflictive with the inuninent expenses of the plant's expanded capacities. 'fie historical precedence here would reflect some form of phased increases to establish this new base standard. The proposal of a filleen hundred dollar increase in a thirty day time frarne fails to address the impact to various groups. • An overload directed at city staff building department as a result of applicants attempting to preempt the new fee • A burden at HRA in regards to projects that arc viable to our community and deserve more time for proper planning than this deadline allows. • The effects of multiple SAC Unit charges to our efforts at improving the downtown sector's commercial and hospitality viability. • A disregard for (lie financial well being of people and projects already scheduled and budgeted in the community. In conclusion, 1 would ask that the decision as to lime frame of the new SAC charge increases be revisited, in an effort to maintain a reasonable flow in the evolution of our community. C44, 4-0,t� t� FOUR MODELS SHOWING IMPACT OF SAC FEE INCREASE Model A Model B Current Fee - No Change Double Fee - Immediat, Year Fee Units/ Principal Year Fee Units/ Principal 120 Year Cumulative 1991 $1,01)() 11U $22U,000 Year Cumulative 1997 $1,5UU 120 $180,OOO 1997 $3,000 60 $180,000 1998 $1,500 120 $380,000 1998 $3,000 60 $360,000 1999 $1,500 120 $540,000 1999 $3,000 60 $540,000 2000 $1,500 120 $720,000 2000 $3,000 80 $780,000 2001 $1,500 120 $900,000 2001 $3,000 80 $1,020,000 2002 $1,500 120 $1,080,000 2002 $3,000 100 $1,320,000 2003 $1,500 120 $1,260,000 2003 $3,000 100 $1,820,000 2004 $1,500 120 $1,440,000 2004 $3,000 100 $1,920,000 2005 $1,500 120 $1,820,000 2005 $3,000 100 $2,220,000 2006 $1,500 120 $1,800,000 2008 $3,000 100 $2,520,000 2007 $1,500 120 $1,980,000 2007 $3,000 120 $2,880,000 2008 $1,500 120 $2,160,000 2008 $3,000 120 $3,240,000 2009 $1,500 120 $2,340,000 2009 $3,000 120 $3,600,000 2010 $1,500 120 $2,520,000 2010 $3,000 120 $3,960,000 2011 $1,500 120 $2,700,000 2011 $3,000 120 $4,320,000 2012 $1.500 120 $2.880.000 2012 $3000 120 $4,680,000 \°A Model C � $1,100,000 Double Fee - Over 3 yrs. ^ Year Fee Units/ Principal $1,780,000 120 Year Cumulative 1991 $1,01)() 11U $22U,000 ltiJ 1998 $2,500 110 $495,000 1 �! 1999 $2500 110 $770 000 1. i , _ k. -x2000 $3,000 2001 $3,000 2002 $3,000 2003 $3,000 2004 $3.000 2005$3.000 2006 $3,000 2007 $3,000 2008 $3,000 2009 $3,000 2010 $3,000 2011 $3,000 2012 $3,000 110 $1,100,000 110 $1,430,000 110 $1,780,000 120 $2,120,000 120 $2,480,000 120 $2,840,000 120 $3,200,000 120 $3,560.000 120 $3,920,000 120 $4,280,000 120 $4,840,000 120 $5,000,000 120 $5380,000 Model D Annual Increase of 6% Year Fee 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $1,5w $1,590 $1,885 $1,787 $1,894 $2,007 $2,128 $2,255 $2,391 $2,534 $2,886 $2,847 $3,018 $3,199 $3,391 $3.595 Units/ Principal Year Cumulative 120 $1w,000 120 $370,800 120 $573,048 120 $787,431 120 $1,014,877 120 $1,255,657 120 $1,510,891 120 $1,781,544 120 $2,068,437 120 $2,372,543 120 $2,694,896 120 $3,036,689 120 $3,398,785 120 $3,782,712 120 $4,189,675 120 $4,621,055 154 P• C M: FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO 01/30/91 11:19:56 Schedule of Bills OLOSOS-V01.30 COVERPAOE GL540R boort Selection: RUN GROUP... 00501 COMMENT... MAY I OISS BATCH DATA -JE -ID DATA MMINEENT D-0 5 01 1 9 9 7113 MAY 1 DIS&WAMEHT BATCH Run Itntrrsctkrts: JoW Berme Copia Fon Printer Hold Sm LPI Lines CPI J 02 SCHO N S 6 066 10 1C FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO 01/30/91 17:50:02 Schedule of B111e GL510R-V04.30 PAGE 1 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACM U11T CLAIM INVOICE P0N F/P 10 LINE A 16 T WIRELESS SERVICE RICK'S CELL PHONE 7.20 TELEPHONE 101.11301.3210 013 00030 JEFF'S CELL PHONE 25.69 TELEPHONE 101.11910.3210 013 00031 GARY'S CELL PHONE 25.52 TELEPHONE 101.12101.3210 013 00032 51.61 *VEMOOR TOTAL ARAN STORAGE RIV TERR FLOOD VICTIMS 210.00 TELEPHONE 101.12501.3210 013 00025 ARAMARK COFFEE 116.00 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.11910.2199 760639 013 00036 AUDIO COOUNICATIONS 312.55 RISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.13120.3199 013 00151 RADIO REPAIR IN SLO 162.65 REPAIR 6 MTC - BUILDINGS 101.13127.1010 013 00155 BUTTERY 117.11 EOUIPMEWI REPAIR PARTS 601./91/0.2210 013 00156 REPLACE BATT ON PORTABLE 125.60 TELEPHONE 101.12501.3210 10691 013 00027 639.45 *VENDOR TOTAL 4ELL60Y CORPORATION 113.90 RISC 09ERlTII1B SUPPLIES 609.19151.2199 011 00060 9.26 FREIGHT 609.19150.3330 013 00051 121.06 *VENDOR TOTAL BERNICK'S PEPSI COLA COM POP 151.00 RISC TAXABLE 609./9150.2510 59611 011 00160 BUSINESS RECORDS CORP GENERAL CHECKS PRINTED 565.07 PRINTED FORTIS 4 PAPER 101.41520.I030 1117621 013 00021 C J BROWN BUSINESS SERVI FEORUARY NEWSLETTER 111.73 NEWSLETTER 101.11301.3195 Oq 00011 CAMPBELL ABSTRACT COMPAN LOTS 1.21 SL 1. DIP 2ND 122.00 MIX OTHER EXPENSE 101.11101.1399 011 00106 CITY OF ELK RIVER CRLWILLING MATERIAL 5.696.61 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.11120.2199 97-120 01) 00961 CLARK FOOD SERVICE, INC. BLO PERMIT BAGS 11.45 MIX OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.12101.2190 V212712 013 00019 FORKS--CITY HALL 9.91 MIX OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.11610.2199 V212712 013 00010 GARB BAGS--FIRE DEPT 21.59 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.12201.2199 V232712 013 00011 101.03 *VENDOR TOTAL r' &HEINER DISTRIBUTING BEER 3.121.05 BEER 609.19160.2120 011 00019 216.00 MIX TAXABLE 609.19760.2610 013 00050 9,201.15 BEER 609.11160.2120 013 00161 51.11 MIX TAXABLE 103.19160.2610 013 00112 1,101.25 *VENDOR TOTAL r1C FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO 01/30/91 11:50:02 Schedule of Bills GL54CR-V01.30 PAGE 2 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE P06 F/P 10 LINE DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 542.55 BEER 609.19150.2520 043 00053 BEER 438.95 BEER 609.49150.2520 1311 043 00112 981.50 *VENDOR TOTAL DICK 11NOLESALE CO.. INC. BEER 1,381.65 BEER 609.49150.2520 013 00064 115.13 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 809.40154.2199 043 00065 1,551.38 * MDDR TOTAL OYNA SYSTEMS CAP SCREW SIN SHOOTER 35.31 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43121.2199 116611 043 00153 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PROOU CONCRETE --WP EXP 111.85 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 435.19201.4399 122960 043 00028 EMERGENCY APPARATUS RAIN UNITS 11162, II16/ 960.36 REPAIR 6 RTC - VEHICLES 101.42201.1050 043 00001 EKG. 11163 REPAIRS 2,959.63 REPAIR 6 NTC VEHICLES 101.42201.4050 10115 043 00139 �ENEROITEK CORPORATION 3,920.21 *VENDOR TOTAL 21.01 EOUIPPENT REPAIR PARTS 101.42201.2210 1113 043 00103 ENNIS CABINETS/JIM COMP DESK/TYPINS STAND 1,152.50 FURNITURE 6 FIIITURES 101.11910.5601 043 00003 FEEORITE CONTROLS, INC. 60.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.49110.1101 043 00129 CHEMICALS 2,922.03 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 601.49110.2160 043 00130 112.21 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 602.49190.2160 043 00131 1.891.31 *VENOOR TOTAL FLEXIBLE TOOL COMPANY CIMNERS.MOI2LE, LEADER N 310.11 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 602.19190.2210 .3111 043 00002 FLICKER'S T.V. 6 APPLIAN VCR TAPES 11.25 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.42401.2101 043 00045 FOSTER-FRANIEN-MLSOI A LIO. LIABILITY 921.00 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURA 609.49154.2610 16661 043 00038 GLASS HUT/THE RV KIRRDR--FIRE DEPT 22.00 REPAIR 6 NTC - VENICLES 101.42201.4050 I1.161 043 00031 ORAL EUIPNENT COMPANY CHAIR TRUCK AND CHAIRS 621.55 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.45201.2169 016 00151 GOVERN FINAMCE OFFICERS IKPL PERF MEASURE IN GOV 21,00 60m 6 PAMPHLETS 101.41101.4150 043 01142 tt FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO 01/30/97 17:50:02 Schedule of BMs GL510R-VO4.30 PAGE 3 VENDOR RAKE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOI I CLAIM INVOICE POS F/P ID LINE GRIGGS, COOPER 6 COMPANY MINE 731.21 NINE 609.19150.2530 013 00169 19.50 MISC TAXABLE 609.19750.2510 013 00170 LIOUOR 90.90 LIQUOR 609.19750.2510 37271 013 00016 81/.67 +VEM00R TOTAL GROSSLEIM BEVERAGE INC. BEER 7,099.10 BEER 609.19750.2520 013 00115 38.15 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.I540 013 00118 7,135.25 NENOOR TOTAL HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS TIME CARDS, LASERPERF 116.12 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.19751.2199 913 013 00111 HARRY'S AUTO SUPPLY 16.97 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.12201.2199 013 00132 15.12 EOUIPIIENT REPAIR PARTS 101.13120.2210 013 00113 108.05 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101./3120.2211 011 00111 25.53 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.13127.2199 013 O011s 23.11 9.91 SMALL TOOLS 6 EOUIPMENT NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.11127.2110 602.19110.2199 011 00136 011 00117 65.55 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 601.19110.2211 017 00131 326.19 $VENDOR TOTAL NOR ENGINEERING, INC. !MTP EXP—APPLICATION 1 219,300.00 PROF SRV - CONSTRUCTION 115.19201.3025 013 00110 HERMES/JERRY 1/15-1/30/91 227.50 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 211.15501.3110 013 00115 HONE JUICE JUICE MIXES 112.95 NISC NON TAXABLE 609.19150.2550 19380 013 00011 J M OIL COMPANY FUEL --STREETS DEPT 917.10 MOTOR FUELS 101.13120.2120 013 00010 11.93 MOTOR FUELS 101.12201.2120 013 00011 211.28 MOTOR FUELS 101.11120.2120 33380 013 00151 1.165.61 wVEMDOR TOTAL JIM MATCH SALES 00 1.016.67 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.11120.2199 1125 013 00152 JOINSON 9R09 WHOLESALE L NINE 2.276.91 NINE 609.11150.2530 013 00057 LIQUOR 2.311.11 LIQUOR 609.19160.2510 011 00058 FREIGHT 111.71 FREIGHT 600.19760.1130 013 02059 1,131.01 $VENDOR TOTAL KENNEDY 4 GRAVEN NNTP NOTE 3,137.11 PROF SRV - LEGAL FEES 136.11201.1010 013 05141 1C FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO V 01/30/97 17:50:02 Schedule of Bills GL56011-VO4.30 PAGE 1 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUXD 6 ACCOUNT CLAIN TWICE POII F/P 10 LINE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITI ANNUAL CONFERENCE -1997 245.00 CONFERENCE 6 SCHOOLS 101.41110.3320 043 00082 MARCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS, CONNECTOR FOR OFFICE DIV 10.65 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41301.4399 1614182 043 00042 DEVELOPER FOR SHARD 8800 185.31 OUPLICATIMG 6 COPY SUPPL 101.41301.2020 1614533 043 00033 PLAIN PAPER FAX --PN 953.18 FURNITURE 6 FIXTURES 101.43110.5601 1615133 043 00001 1,149.14 XVENDOR TOTAL MCD LEGION/CITY DONATION 100.00 CONTRIBUTIONS - PRIVATE 101.35230 043 00035 MICR0BIMMICS. INC. RESERVOIR 30.00 N1SC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601./91/0.3199 101955 043 00102 NINNEGASCO UTIL--CITY HALL 171.55 GAS 101.41910.3830 043 00108 UTIL--DEP REO 11.57 GAS 101.41990.3830 043 00109 UTIL—ANIMAL CONTROL 61.60 GAS 101.42701.3830 043 00110 UTIL--PARKS 11.39 GAS 101.45201.3130 043 00111 UTIL--MATER DEPT 210.80CR GAS 601.40110.8030 043 00112 UTIL--FIRE HALL 108.55 GAS 101.42201.3830 043 00113 UTIL—SHOP/GARAGE 1,522.27 GAS 101.43127.3030 043 4:111 UTIL--LIBRARY 124.37 GAS 211.16501.3830 043 00115 2.090.40 •VENDOR TOTAL ION DEPT OF REVENUE -1 N SALES TAX IST OTR 1997 0.11 OTHER NISC REVENUE 101.18209 043 00111 SALES TAX IST OTR 1997 11.81 SALES TAX PAYABLE 101.20610 043 00145 SALES TAX IST OTR 1991 991.05 SALES TAX PAYABLE 601.20810 043 00146 1,001.00 eVEBDOR TOTAL MN JAYCEES ADVERT18140,—L10 STORE 52.50 ADVERTISING 600.49754.1190 011 00013 ON POLLUTION CONTRDL AGE NPDEB ANNUAL FEE 1,140.00 LICENSES 6 PERMITS 602.69480.4370 041 00063 ON U.C. FUND UNEMPLOYMENT AMOS U. C. BENEFIT PAYMENTS 101.45201.1420 1175615 041 00150 MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTRO 1/15.1/30/97 ANIMAL 1,129.70 PROF SW - ANIMAL CTRL 0 101.42701.1120 011 00186 MONTICELLO TIMES r AOVERTISINO--LIO STORE 29.00 DUES. PENSERSHIP 6 SUBSC 609,10161.1110 011 00026 ` SN0NPl011I90 70.20 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORNATI 101.43110.1520 C41 00073 LECAL 4.176.10 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION 101.11601.1510 041 00011 PJILDII90 PERMITS 163.10 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORKATI 101.42401.3520 011 00016 TIF 1.12 PUBLIC HRGS 210.61 LEGAL NOTICE POBIICAIION 211.66522.1510 011 00076 PUBLIC HEARINGS 122.56 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION 101.41110.1510 043 00077 li 1C FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO �i 01/30/97 17:50:02 ScheEula of Bills GL5401140/.30 PAGE 5 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE P03 F/P ID LINE MONTICELLO TINES NATER FLUSHING 63.60 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORNATI 601.19110.3520 013 00078 391.00 GENERAL PUBLIC INFORNATI 101.11301.3520 013 00079 99.50 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION 101.11601.3510 013 00080 5,381.98 'VENDOR TOTAL MONTICELLO VACUUM CENTER VACUUM CLEANER 319.15 CLEANING SUPPLIES 609.19751.2110 16665 013 00069 NORTHERN STATES POWER C0 UTILITIES -MATER DEPT 292.11 ELECTRIC 601.19110.3810 013 00008 UTILITIES—SEWER COLI 1/8.25 ELECTRIC 602.19190.3810 013 00009 STREET LIGHTS 1,963.53 ELECTRIC 101.13160.3810 013 00010 UTILITIES --PARKS 361.91 ELECTRIC 101.15201.3810 013 00011 UTILITIES --CIVIL DEF 3.11 ELECTRIC 101.12501.3810 013 00012 UTILITIES -MATER DEPT 2,116.19 ELECTRIC 601.19110.3810 013 00013 UTILITIES—SEWER COLL 331.12 ELECTRIC 602.4114 90.3010 013 00011 STREET LIGHTS 725.10 ELECTRIC 101.13160.3810 013 00015 UTILITIES—DEP REG 69.01 ELECTRIC 101.11990.3810 013 00016 UTILITIES --PARKS UTILITIES --CIVIL IF 822.13 11.21 ELECTRIC ELECTRIC 101.15201.3110 101.12501.3110 Oq 011 00017 00011 UTILITIES—SHOP/OARAOE 688.81 ELECTRIC 101.13127.3110 013 00019 UTILITIES—FIRE DEPT 290.91 ELECTRIC 101.12201,3110 013 00020 UTILITIES—LIBRARY 132.19 ELECTRIC 211.16501.3110 OU 00021 UTILITIES --CITY HALL 639.16 ELECTRIC 101.11910.1810 013 00022 UTILITIES--UI000R STORE 832.11 ELECTRIC 609.19151.3810 013 00023 11,137.13 'VENDOR TOTAL ONE CALL CONCEPTS. INC. GOPHER STATE ONE CALLS 60.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.19110.3199 7030186 011 00072 PAUSTIS 6 SONS WINE 132.61 NINE 609.19160.2510 75535 013 00019 PHILLIPS WINE 6 SPIRITS WINE 2,171.22 WINE 801.19150.2630 013 00051 LIOUOR 12,969.12 LIOUOR 509.19150.2510 013 00055 FREIGHT 212.61 FREIGHT 609.19750.3310 011 00056 15,359.12 RVEMOOR TOTAL PREUSSE'S CLEANING SERVI CLEANING/CITY HALL 160.00 PROF SW - CUSTODIAL 101.11910.3110 011 00107 CLEAMINO/MOTOR VEHICLE 120.00 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 101.11990.1110 011 03188 CLEANINO/PUBLIC WORKS 150.00 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 101.13110.1110 011 00199 730.00 (VENDOR TOTAL CAOFESSIOM SERVICES GR WMWTP CONTRACT 1/07 36,241.12 PROF SP - PSG, INC 602.19110.1010 013 00181 SUNNI' FRESH TESTS 1,267.20 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 602.19110.3199 011 00111 31,616.02 'VENDOR TOTAL CIC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MORTICELLO 04/30/91 17:50:02 Schedule of Bills GL510R-VO4.30 PAGE 6 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOIAIT CLAIM INVOICE P03 F/P 10 LINE QUALITY NINE i SPIRITS C MINE 601.10 NINE 609.49750.2530 043 00066 LIQUOR 6,509.94 LIQUOR 609.49150.2510 04) 00067 7,111.04 IVENOOR TOTAL RELIABLE CORPORATION/THE CITY HALL OFFICE SUPP 134.17 RISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41301.2099 043 00004 19.62 RISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41520.2099 043 00005 DATA PROCESSING SUPP 125.64 RISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41120.2019 043 00006 110.43 'YENDOR TOTAL ROWS ICE COMPANY ICE FOR RESALE 391.10 RISC TAMABLE 609.49150.2540 043 00117 ICE FOR RESALE 15.50 RISC TAMABLE 609./1150.2540 213051 041 00068 473.40 'YEMDDR TOTAL ROYAL PRINTING A OFFICE COPY PAPER 42.60 PRINTED FORMS & PAPER 211.45501.2030 043 00159 CITY HALL SUPPLIES 571.13 RISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41101.2019 043 00150 'BO SUPPLIES DEP REG SUPPLIES 1.52 33.02 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.12401.2199 RISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41190.2019 043 00161 011 00162 39.12 RISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.43110.2099 013 00163 CALCULATOR 91.11 OTHER EQUIPMENT 101.11110.5101 041 00164 41.11 DUPLICATING A COPY SUPPL 101.41110.2020 Oq 00165 PENCILS 0.19 RISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.11115.2099 041 00166 COPY PAPER 42.60 PRINTED FORMS 6 PAPER 101.11115.2030 041 00167 JUNK AMES" FLYERS 221.56 RISC PRINTING 101.43110.1519 P1797 041 00029 1,121,11 'VENDOR TOTAL ST. CLOUD RESTAURANT SUP NIX 122.12 RISC TAMABLE 609.41150.2540 011 00190 NIM 51.15 RISC TAXABLE 609.41150.2540 111169 Ola 00113 111.91 'VEHOOR TOTAL STAR TRIBUNE CITY HALL SUBSCRIPTION 52.00 DUES, NERBERSHIP 1 SUBSC 101.41101.1130 011 00105 TOS TELECOM PARKS 109.01 TELEPHONE 101.41201.1210 041 00111 CITY HALL 171.16 TELEPHONE 101.41101.3210 041 00118 FIRE DEP1 51.19 TELEPHONE 101.42201.1210 041 00110 ANIMAL SHELTER 71.11 TELEPHONE 101.42101.3210 041 00120 111.71 TELEPHONE 601.41110.1210 041 00121 152.11 TELEPHONE 101.41110.1210 041 00122 60.00 TELEPHONE 101.42501.1210 011 00123 911LOING INSPECTIONS 132.14 TELEPHONE 101.41101.1210 011 calls 101.14 TELEPHONE 101.41190.1310 041 00125 61.19 TELEPHONE 101.41116.1210 041 O0126 CONPUIER 61.10 TELEPHONE 101,11920.3210 04100121 231.15 TELEPHONE 101.11164.1210 01100128 LIBRARY 1953 67.72 TELEPHONE 211,46501.3210 nO natal IC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO 01/30/97 17:50:02 Schedule of Bills GL5409-VO4.30 PAGE 7 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT MANE FUND 6 ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POS F/P 10 LINE TDS TELECOM 2.280.93 gVENDOR TOTAL TELEPROOUCTS CORPORATION 405.31 EOUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 602.49190.2210 13403 043 00104 THE MATSON CO.. INC. 735.96 MISC NON TAXABLE 609.49150.2550 043 00062 45.00 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.49754.2199 043 00063 CIGARETTES, CIGARS 60.65 RISC TAXABLE 609.49150.2540 187051 043 00118 CANDY, TOWELS, MIN'S 108.01 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.49754.2199 487051 043 00179 249.82 'VENDOR TOTAL THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMP BEER 17,382.35 BEER 609.49750.2520 043 00051 134.25 RISC TAXABLE 602. 49750.2540 043 00052 BEER-CORRECT INV 105002 1,247.35 BEER 609.49750. 2520 043 00173 INVOICE 1105001 110.95 MISC TAXABLE 609.49750.2540 043 00174 1 24,874.90 gVENDOR TOTAL (� S WEST DIRECT YELLOW PAGES 50.80 ADVERTISING 609.49764.3499 3095517000 043 00141 U.S. POSTMASTER PO BOX FOR CITY 35.00 POSTAGE 101. 41301.3220 013 00116 UNITED LABORATORIES TEM STRIKE, IYNE SCREEN 320.42 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.45201.2109 35090 043 00150 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR-TR LIO STORE TAXES 42.00 RISC OTHER EXPENSE 109.40761./199 043 00081 NOT BRIDGE PARK TAXES 42.00 RISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41230.4199 043 00035 ELDERLY PROPERTY TAXES 44.81 PROPERTY TAXES 313.16101.3710 041 00085 WNTP TAXES 381.96 PRDPERTY TAXES 602.19110.1110 011 00087 SCHANON RENTAL TAXES 1,460.91 PROPERTY TAXES 416.41201.1110 011 00081 KRAMER RENTAL TAXES 1,657.30 LAND 240. 49201.5101 011 00089 FIRE DEPT PROP TAXES 42.00 RISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.42201.1199 011 00000 NNTP TAXES 42.00 PROPERTY TAXES 02. 41410.3710 011 00011 CITY MALL TAXES 42.00 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43230.4199 043 00092 OLD FIRE HALL TAXES 42.00 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41210.4199 013 00093 LIBRARY' TAXES 42.00 NISC OTHER EXPENSE 101. 43230.4319 043 00014 FIRE HALL TAXES 42.00 WISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.11210.1399 041 00095 CHAMBER BLO TAXES 42.00 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.11230.4319 041 00016 SENIOR BLO TAXES 42.00 RISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43210.1119 011 00097 4TH BT PARK TAXES 42.00 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43210.1199 043 00098 ELLISON PARK TAXES 42.00 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43310.4199 011 00099 NEST BRIDGE PARK TAXES 42.00 RISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.41210.4399 011 00100 6TH STREET RON TAXES 3.14 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101. 43210.4399 041 00101 SHERIFF CONTRACT 4/97 28,956.00 PROF SW - LAM ENFORCENE 101.42101.1050 OU 00191 11.055.46 9YENOOR TOTAL X FINANCIAL SYSTEM 04/30/97 17:50:02 VENDOR NAITE DESCRIPTION WRIGHT-HEMNEPIM COOP ELE UTIL--80MANOM FARM Y.N.C.A. OF MINNEAPOLIS CONTRACT PYNT 4/91 ZED MANUFACTURING CONPAN A Sche&ls of Bills AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOUNT 1.79 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 436.49201.4399 625.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.45111.3199 260.00 MISC OPERATING SUDPLIES 101.43120.2199 CITY OF MONTICELLO GL510R-Y04.30 PAGE 6 CLAIM INVOICE PW F/P ID LINE 1 043 00107 043 00190 1 043 00149 C FINANCIAL SYSTEM a/30/91 11:50:02 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION REPORT TOTALS: Schedule of Bills AMOUNT ACCOINI7 UK RmD d ACCOUNT 119,059.30 RECORDS PRINTED - 000190 CITY OF MONTICELLO GLSAOR-V01.30 PAGE 9 CLAIM IMVOICE PO! F/P 10 LIME f1C FINANCIAL SYSTEM x//30/91 11:51:11 Schwuls of Bills FUND RECAP: FUND DESCRIP710N DISBURSEMENTS 101 GENERAL FUND 6!,691.75 211 LI8RM FUND 665.09 213 NRA FUND 305.31 240 CAPITAL PROJECT REVOLVING FO 1,657.39 436 93 -IAC WP EXPANSION PRJ 251,055.01 601 NATER FUND 7,395.92 602 SEWER FUND 41,064.73 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 75,004.12 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 449.059.30 BANK RECAP: RANK MAKE DISBURSEMENTS GENL GENERAL CHECKING 311,055.19 LIOR LIQUOR CHECKING 75,004.12 TOTAL ALL BANKS 449,059.30 THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYNEHT. DATE ............ APPROVED BY ................................. CITY OF XM710ELLO GL060S-VO4.30 RECAPPAGE GL5/0R Fm UX FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO ,5/07/97 12:00:37 Schedule of Bills GLOSOS-V01.30 CGVERPAGE GL540R Report Selection: RUN GROUP... 00508 CONVENT... NAT 8 CHECKS DATA -JE -10 DATA COROT D-09081997-017 MAY 6 CHECKS Run Instructions: Jobe Semer Caples Fore Printer Hold Spee LPI Lim CPI J 02 SCEO Y S 6 066 10 C. fIC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO ,5/07/97 12:00:44 Schedule of Bills GL54OR-VO4.30 PAGE I VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAE FUND i ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE POI F/P 10 LINE ALBERG NATER SERVICE LLC EMERG REPAIR -#ELL 4 7.528.61 IMDROVD6ENTS 265.49201.5301 IN29-10592 011 00034 ALBIRSOM, INC. CDRA PANELS 22.06 MISC OFF ICE SUPPLIES 101.43115.2099 515961 011 00020 AMERICAN PAGING OF MANE JOHN M 7105 -RICH 7152 28.31 TELEPAOME 601.494/0.3210 011 00066 MATT 7109 14.19 TELEPAOME 602.49490.3210 047 00061 PATTY 7982 96.59 TELEPHOM E 101.42701.3210 047 00068 JOHN S 7156 14.19 TELEPHON E 101.43110.3210 047 00069 GARY A 7158 32.21 TELEPHONE 101.42401.3210 047 00010 JON L 1738 14.19 TELEMMNI E 101.45201.3210 011 00011 TOM 8 7291 14.19 TELEMIINFE 101.43115.3210 011 00072 ROGER 1150 14.11 TELERM E 101.43120.3210 047 00013 228.16 $MOOR TOTAL AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO , (4) TRANSMITTERS 170.40 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43121.2199 11170 047 00112 RGER/BAAO MILEAGE REIMB-NRA 24.02 TRAVEL E7PBISE 213.46301.1310 011 00134 BERNICM'S PEPSI COLA CBI POP 101.05 MISC TAXABLE 609.19160.2540 16003 047 00111 CELLULAR 2000 OF ST CLOD TOM B 1111 10.07 TELEPNOM E 101.43115.3210 011 00113 FIRE DEPT 0631 4.11 TELEMIN E 101.42201.3210 047 00114 GARY A 1115 226.21 TELEPNONE 101.42401.3210 047 00115 MATT T 1112 11.61 TELEPHONE 601.49110.1210 011 01116 272.51 'VENDOR TOTAL CONSO1.10ATED COMM DIRECT CONTRACT 13019311 97." AOVERTIS 10 609.19754.1499 2517651 047 00016 COON RAPIDS CHRYSLER RUSTPROOF - 17 VAN 125.01 REPAIR 16 RIC - VEHICLES 101.42401.4050 011 00091 CULLIGAN 5/1 TO 5/30 RENTAL 21.61 RENTAL HU EXPENSES 210.19201.1111 047 MIT 0ANLNEIMEA DISTRIBUTIN0 BEER 6,101.00 BEER 601.49750.2520 011 00062 MISC 23.40 MISC TAXAM 600.41750.2540 011 O1153 BEER 101.21 BEER 601./0750.2520 "119 047 00110 61927.41 eVE1100R TOTAL DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 231.15 BEER 601.49750.2520 1197 047 00149 QC FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO 45/01/97 12:00:11 Schedule of Bills GL54OR-VO4.30 PAGE 2 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOUNT CLAIN INVOICE POB F/P ID LINE DICK WHOLESALE CO., INC. BEER 1,179.90 BEER 509.19750.2520 011 00054 NISC OP 153.90 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609./915/.2199 047 00055 BEER 674.00 BEER 609.49750.2520 011 00150 MISC OP 52.30 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.49754.2199 011 00151 2,070.10 •VENDOR TOTAL DUO CHEN INC. LIOUI GLOVES 11.93 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 501.49110.2199 16620 011 00094 LIQUI GLOVES 11.93 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 602.49490.2199 16820 011 00095 89.85 'VENDOR TOTAL EARL F ANDERSON i ASSOCI LINE STRIPER 3,993.75 OTHER EQUIPMENT 101.43120.5801 215 011 00140 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEM COLOR PRT, NUT FOAM BD 185.21 MISC PRINTING 436.49201.1599 179411,111528 011 00097 EXECUTRAIN ' 8 COUPONS - CLASSES 1.560.00 CONFERENCE 6 SCHOOLS 101.41020.3320 1012-911603 011 00082 ( `rED EX SCkWXER SNIPPING 15.27 POSTAGE 101.11301.3220 4-135-84252 011 00081 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, INC. T -POTABLE MATER 12.00 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.19110.3109 011 00032 CHORINE AN" 580.90 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 601.191/0.2210 12031-12119 041 00013 592.90 WENDDA TOTAL FERRELLOAS PROPANE 408.96 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.43120.2109 011 00031 FOSTEI-FRANIEN-CARLSOI A BOND -IN PO:ICI S5145387 50.00 MISC GENERAL INSURANCE -8 101.11101.1699 1111 011 00036 GENERAL RENTAL CENTER TRAILER 21.10 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 101.41115.4150 041 00101 PROPANE FILL 35.21 MISC OPERATIND SUPPLIES 101.41120.2199 011 00102 61.51 9VENDOR TOTAL GLASS NUT/THE FIX DOOR HINGES 90.90 NISC OPCRATIND SUPPLIES 600./0751.2190 97.525 011 00011 GLUNI/RAY LOT 185 AND 895 650.00 PROF SRV - EXCAVATION 651./9010.1115 011 00023 cAILD GROS. CHEV-0LD3. C '1/ CHEV TRUCA-K-30 111.02 REPAIR 6 MTC - VEHICLES 101.42201.4050 047 00001 X FINANCIAL SYSTEN CITY OF MONTICELLO 05/01/97 12:10:11 Schedule of BMs GL5400-V01.30 PAU 3 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT MANE RAID & ACCOUNT CLAIN INVOICE FOS F/P IO LINE GRI06S, COOPER 3 CONPANY LIOUOR 6,765.26 LIQUOR 601.19150.2510 017 00039 NINE 2.186.61 MINE 609.4 9150.2530 017 00010 BEER 20.10 BEER 601.4 9750.2520 017 00011 NISC TAX 3.998.13 NISC TAXABLE 509.4 9750.2540 011 00012 FREIGHT 257.00 FREIGHT 609.19750.3330 0/100013 13,527.11 VENDOR TOTAL GAOSSLEIN BEVERAGE INC. BEER 1,356.35 BEER 609.19150.2520 067 00056 NISC 72.30 NISC TAXABLE 609. 49750.2540 011 00057 1,128.65 •VENDOR TOTAL XAMCO DATA PRODUCTS THIN SPOOL 36.15 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 609.19151.2199 1365 017 00061 NERVES/JERRY LIB CLN ]NO 6/1 TO 5/15 227.50 PROF SRV - CUSTODIAL 211.15501.3110 011 00127 HOGLUND COO LINES LTD CAPRIL CCMIRACT - HE 5,301.86 PROF SYR - HEARTLAND 80 610.11101.3060 10021 017 00088 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFICE 150.65 MOTOR FUELS 101 .42201.2120 017 00090 NONE JUICE NIX 17.55 NISC NON TAXABLE 109.11750.2550 11932 011 00058 JOHNSON 6= IMLOLESALE L LIOUOR 1,760.17 LIQUOR 109.11750.2510 011 00063 NINE 221.11 NINE 609.19150.2510 011 00061 FREIGHT 23.25 FREIGHT 100.11760.1370 0/100065 MINE 1,601.20 MINE 109.11750.2510 011 00123 LIQUOR $59.10 LIQUOR 609.11750.2510 017 00121 FREIGHT 10.25 FREIGHT 609.11150.3310 011 00125 1,212.17 9WEADOR TOTAL HEN'S 66 SERVICE ALTERNATOR, WIPERS, 178.00 REPAIR 1 MTC - VEHICLES 101.12101.1050 1561 011 00030 KENTUCKY FRICO CHICKEN KEALS—JUNK AINIESTY 16.27 MISC OTHER EXPENSI 101.11230.1319 011 00021 LARSON's ACE HARDWARE COOLER/JUNK AMNESTY 10.17 DISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.11230.1119 061 00002 UTILITI'KNIFE 5.10 SMALL TOM 1 EQUIPMENT 101.11127.2110 011 00003 8160 Smy 19.52 0150 OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.11115.2119 017 00001 THERIIOKETER 5.31 SMALL TOOLS 6 EQUIPMENT 101.13115.2110 011 DODOS CAULK SILIC'OME 21.19 VISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 602.19110.2119 011 00006 CLARP HOSE. IATTERY 11.01 NISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 601,11410.2119 011 00007 PROPANECYL, RATTERY 121.29 MISC OPERATIIIO SUPPLIES 101.12201.2100 047 00009 IC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 05/07/97 12:00:11 Schedule of Bills VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND 6 ACCOUNT LARSON'S ACE NARONARE ROPE STARTER, TARP 25.63 REPAIR 6 MTC - NO 6 EO 101.12201.1016 BULBS, LAMP, TAPE 57.30 REPAIR 6 MTC - BUILDINGS 101.62201.6010 MISC 60.19 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.15201.2199 NOOK S, VINYL T8 6.35 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.15201.2210 RISC 19.51 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.13120.2199 ANIMAL SUPPLIES 35.63 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.12701.2199 RIVER TERRACE RELIEF 1.103.78 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.62501.2199 FILM 13.91 NEWSLETTER 101.11301.3195 CLEANING SUPPLIES 25.19 CLEANING SUPPLIES 211.15501.2110 1,693.65 eVEMDOR TOTAL KALCO PRODUCTS, INC REFUND 2-0022-00-00 13.29 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 601.11501 MARCO BUSINESS PRODUCTS, PANEL CONNECTORS 10.17 FURNITURE A FIXTURES 101.61910.5601 (2) TYPEWRITER CONTRACT 218.00 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.11960.3190 310.17 SMOOR TOTAL LIS FOODS RIVER TERRACE FLOOD 119.55 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.62501.2109 WWTP 15.13 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.13115.2090 BRECKENRIDGE-CLNRS,BKY 16.17 RISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.61301.1399 COFFEE. MATER 21.10 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.63110.2099 CLEANING SUPPLIES 12.95 CLEANING SUPPLIES 101.62101.2110 201.00 $VENDDR TOTAL MCKAY'S FAMILY DODGE 97 DODGE CARAVAN 17.121.00 MOTOR VEHICLES 101.62601.5501 NINNEOASCO LIQUOR STORE 11.61 GAS 609.10151.3130 MONTICELLO CHA IPIOW AUTO TOOL BOX A LINER 211.58 MOTOR VEHICLES 210.19201.5501 MUFFLER CLAPS 11.60 RISC REPAIR i NTC SUPPLI 101.11120.2299 215.01 eVE11DDR TOTAL MONTICELLO RV CENTER G14-3 LIGHTER 26.23 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.11201.2211 MONTICELLO/CITY OF S A M 10.16 MATER A SEIER 109.61151.3120 "TI OIGOTRIBUTINO CO. 601.16 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 101.15201.2211 NORTHERN STATES POWER 00 MATER 2,170.02 ELECTRIC 601.10110.1110 STREET LIGHTS 191.12 ELECTRIC 101.11160.1110 CLAIN INVOICE CITY OF MONTICELLO 6LSIOR-m.30 PAGE 1 P01 F/P 10 LINE 047 00009 . 067 00010 011 00011 011 00012 067 00013 011 00011 ai 00015 011 00015 067 00011 061 00089 1687166 011 00083 5/1/91-5/1/98 061 00113 047 00025 061 00026 011 00011 011 00021 067 00020 mm f 20SSS 041 00111 ai 00010 041 00131 041 ooua 047 00011 al 00126 011 00019 041 00103 047 00104 RC F INAXCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO x5/07/91 12:00:11 Schedule of Btlle G1.54011404.30 PAGE 5 VENDOR NOE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT MANE FUND it ACCOUNT CLAIM INVOICE PON F/P ID LINE NORTHERN STATES POWER 00 PARKS 217.10 ELECTRIC 101.45201.3810 0/100105 CIVIL DEFENSE 11.13 ELECTRIC 101.42501.3810 047 00105 SH0P/GIRAGE $69.02 ELECTRIC 101.43127.3110 0/100107 FIRE DEPT 265.65 ELECTRIC 101.42201.3810 047 00108 LIBRARY 435.11 ELECTRIC 211.45501.3810 047 00109 C l TY KALI 715.36 ELECTRIC 101.41940.3810 011 00110 LIQUOR STORE 871.82 ELECTRIC 609.49754.3910 047 00111 DAMAGED OVERHEAD ELEC 531.22 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 601.19110.3199 37060 OAT 00035 1,061.18 9VEMDDR TOTAL PATCH/FRED D(PERSE REIMB 110,16 TRAVEL EXPENSE 101.42401.3310 G/1 00146 PETERSO'S WONT FORD-NER NAME PLATE 1.03 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 602.69400.2211 12891 047 00111 NAME PLATE, PLATE AST 31.36 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 602.19190.2211 72892 011 OOHS 11.19 eVEl100R TOTAL PHILLIPS MINE 1 SPIRITS MINE 511.00 MINE 609.49750.2530 01100011 CRE0IT MINE 12. OKI MINE 609.49750.2530 011 00019 FREIGHT 12.75 FREIGHT 609.19750.3330 011 00050 L IM 71.53 LIM 609.19150.2510 O41 00051 LIQOR 500.71 LIQUOR 509.49750.2510 01100120 MINE 101.25 MINE 609.19160.2630 01100121 21.25 FREIGHT 609.19150.3330 011 00122 2.007.51 eVE110011 TOTAL PIMMACLE DISTRIBUTING RISC 19.90 RISC TAXABLE 109.49750.2540 963119 011 00110 FREIGHT 3.50 FREIGHT 109.19160.3130 963111 01100119 13.40 SVENDOR TOTAL PIONEER 1115.65 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.45201.2191 047 00019 PLUNKRY/TME 61.11 REPAIR 1 NIC - BUILDINGS 101.45201.4010 1 301 011 00099 QUALITY MINE A SPIRITS C MINE 911.61 MINE 109.49150.2530 011 00015 LIQUOR 151./1 LIQUOR 109.19150.2510 047 0-)45 CREDIT LIQUOR 10.1001 LIQUOR 609.49160.2610 011 00011 1,710.69 *VENDOR TOTAL CLIAILE CORPORATION/TME FaCERS,RA5KETS. ATX TRY 11.42 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.11101.2019 011 00665 ROLODEX 42) 55.11 MISC OFFICE SUMIES 101.41620.2091 011 00085 STAPLES/FILE POCKET 20.15 112 OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.41101.2091 047 00017 117.95 •VENDOR TOTAL Q1C FINANCIAL SYSTEM us/01/97 12:00:11 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION RHOIDA'S CATERINO FODD-FLOOD RELIEF ROYAL TIRE OF MONTICELL0 SIMONSON LUMBER COMPANY LATH SIMDSON/CYNTHIA APRIL 1991 SPECTRUM SUPPLY CO. ST.CLOUD FIRE EQUIPMENT, RECHARGE FIRE EMBERS EVE'S ELK RIVER NURSER 868 SURPLUS SERVICES ALUMINUM TANK THORPE DISTRIBUTING CAMP BEER RISC U S LINK BLDG DEPT 3060 DEP REO 2712 FIRE DEPT 1111 L10 STORE 5222 AN SMELTER 3801 PN -MINT 3170 CITY HALL 2711, 1101 U.S. POSTMASTER 2 RLLS STAMPS -P NORKB UNOCAL VE It 6 COKPARY RIVER TERRACE FLOOD Schedule of B1111 ANDUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND It ACCOUNT 70.29 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.12501.2199 70.36 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 101.15201.2210 22.78 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.13115.2199 eS1iI1•isi�9:�II%r�jh]�I11�I11�ITIIFIII; 71.63 CLOTHING SUPPLIES 101.13120.2111 268.30 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.11127.2199 365.93 4VENDDR TOTAL 200.11 RISC PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 101.13125.3199 219.57 IMPROVEMENTS 101.15201.5301 60.00 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 101.16201.2199 10.119.60 BEER 600.10160.2520 116.90 MISC TAXABLE 609.19150.2510 10,326.50 *VENDOR TOTAL 38.09 TELEPHONE 101.12101.3210 2.63 TELEPHONE 101.11990.1210 3.61 TELEPHONE 101.12201.3210 10.32 TELEPHONE 609.11751.1210 1.92 TELEPHONE 101.12701.1210 10.81 TELEPHONE 101.11110.3210 11.13 TELEPHONE 101.11101.1210 111.11 rA MOOR TOTAL 88.00 POSTACE 101.43110.1220 11.53 ROTOR FUELS 101.12201.2120 1.60.00 RISC PROFESGIOAL SERVIC 101.11501.1109 CITY OF MONTICELLO GL540R-V01.30 PAGE 6 CLAIN INVOICE PON F/P ID LINE 725531 011 00021 017 00100 396171 017 00112 011 00079 $6631, 57396 011 00135 56631, 57396 011 00136 100768 less 701110 1404 7L FINANCIAL SYSTEM CITY OF MONTICELLO ,5/01/97 12:00:11 Schedule of BMs GL540R-V01.30 PAGE 7 VENDOR MARE DESCRIPTION ANOIDIT ACCOUNT MANE FUND It ACCOUNT CLAIN TWICE POS F/P ID LINE VIIING COCA COIR 210.95 RISC TAXABLE 609.19150.2540 011 00062 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR•TR SHERIFF PATROL 5/97 26,956.00 PROF SRV - LAM ENFORCIENE 101.42101.1050 PATROL -5 047 00001 WRIGHT HENNEPIN SECURITY MOTOR VEHICLE 19.12 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 101.41990.3190 047 00011 2175 N RIVER ST 15.90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMIENTS 101.45201.3190 041 00071 35.10 XVEMDOR TOTAL NIIGHT-HENNEPIN CDOP ELE STREET LIGHTHILL40 10.00 ELECTRIC 101.41160.3910 047 00075 IC FINANCIAL SYSTEM aS/01/81 12:00:11 VENDOR MARE DESCRIPTION REPORT TOTALS: Seheduls of Bills AMOUVT ACCOUNT NAME HIND d ACCOUNT 121,180.18 RECORDS PRINTED - 000150 CITY OF MONTICELLO GL54OR-Y0/.30 PAGE 8 CLAIM INVOICE POI F/P 10 LINE (P TC FINANCIAL SYSTEM u5/01/97 12:01:43 Schedule of Bills FUND RECAP: FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS 101 GENERAL FUND 61,116.75 211 LIBRARY FUND 688.73 213 NRA FUND 24.92 240 CAPITAL PROJECT M%VIKG FD 285.44 265 NATER ACCESS FUND 7.528.88 436 93-14C NNTP EXPANSION PAJ 185.21 601 NATER FUND 41165.92 602 SEVER FUND 137.00 509 MUNICIPAL L1000R RIND 47,088.47 610 TRANSPORTATION FlMD 51308.86 651 RIVERSIDE CEMETERY 650.00 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 127,180.18 NN RECAP: BAIRN NAME DISSURSERENTS GENL GENERAL CHECKING 10,091.11 LIOR LIQUOR CHECKING 11,088.11 TOTAL ALL BANKS 127,180.11 THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT. DATE ............ APPROVED BY ................................. CITY OF MONTICELLO GL06OS-VO4.30 RECAPPAGE GLS40R 90 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: May 12, 1997 MARQUETTE BANK PURCHASE CONSIDERATION On Friday May 5, 1997 Rick Wolfstellar and Fred Patch met with Mr. Kevin Doty, Vice President and Mr. Scott Laugen, President for the North Region of Marquette Banks. Mr. Doty provided the City with a copy of an appraisal of the Marquette Bank property located at 106 Pine Street and prepared on January 30, 1997. The appraisal projects a market value at approximately S750,000, including Lots 1, 2, 3,13, 14 and IS of Block 53. The optimum timetable for the Bank to sell is sometime this summer. The Bank will consider a phased move and would prefer to have a teller located at the current facility for up to five years. The Bank is open to a lease back arrangement of approximately 1500 square fee at 58.00 to S 10.00 per square foot. The southwest entrance would serve their needs as there is a vault on the first Floor on the west side of the building. LAND: The property being considered is legalh• described as tots I, 2, 3, 13, 14, and 15 of Block 53, Original Plat. Site area is 48,867 square fact. The bank building is located on Lots 14 and 15 of Block 53. Parking is located on Loss I, 2, 3 and 13 of Block 53. Parking is sharod with the Monticello Tures Building at 116 River Strad Fast, and with the Monticello Theater at 137 East Broadway. PARKING: There are cvrkrnth• 92 parking stalls on the Marquette Bank property. Parking lot surfaces ore Capproximately 6 years old An oral agreement exists between the Bank and Monticello Than. There is no tcm and no parking or drive casement however, the Tines takes care of its own snowplowing on the portion of the parking lot it uses and shares in the east of hauling snow off the property at a rite of 10% of the annual cost. The Tikes also contributes 550.00 annually to sweeping of the parking W. An unsigned written parking lease agreement exists between the Bank and the Monticello Theater. The unsigned agreement is for a term starting on the date signed until April 30, 2000. The lease is non- raewable. granting parking rights on the bank property to the Theater between n the hours of 6:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m. for $500.00 per month. BUILDING: The floor areas of the Bank are approximately as follows: 7,712 square feet on the first floor. 3.604 square fad an the second floor, and 7.712 square fat in the basement. Total building square footage is approximately 19.028 square fat The property was partially renovated in 1993 at a cost of about $235,000. Rooftop air conditioning equipment was rep1wod over the past three years at a cost of about $38,000. New computer cabling wm recently kmW lad throughout the building and is ready to support networkexf C computer systertm for City Hall purposes. The roof is estimated to be 20 )vm old. Watcr service pipe was repaired +- 10 years ago. The boiler has just boon serviced or refuted. Sale terms currently being considered by the Bank are: South Parking Lot Gifted (for tax benefit) East Parking Lot Gifted (for tax benefit) Bank Lot and Building 5750,000 Furnishings may be negotiated into the purchase. Marquette has a "warehouse full" of furnishings and may be a willing seller of the furnishings. It was expressed to Marquette Bank that the City desires to retain Marquette Bank as a business within the City and that a significant loss of tax base is to be avoided. (For 1996, Marquette Bank paid $37,772.16 in real estate taxes.) Mr. Doty and Mr. Laugen explained that Marquette Bank intends to build new banking facilities in the City. They also stressed the importance of their bank to respond to changes in the Banking industry. Personalized customer service, easy access to Banking services and addressing the needs of electronic/ technological changes are paramount. The Bank was clearly not interested in having another bank acquire the building. A condition survey and Phase 1 environmental audit of the building are highly recommended. The City asked if the Bank would be willing to provide a Phase 1 environmental audit to the City prior to sale. It was agreed that the Bank would be willing to pay forand provide a Phase I environmental audit as well as abate any fiiable asbestos from the prior to We to the City. U Plans for the Marquette Bank are now in the possess -ion of the City. The copies provided by Marquette Bank are not entirely legible. Patch, Erickson & Madsen Architects, the architectural firm that originally prepared the plan for the building is willing to provide the original hand drawn design documents to the City. A apace needs study for the City may be necessary to determine how spaces within the Marquette Bank building would be utilized and how many square feet would be available to lease to tenants. Monticello City Hall including all areas under the root Is approximately 6100 square feet in rota. CONTINUED SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS MUST CONSIDER: Cost estimates for existing City Hall expansion and refitting. 11. City Hall relocation considerations: ToMarryoomBank Wbattodowith ezbt teirypropanylprapt Pa atbh m1twatloe of Seat► Center to City Hoo MotmVdkldD@Wy Registrar rebrdlon to City Hall National Guard Tnb ft Center Aaaebd or detsebed hrMy 111. Comprehensive Plan and MCP Downtown Redevelopment Plan efeets 7 COUNCIL UPDATE May 6, 1997 Monticello rnunta rJuh Phihhnnse tiSpansinn m abl (B.W.) The Country Club is currently in the final stages of preparing plans for a future clubhouse project that will be again reviewed by their members in early May. In discussing their plans with Mr. Dan Frie, he noted that if approved by the membership, a project of this magnitude would be constructed during the off-season and could likely start as early as this fall. He indicated that financing has been arranged with a local lender and all that would remain if the membership approved the plana would be some type of assurance that a liquor license would be available when the project was completed. As it now stands, the Country Club would prefer to know as soon as possible whether a liquor license would be available for them, but in any case they would not start a project without knowing. The earliest they would likely start would be late fall or early 1998, so it does give the City some leeway in holding a referendum. If for some reason the Country Club would decide to delay their construction until after the golf season next year, there may not be a need to do a referendum until the regular general election next fall. According to Mr. Frie, he felt they would prefer to know this year whether it's feasible or not. Generally speaking, the only action needed by the City to proceed with a referendum is deciding what the actual question will be and by adopting a motion to have the special election. After a 45 -day notification to the County Auditor, the election can be held. As far as the cost is concerned, I estimate the cost of the election at approximately $1,000 or less; and at this time the Country Club has not indicated whether they would be willing to pay all or a portion of this cost for the election. CTRYCWa.UM: S"7 r COUNCEL UPDATE May 6, 1897 ( R.W. ) At the previous Council meeting, Mayor Fair had noted that members of the Wright County Mayors Association supported the idea of Wright County cities pledging some of their state snowplowing disaster reimbursement funds to help flood - stricken cities in western Minnesota. Questions were raised as to whether the City had legal authority to donate funds for this purpose and whether it was considered a legal city expenditure. In checking with the legal department at the League of Minnesota Cities, it was their opinion that cities contributing equipment, manpower, or funds to help other cities in this natural disaster would be considered legal expenditures of public funds. League personnel also noted that the League is currently setting up a flood recovery fund which cities can donate to, and it will be distributed to communities in Minnesota needing assistance. Although the City has not yet actually received any snow removal assistance funding, it is anticipated that through the federal government, the City will receive approximately $13,000 in assistance to cover our costs for the excessive snow removal cost of January 1997. In addition, it's possible that state funding for an additional $2,600 may be forthcoming if approved by the state legislature. In other words, the City has not yet received any funds, but it does appear that we can donate or pledge a portion of the reimbursements toward flood relief assistance or simply donate an amount from other sources of City revenues that we choose. A donation is considered a legal expenditure and would simply take a motion from the Council to do so. FLOODDOW.UPo: M? COUNCIL UPDATE May 7, 1897 Police CnrnrniAFtinn review of 4 -way Atop sign- School Roulpysird and F lion Av n (R.W.) In the near future, the City Council will likely be requested to consider again the installation of a 4 -way stop sign at School Boulevard and Fallon Avenue next to Little Mountain Elementary School. Attached is a copy of the memo recently sent to Police Commission members, which indicates that the commission will likely have further discussions on the traffic patterns that are occurring along School Boulevard, and the possibility exists that the Council will be looking at a request for additional signage in this rapidly -developing area. Some of you may have been contacted by citizens regarding School Boulevard traffic, and I just wanted to let you know that the Police Commission has and will be continuing to discuss and review the situation for determining an appropriate recommendation for the Council to consider. atoosir,N uvo• en97 Office of the City Administrator 250 East Broadumv Monticello. MN 55362.9245 Phom (612) 295.2711 MEMO Meero: (612) 333.5739 TO: Police Commission members FROM: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator V / DATE: May 7, 1997 RE: Police Commission's recent recommendation for a 4 -way stop at School Boulevard and Fallon Avenue. At our recent meeting, a majority of the commission members had requested that the City Council again be approached with the request for the installation of a 4 -way stop sign at School Boulevard and Fallon Avenue. It was noted that the City Council in January of 1998 had been requested to consider the 4 -way stop in addition to lowering the speed limit by the school. Because of the recent letter from Superintendent Shelly Johnson and with the increasing housing development that was occurring in the area, you indicated a safe crossing location should be available for children to access the school properties. It was originally intended to place this request on the Nlay 12 Council agenda, which I had begun to prepare. During a staff meeting, it came to my attention that additional in formation the Police Commission members were not owure of may be beneficial before proceeding to the Council with this request. As part of the 14ein Farms development proposed for south of School Boulevard, pedestrian traffic linking the housing developments to the schools has been considered, and a sidewalk will be installed along the south side of School Boulevard in an east/west direction to funnel traffic to Fallon Avenue. At this point, pedestrians would cross Fallon Avenue to the east, where it is proposed to relocate the existing crosswalk to a location approximately half -way between its existing crossing and School Boulevard to provide a more direct route to the School. If the sidewalk as proposed is developed and the crosswalk is relocated west from its present crossing of School Boulevard, the installation of a stop sign on School Boulevard may be inappropriate at this time. Memo Police Commission Members May 7, 1997 Page 2 I know the commission members were concerned about the safety of children in the area, and that was one of the prime reasons why I believe you wanted the Council to consider a 4 -way stop sign. Had you been aware of the proposed sidewalk and relocation of the crosswalk to better access the elementary school, I wasn't sure whether this would have had an influence on your request at this time. Rather than giving this information to the City Council without the Police Commission being able to discuss it first, I chose to remove the item from the May 12 agenda and suggest that the Police Commission again discuss this topic at our next meeting. With the HIein Farms development just beginning south of School Boulevard, I believe there's sufficient time for the Police Commission to re-evaluate the sidewalk, pathway, and pedestrian movements that are being proposed in this area before hastily making a request to the City Council without adequate study. Should you have any questions on this memo, please give me a call. cc: Nena Barker R. /NE w A L R !. o r ICN • �" `• ~I - fel; � - ' r� ` --IL`, � L• r �•. _- - _ r` I lk I I• I Formr 3rd Addl6em_ Suesu, IhlUlim andAinwru"al Work I••�•: o---�:..r Woe%S'WmaU P+t\nyr. rd Slmm S"rr rmmmclloo I Fqm thwtw Mont icello�Minn m. to 3 i . s .., WE � I = DUNDAS ROAD I I I I I '.TEAO on VE, vw%.& L.WWUWn i exr� doss �t o '� -j S[HOOL RLuh Opening remarks from City and Township What are the needs of the City? What is the council's vision for the City? 3 , What are the projected population increases of the City? What should the criteria be for expanding the urban services line? S . Has this criteria been met? Develop a procedure for changing the urban services line when appropriate. 1 Other discussion items: Adjourn by 9:30 PM C1 OPENING STATEMENT The purpose of this meeting tonight is to review the urban service areas within the orderly annexation area as a whole. The need to do this arises out of requests from two township land owners who wish to have their land included in the boundaries of the urban service area on the southeast border of the city so they can proceed with annexation. The original urban service area boundaries were established 7 years ago and were meant to reflect the planning goals of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Land Use Guide Plan that was updated in 1989 from its original form which was established in 1977. The areas defined as urban service areas were established in the OAA based on where the city boundaries were in 1989 and where urban services were at that time. A joint resolution between the Township and City was entered into agreeing to that urbanization plan. This resolution specified conditions land must meet in order to be annexed. CDuring the past 7 years, significant portions of these urban service areae have developed, and city services have been extended and oversized to accommodate JOINTMrosn+: &2047 Page t further growth. Now other parcels adjacent to the city limits meet the criteria for finclusion in an urban service area, and it's time to adjust these boundaries to C, include those parcels. At the present time, we have two land owners who meet the criteria of an urban service area asking to be included. It can be expected that others will also be making similar requests because their land is now adjacent to the city and we are capable of providing urban utilities. If adjustments are not made, I believe we will be jeopardizing the goals of the Orderly Annexation Area Land Use Guide Plan. The Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Land Use Guide Plan is still valid today, and I would like to briefly review sections of the development guide area of that land use guide plan as it pertains to the MOAA as a whole and urban service areas in particular. I have prepared copies for each of you of this section, and I would like each of you to look at the 8 planning goals stated. They are: (READ 8). Then on the next page the map addressing the urban service area is referred to, and the plan says, (READ LAST SENTENCE BEFORE URBAN SERVICE AREA). The plan then describes what an urban service area should look like (READ EXCERPTS). Jawrvro snr: SMr Pap 2 I would also like to emphasize that the guide plan is identified as a guide; and if the plan is a guide, so should the corresponding maps that define the urban service areas be guides and, as such, should be amended as growth influences an area. Growth is what generates this need to expand urban service areas and what makes the current requests to amend the urban service areas and orderly annexation area boundaries appropriate. To illustrate this, I have listed several supporting reasons to amend the southeast urban service area, and several maps have been prepared to illustrate this growth, which I would like the Township to review. The first point on my list of reasons for amendment is: (GO THROUGH 20 POINTS WITH ADDITIONAL COMMENTS). Growth has generated the need to amend these boundaries and won't go away just because of some lines on a map. Growth will just occur in another form, which may not be compatible with the area's land use guide plan. I would also like the Township and Council to look at the presented maps which illustrate the annexation history of Monticello and the growth from 1989 to 1997. In addition, there is a map of the City's comprehensive sanitary sewer plan that illustrates our present and proposed systems. What is noteworthy on that map Cis the sewer capacity that is available in acres or that can serve a complete area. U JMTMT0,STU, 62697 Page 3 the Township wishes to look at modification of the urban service areae as a whole, our current ability to serve areas should be the starting point for those modifications. It clearly illustrates we can serve the two parcels that are currently requesting urban services and annexation. In conclusion, I wish to thank the Township for allowing me to present our case for amendments to the uuyban service areas, and I hope we can come to an immediate agreement on the two parcels before us, as well as begin the process of making other changes. .ONTUM erw: etogr p&P4 N SUPPORTING REASONS TO AMEND URBAN SERVICE AREA IN THE SOUTHEAST AND ALLOW LAND OWNERS TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION 1. Township land owners are making this request for boundary amendments to the urban service area and are requesting annexation. 2. City sewer lines are at the edge of these properties. 3. A sewer line capacity study has been done by the City, which indicates there is capacity in the sewer lines to service these properties. 4. The proposed development for this land is for upscale housing. This is compatible with the City's comprehensive plan. b. The urban service area boundaries were established in 1990, and this is the first request to amend them in 7 years. 6. The original urban service boundaries were established based on certain assumptions made at that time and the location of city services at that time. City services have expanded over the past 7 years, and some of the assumptions about the urban service area have been correct and some haven't. 7. The orderly annexation area boundaries were established 28 years ago, and the outer limits of those boundaries have not changed in all that time. URBSERVQ PTs, SIM Pape 1 r 8. Land owners and the marketplace dictate growth more than artificial boundaries. 9. If these requests for boundary adjustments and annexation are rejected, the land owners can seek other options. They have made decisions to change the use of their land. If their petitions are rejected by the City and Township, these land owners can pursue development for 6 -acre scattered homesteads. This would be poor land use when city services are available. 10. A large investment has been made in the infrastructure for this community by the City, School District, and Hospital District to accommodate growth. These proposed developments were known about and factored in when these investments were proposed and approved. 11. The City already has the infrastructure in place in the southeast sector of the city that would serve these proposed developments, and not using it to its capacity makes it an extra cost burden on city taxpayers instead of an investment to accommodate future growth. 12. The City's comprehensive plan does not exclude development to the southeast. In fact, it recommends using city sewer lines to their capacity. 13. The City's comprehensive plan calls for encouraging development to the southwest; but as yet, little interest has been shown by land owners or developers to build in the southwest urban service arca. 14. Development to the southwest will be more expensive initially until the City's infrastructure is built there. Building that infrastructure should only Coccur as development requires it. URBSERv0 PTS. BPI"? Pop 2 C! 15. Retail businesses in Monticello rely on a local customer base to survive. Rejecting this type of growth jeopardizes Monticello's commercial businesses. 16. The upscale housing proposed for these land parcels should reduce pressure on the Township for 5 -acre homesteads on agricultural land because such housing is not available in the city. 17. A growing tax base in the city allows the City to maintain and expand services township residents also use; i.e., parks and recreation, senior citizen center, library, fire protection, pathways, street improvements. 18. A growing population and tax base will also retain essential medical services in this area. These doctors and clinics serve township residents also. 19. The School taxing district encompasses the township also; and if planned -for growth is rejected, then all taxpayers in the School District will have to absorb more of the cost associated with the District's building expansions. 20. As an added benefit to the Township, the development of the Hermes' property will direct storm water away from Ditch 33, which has been a source of ongoing problems for the Township. Each of the above points offers valid masons as to why the requests to amend the urban service area boundaries to include these properties is reasonable and why annexation should be allowed to occur. The Township Supervisors have an obligation to represent their constituent's interests just as the City Council must represent the city's interests. The most significant question I could ask the Township is: What harm does the Township suffer from these requests to amend the urban service area boundaries and petitions for annexation? URNEFvc,vro. e,1&97 Pop III. Development Guide As discussed in the introduction, the goals and policies adopted within the 1977 Lard ggg Guide 2_1= for the M.O.A. area are still relevant today. The Planning Goals within that document are important enough to be worth repeating herein. Minor changes in the goals regarding annexation are included to reflect current policy. Planning Goals 1. To protect agricultural land from encroachment by noncompatible land uses. 2. To guide urban development into those areas that can be provided withSrm urban services. 3. To discourage scattered urban development in rural areas. 4. To protect significant environmentally sensitive areas. l 5. To encourage annexation of land contiguous to the City of Monticello which is within the "urban service area", about to become urban in character and the property owner desires to develop and urbanize his land where public services can be provided. S. To discourage property speculation which is contrary to the official plan adopted by the OAA Board. 7. To maintain or improve the Quality of life of all citizens of the Orderly Annexation Area. 8. To encourage public participation in the planning process. C In light of the Municipal Board ruling of May 17, 1988 (Appendix A), the M.O.A. Board believes it is necessary to review the LAa ILM Guide rW adopted in 1977. Of primary 14 concern in this "Update" is the clarification of development p policy. Changes in the city borders and land use since 1977 l� dictate a fresh look at the area, although the goals and policies remain essentially unchanged. The "Short Range Plan- (Figure 14) in the 1977 plan has been attained, and annexation and development have proceeded into areas designated as "Agriculture" in that plan. In order to maintain and promote the goals and policies which the M.O.A. Board has adopted, the attached map, entitled "Development Guide Plan - 1989" is adopted. The Development Guide Plan map divides the M.O.A.A. into three major sectors: 1) urban service, 2) existing plats/developed, and 3) agricultural. A description of these areas, along with the policies which the M.O.A. Board adopts to guide decisions concerning these areas, follows. The map has been proposed after thorough review by the Township, the City and the M.O.A. Board. Perhaps the moat important considerations in the development of this map, and this -/ entire "Update", is to make the most efficient use of the (� very large public investment made in the city utility systems. i Urban Service Area These areas include those which are adjacent to, and in most cases partially surrounded by, the City limits and to which urban services can be practically and affordably provided in the foreseeable future. Urban services generally D'C means municipal sewer and water facilities, and these areas 1S are without maj or natural or man-made impediments to the provision of such services. The ability of the city to provide other urban services, such as rapid fire protection, playgrounds, etc . may also enter into specific decisions in the future. Thes e'areas are undeveloped or underdeveloped in comparison to urban lands in the City, and the City has indicated it is capable of providing the necessary services these areas in the future. uj,`!' Atp , The Policy of the H.O.A. Hoard shall be to encourage new development to occur in these urban service areas first, before allowing growth to expand into other areas. Ideally, B3 such new development will occur as a natural progression outward from existing City limits, with the provision of urban services. When proposals are made which cannot be practically provided with urban services nor annexed in the l short term, but the H.O.A. Board finds that the proposal is otherwise reasonable and complies with adopted goals and policies, approval Qipy be in order. However, the design of any such development proposal must specifically provide for the efficient and economical p ovision of urban services in the future. Due to the high costs and practical and social difficulties associated with annexation and retro -active service provision in developed areas, such proposals may be denied by the K .O.A. Board for the purpose of delaying devolopment until urban services are available. In general, it is the policy of the H.O.A. Board that urban and suburban type development should occur with the provision of urban services. 16 In order to clarify the annexation process, Which Cgenerally determines the provision of urban services, and to prevent the type of conflict between the City and Township which has often accompanied annexation proposals in the past, the City and Township are developing a joint agreement concurrent with the development of this Plan. This. 4greement will spell out guidelines under which the City and Township mutually agree annexation and development should take place', and will serve as a more specific working guide to help implement the goals and policies of this Plan. The M.O.A. Board will serve as a facilitator for the development and implementation of this agreement, with the sincere hope that it will clarify the process for all parties, and particularily for developers with practical proposals who have sometimes been caught between conflicting City and Township concerns in the past. Existing Plats/Develooed Arena This area is self-explanatory; it includes those existing residential plats outside the City limits. Most of these plata include relatively large lot siaea, and at this time there are no known widespread water supply or sewage treatment problems. Barring critical problems with these systems or some other emergency, it is not likely that these areas will need to be annoxod in the near future. Little change is expected in these areas, and annexation will depend Con future growth of the City out to these areas or specific requests for annexation. 17 CffY COUNCIL GOVERNWG POLICIES: L Enda Policies— Vision: The Monticello City Council is an elected body rep menting the cithens, businesses and other taxpayers within the City of Monticello. As such it is the intent of the Council to provide representative leadership to the community and direct the resources* of the City toward achievement of an intended vision. RESOURCES Dbwt rnmrco of me Cay monde bat am eae hmbd too b.adps hM msbinm WMnip, pabk aab, ua3da mod oma o p W . todbvd roomeea of dm Cay metude M -, bn-. city CLo. IDC. MCP. Chamber of Cana. Rotmy, em.� atlloted pvanmeoml aV=in (te. Wd& Courcy, Mmbcdoo School Dimick ECFE, Hmd Spm WIC, cm.� THE VISION: The Vision/Strategic Statements must define the following aspects — Intended Results Intended Recipienu Intended Costa Boards and Commissions serve in an advisory role to the City Council, assisting the Council to make decisions and focus on the details required to accomplish the Vision. The EDA It HRA also act as independent politiW subdivisions working in partnership with the City Council to achieve tiro rhared and intended vision. II. Administrative Authority Polities — Boundaries & Limitations for the City Administrator. General Respowibllltles — I. To achieve the Vision the City Council authorizes the City Administrator to manage the dir=t resources of the City. 2. The City Administrator is responsible for the effective and cfficiem use of City resources provided by the City Council. and for the dnelopment and maintrnaoue of prodo cave linkages to resources available to the City from outside agencies. 3. The City Administrator must uphold the ordinances and policies of the City of Moatioello. 4. The City Administrator must be intolerant of aubw•fm acu committed by City employees. BvdVVFiduelary AePomIDiBtles — I. The City Admioisn am mast uphold the fiduciary responsibilities of the City. 2. The City administrator is authorized sok authority to manage and d roaked rect mooetary resources within the aanual budget approved by the City Council The City Administrator most gam approval from City Council to vary from rho approved budget by any amount in csccss of $2300.00. 3. The City Administrator must mala or cause to be mado sound mves>mmu of municipal funds. / 1 4. Tbo City Administrator shall not pont waste of City assets and resources. Personnel — 1. The City AdmmWraw mint in all respects set in compliance with all federal. sum or load laws as related to tho management of peraoancl rowtuces. 2. Prior to mating changes to the organizational strtcnuo of tho City staff, the City Administrator most obtain tho approval of thc City Council. 3. Tho City Adm3nistruor shill be permitted to m&Tcad=tly make changes m job descriptions. cmnpematm toms of eompmutm and carry ism disciplinary action with tho csccptiw of job termination. li fcctive and ci ideal ase and mawgcmcm of pe samcl raomca shall bo ar do sok discretim of the City Administrator. 4. Though the City Admusistramr may advim this tmminatian of any City cmployvo thall be u provided by Minnesota Iww at the sok discretion of tbo City Council. S. The City Administrator moat attempt to scum qualified staff. and wim to maintain good employed moralo and open cammumca'ion•. Staff moo be acamd with respect. amdastandmg and ";oven. 6. The City Administrator moo metro that cmploytaa aro ptovidod focdback on and as am able to clearly defined perfbrmamo criteria. 7. Staff mast be provided oppor mitis for training and persomal devckV mens directed to the proposes of the City or as related to job perfoemmce. B. The City Administrator must not allow for alienation of staff hon City Co=,L An emvooment of trust and candor mast exist to support open aarturmmicatim betwcm staff and the Council. HL City Council ftrafignal Policies: General Betponam8ltka — L The city Council most annually affirm a Community Vision for the city of dello. Thu evolving V inion maw be the fomdatim for strategic planing and dwWou mahin8. It must describe the aathetic/mvuwmrnuL social, ah wal, spiritual recreational and «comic yoaGtim of the City. 2. In the exercise of the privilege and rights of their elected potions, City Council members will uphold the Constitution of the united States and the Onion dthe State of Minnows. Each Council Member mita as within the law, pnfe:amally represent the City. and d®ink oeithv public cmfidesoe nor perswal in evity. 3. Ile City Council is mspmsible for oensmiog udawfW and &crimmataey, acts by any one of its members. 4. Tho City Council must represent me Community Vision andrho mterew of the City before / dew of other governmental agmcim S. City Council moetinp aro to be conducted in an orderly roan. The City Council must inure that each member OftbOCOUDCili$CWOMMWtDCW=COMMMlk4itCUWCXpmss opinions. 6. City Council members must no permit pmaand wnfliets of merest an tolerate any apparw at rel conflict of intcrat Wert may interfere with the lieudom of the Council to omfcr rep, tativo government. 7, Tho City Council most insmo open mprescutmv local goveamcm maintaining the public hue by rupecting and rdkctisg the weds tad desires of the community at large. 8. The City Council must dW'me do rola and respmsibilitis--+ of its bonds and ownmissims mppon those mks and resr ibilitia• and maintain a com uniostim plan to mmtro owpaation and maxi-tun utility. BedgetMorlary Beaponsibilltln — I. 11w City Council most maintain its (kcal respotmbilitfes. and dirw resources toward the CommtmityVisine. The Council prohibiu mirdireotim or auto of mmicoal tocmaer. Penon>otl - I. Tho City Council and its City Admink to mist be provided agportmitia for ttaWq and pnotid dnclopmcal dir=W to mo purposes of the City or as related to job performance. N. Management/Governance Linkage Policies: General ReWomMffin — The City Council will lead the City by pvaning according to its Community Vision 'tod Strategic Platt. The Council will naw manage City busiom as city sthnkistra xo is the rcspansib0 of the Cim Adnatmstraux. Tho City Administrator am request that City Council members participate in certain administrative matters. The City Council will take action with one voice. lodhi&d Council members we not to, direct staff. Council dhec to staff will be directed through the City Administrator. BudgetWit1wis" Respondblittles — TIc City Admikisaxator must provide mffx=t information and reports to do City Council to PMMIt the COUDW to MsIM110 IbQ ISSISCOMIM! a0acatiom and use of its resources toward accomplishing the rcstifts. [Annual Quarwrly,Mommy, etc.] As part of ---' budget development. the City Council will amm0y evaluate The cffccdvcoen and efficiency of City efforts to accomplish do Commaity Visim The City COUDCH WW fO4irCCI its MSOMM 95 Dooesaary to galtill intended ends. Measurement and reporting policies will be dftrunimcd by the City Administrator in cooperatimi with the City Cattocil. Persowd — The City Council most at kid atmuQy coo I a puformanou review offt City Adomustr%tur and 'memo that dw City AtImmistrator is provided foodbeck an and accountable to clearly dcfbod performance criteria as esublishod by ft Comocil. 1 2 4 5 7 6 8 3 tt 9 10 13 12 14 15 16 18 23 24 22 30 19 CITY OF MONTIC .LO 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Group ranking by Average score on scab of one to tan. TOP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN, BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED T- D-0- Key - O b 1 5 yam - Yore.. 1 6w 2 5 y.- • LqN y.A-. D-, 25. Who I.M:�nh:N�111P Na► Bill - - • - -� �Wd✓Fb.m Ta N... t Rexmch OmncW bnpwa al' m anon Ihrm N SP is Tmo-NSP to haw., _ _ --- I'N:Ya1. P.Ie : _ _Devels�mAth Ah and cmiftrA---hilo ._ PA_Samb NCT ) nC-atiredodpf-CSANiS--t 3to-WetDa-_ traWk AdoL'r�a.�.rd 11.ab ,�•�Detemdae ser�a0'.v�Ort•pmYedmmi+trmim mdel�tenmleo._ `�0 n.v. S -v P"OW- _ wt J iNwimd Galyd Trei Cemeror id !a -d. _ Ar.b7a.m u..Itay. ! _� ,Dkw C.i�nallto.urvexalEv c®uvi6a`DovelopxnI Im - Rmro foe - n6.b.'FTnm _ nw Rw__ r_ _Cort reo •/ &o nuyeY- inppm �hm's1p Cm rm11 o.>�Idearot eo ta�etio8 amm _ ree 03%1 up and uxonsntat.00fiolilwcd pVmtiDgpo�hycatib� lyvsa..EDMDu t.e.atr d. - ` _ Falabtirbarexrvofttorsquittimllriadllstridbmd- Dev. ew.1x h1b 10 ---_---- Snn An.b k17o ardmmwo ommdmcnb.___ 'DW 9o,. MAMA 11Im1 11 , ' mr emisl of DN ROW in ooro on D. EWA A 1x7' I.ad a ra m_avdErhio m a sut downtabn li.a0rat nm, -Sam. _ Aral (ww.. h .. lt.ieone_eoper t yd afC1� 9uu a cDlmli m 9 tITTI 8m CjY MAfr - - nemrkar. r.._ teNa oe.ebPcrda;te�ro<ep.,«dcu.ay. � _ D.r aay.MAMA urn IS -• -- - - PurchueBN ROW in mu sin, ReBromk+fartumNltDSi ROW. a( - Hupo_16_ F.�61i�r�1IPpCl7I[mglue7®edmeMl�IfadlYOd�iti[f�...:111Tn.�.i�J Pa'P.1►. rob 17 • Pdhuuy Cm{a1Ct1IlO nvcr - Mitds Dr. to F4soa PA. nsiV.m T. it. 18 .Pre(istu.ajihJim�ruTemeN-.plm_ccit�,.idolru•s.l0�ur...- n.. so, MAMA 0-WIP 10 F 1sNi.Ecml oM4dAet;-a MDhiq IN%n rt%fnM - D.-8ay.1x As- 20 Ammmomu to C1fvROuTubipt1rbouiralion AgecriMr my Ilw eov - 44 As- 21 AMmi1 oxg ow b) MOM Ike oast mmBeatios Ad,W.T i- Da Aa 12 -- --- -Prcip= every n blB Panzil Fd3tcd costs Q" -up clip, awmia a chp, cw ) 13 ,i.ro,,.a,... 0rc,4 14.•C Individual Council Mennber Ratings Bill Roger Brian Bruce Clint Ave A" Rm Tm Rab Tm R.b Tm Rat. Tm Ra. Tm Rate Time Nr F. Ave Ave .. 1e 9] 1 10 18 1 t 0' , -JID 1 9.60 1.60 .:. 1.4 6 110 3 10 1io1 , 1 9.20 1.40 1e 7 1 10 , 8 2 10 31 1 9.00 1.60 811 10 , 1010 10 1 7 3.9.00' 3.20 .. 1.09 t 10 1, 101 10.11 5 18.80 1.00 .. Ins 110 11 1 -10 , 1 10 t*8.80' 1.00 .E• 1.o 7. 1~10 1 6 1 10� 1I 101 1'8.60 1.00 . e 1.s 7 . 1 8. , 0 L1 1 10, 1 8 1'8.60 1.00 .t, 4o 7. 10^ Yl t 8 �10 2 10 3iBYni88B.50 4.00 15. 1.0 _4 ,i Io 81 1 10 8 , 3 10 11 10� 1 1 B 31 �BiAtt fw8.50: Bhn E3u8.50 1.00 2.00 ., 1.2 7 1` .+i 11.0 81 1` 10 10 , 7 2 101 1 B 1 8.40 1� 7�t34 10 , 7' 1'8.40' 1.20 100 1 s 7 1 8' 3 B +ll��ft 101111 1 :Bhnju3 8.25: 1.50 a 1 20 Bj 1• 8 t 7 3 10 3 i64kn Eau 8.25 200 6 3101 51 7 2 101 1 ;B1an F1u8 25. 2.75 01 10 1 41 3 t0 , 8 3'8.20 1.80 9 j 1, 7 3 6 3 10� 11 B J 8.0 0' 2.20 r u ze 7 3 8' 5' 81 1 8 31 91 i'8.00* 2.60 . o is 7 1 10i 3 7 1 B 1 8 J 8.00 180 so in 81 11 9 1 7 1 8 1 �Bhn113u� 8.00 1.00 .n� 1. 5. 3 e ,• 7 11 ,oj 1,8.00 1.40 wkl997x.wk4. 05121197 Pago 27 29 31 36 35 32 34 33 21 37 39 82 38 40 41 42 40 43 45 47 48 49 50 51 CITY OF MONTICy .LO 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Group ranking by avarags scorn on scab o/ one to tan. TOP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN, BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED 0.odartcel-oeo,1yom.-ra0... tat.75yen-Li edYaray.Ov.,2.5-WhM Individual Council Member Ratings -- - - - -- --- Bill ,Roger&ianBruceClint I.F.Al2F.11S111P Rh 1A1r. TAva R.1, TR Rab T. Ras TniRe. Tm RestT. Rate Time _ CAT F.4:DR\_ _Descrl�tlos I WT. Ave ,Ave Ptvlst am Itis. 23 _ Drsfl compmhcns/e a p n=trncmce and rcplsemem progr - _ _ _ _ _ _ 79_2.2 5 1 7 _3 7 3 _ 10 3 10 1 7.601 _ 2.20 Dr. s- rn_Anou lomnwm'1 24 _ _ Dcvdop a km proF= tm l Fwdclmn enmur�ine rcmodchng of egg boom i 7 a ! 7 J 7 _5 7 3 10 3 8 3 7.80' 3.40 Ib.. s>v. FJ)MaA 4a.aY1 25 Ikti_dop steel enawok{c fust re�rnhon ®d mymaon. f 7 7 ze 7 J 7 3 8 3 10 3 7 1. 7.70 f 2.60 -- PW V.I. D... sm. MM ULA _ P.te 28 _ r®sax'P 27 • In._estigtde roapetmN pelhw ay ror w'mter-us - - -- - - - - Store from rodeagoh�wotring Icon f tmd_. I , e 7 e i e _ 1 1 7 1 io -1 7 5 z 10 7 3 o -1 8 3 e 1 7.601 9 1 7.60 2.80{ 2.60, Amia.'neved nava 28 Ev111 c paformaols gFMI I ntitcm 7 e 7. 7 1 10 3 4 3 10 1 7 3 7.601 2.204 Dn 5Q.. tUAntRA Ado- 29 _ Develop TIT appLwabon puid:lmca. 76 2 _8 3 8 3 7 3 10 3_ 5 1 7.601 2.60 P W.1'.A. _ Pte► 30 Pova rink a 4th atrat park to a0ow roIL•7 hoc►y. 7 e xa 8 1 8 5 6 2 8 3 10 1 7.601 2.40 Dn.. sm. t tb Aaao 31 u to MOM guickhwn;Amwdv 7 e 1.. 7 1 8 1 7 1 8 1 8 3 7.6/0 1.40 PW s.vm S-A . 32 _ Draft w.- ella.Tioui l inn. rcrn.,A p abo''. } 7.7 1.`_ 5 1_ 8 1 7 3 j1 10 1 � B1i 7.50 1 1.50, PWP.d. � 33 lianhhdicumlrebmsivc;odinnuowe ttmproporn 1 74 xa 8 1 7 3 6 4 10 3 8 3 7.401 2.80 nn. sm Projnr i Rm 34 f KjcUbcrgWea.m e-waconnwbmmade. 74 4. S 1 8 5 10 3 810 9 1 7.401, 4.00 t1... sm. r.d Mt1' 35 Act an More MCP inidati.n 74 xr 9 1 0 5 8 1 10 1 5 2 7.401 2.001 D., sm P.Wo Im 38 Rcaol.t post oflkv wast. paohicm. 74 2.91 5 1 8 10 7 1 10 1 10 1 7.401 2.80 Pw•Pa1. Pd 374lbvelop moa KwKkae 4md paA racihn 7-1 2 r, 9 1 9 5 7 2 8 3 Blwr Bh 7.25 , 2.75 Asan vw s'k.t f.. 38 Ixxl fim ptopa k.or MCP QTPon from city .1111' 7.2 I.s 6 1 10 1 e Bk 10 1 �i 3 7.20 1.501 n- 5m..ad m ay 39 Ordmasco m trncio - Fncral architectural ah ! fin downtown redcvch'pmcnt t= 1 7.2 21,7 1 8 5 _ 8 1 1 5 2 7.20 2.00, AAWh. t try 40 Continumg atucatioa phm- Council, conmus'uama, a dA' 73 vii, 8 t 8 1 10 1 _10 6 3 5 3 7.20 1.80 11cv 5- fad W -P 41 Ordinmco ®Saimaa - dgr p in concert with MCP {I 72 xc 7 1 9 5 9 1 10 1 5 2 7.20 2.00 PUT." Pal 42 Dcveh7p and unitknu nt m 'abet a pak' Iroiaam 72 4 7 J 4,10 B 4 10 3 0 1 7.20 4.20 I7.. S-IDA14tA MVP 43 Act oo 1'ltture MCP in d ce - Raln'dolmratt wbwt1 7 t 2 9 1 8 5 7 1 10 3 5 3 7.10 2.60 D.. 11- . ►d v- 44 Commcrcisl acing dmaut. - proper wax of uec Wcet11kr17 7 o a- 5 1 8 3 9 1 7 3 7 3 7.00 I 2.20 DA Sff% MAMA 1-ha144145 M pmjoct - a7aa davcbpmcm of upxak high dcadtn ri.a dtanct �1g 70 4 6 J 7 5 410 10 3 8 3 7.001{ 4.80' Pu' e.soo m sw 46 Joint .vdure with Buflblo R FU Riva lir tanuniru cold plz l attocht6ffiY 11-Ae e x 4 1 7 J 8 3 10 3 9 3 6.801 2.60 wk19972c.wk4: 05/21/97 Page 2 I LBAUIF.RS11111' Rnk t:1TV4:0R\_ T.1, Rate Time tin sin. MAI uA P. k Rim. 47 Pw'P.0 - P.rk 48 PN•P.t, new. 49 tin sin tkd cmc 50 PU, Se kem 51 D. sa....d trot.. 52 1).. 5m.MAIOA la..a.s'kas-3 Dn Sm IDA1 QA t'® )&? 54 D. sa.. Ad.- 55 PWPa1. Pct 56 Itn. say. o d. Mims tarp 37 Ad -R -rd, Fdua 58 Ad�.Yaiec+ Adro. 59 lin $in MAI DA (--111(Y 30 ti.. sin. t.d Ilau. * 31 PW N.0 Pod 32 r* sin t.d Iu-iy 33 tin sin led It -ft 34 V-114-ww sw ft 35 PWP.1. Pt 96 r- sin Att..i 97 tin Pa,.e.d swum 38 Admb tft- 30 i. 9m ti4d Arts. 70 PW Pak. P.& 71 Ir. tra.. (.d s bd 72 CITY OF MONTIC _LO 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Group ranking by average scoro on scab of one to tan. TOP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN, BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED TYn ou®ro Kar • o m t s lint • rtdow, tem 2.s r4rs - t.qm rway. t>r4. 7.s - tMstr i I ProfrA �'tlrbO _ _--- Dn. proactive rnAV m -ma► - ckcted olfwds. rcalmn, tsaltlos, i ubW hind aw>iers U fpudc 4th drat pwk wmwxlt holt.o • clmtinmo eloark- hem - add .indoor . espmd Rebuild Mcadu Oak path a)s PAN tlistriet/Jo%nto n &mpaaon - potaW mncatmrnts tdone Riva tit. Ikvelop camprchendve atsint poptizat 4 piaiun lot drmtw.% a Iaad-p;ntt Adjust Iwsmess campus - chwF nacre • mdu a 3011, mquiri meat Ik.ek p a progm mul pmdclmn Im a tdanu= mgtasattm prop tit n • blighted harm ExTi se other redn•ekgsaent atinties such as Coltrrt4, mn0 wd tastd hrpmc Annual NatunmQ Report • Freeway I•ark - Outlet A Mtmd.w flak tmkoha 6gw-y. lkdtntu= mnenilneni • hWdnp odea A related mhnm - a Rcdu c mnt of mord daape uc W-trimiklic pto=u %-,.4, _I_ Remodel and/or K*pl®uip fm relocnaan of tstj hall "� 1 I.xj&m potential w1ou m MUM al. Ritcmde lid. and Fmcoo s CVduuuxv mncttdman • houanp Mmtimpp Pm►NSPA)NR 1l %w -Pad Caul Ihauic dowhtpntertt Iky of low density hour q rL utud.. > 12,IR)0 W Mots A 6veet cretin rub 28'•32^. I]mh.p and tngt rrn a rmW Noun" cotb and hccnrmp pngamn Iktcrmino etUtiowd cknW d4 wpprt needed • Riva Mill Pus► dowkipaeut Wgmc rminp a.de mfac i - po6tpt hue mtan 1)dcrmim nace4rsn. etf agpA • p1=rmp R t%WdiV tkp jCLvi j and (in clap cOkrnt ptudu=1 pdtc) /armtp Code rocoddicmm cona6anb.m tlktrnnma kscaanm ol'Co Aamu Cluts par, dm itpncnt Sulid%isim d cmpt dandmb • cumme fa Posdtk utnembomits Individual Council Member Ratings Bill JRoVr,'Brtan;Bruce.Clint Aw'Av4 Rat T.,Rab Tm'Rim4 T.n R.W Tn'Rab T.1, Rate Time Rr_, T. I ' Ave Ave 68: 1f 6 1 B 5 81 1 7 3 BbNBla 6.75 2.60 661 tt 8 3 5 5 6 2_ 8 3 8 116.80 2.80 66 tl 4 3 7 5 5 4 10 1 7 3 6.80 3.20 66 it 5 1 8 3 8 1 10 1 2 3{8.60 1.80' 663 le 6 1 7 3 6 3 9 3 5 346.60' 2.60 6644 1r 5 3 7 3 7 2 e 1 8 1 2.00 ee4 it 7 3 7 57 2 10 3 46.60 2 5 8.60 3.60, 664 it- 6 3 'i 6 5 _8 1 6 3 5 3 f 160; 3.00 66� It 7 1 7 3 6 3 8 3 5 3 6.60 2.60 64l II 3 3 7 3 8 4 8 3 8 1 6.401 2.80 e; 4 is 1 3 7 0 7 3 5 J 9 14 6.40 2.00 e4, 1t 4 3 7 3 5 3 5 3 10 1 6.401 2.60 64. n e 1 2 8 1 8 4 9 5 56.40' 3.20 6 4' i s e 1 6 5.5 5- 8 3 -S 1 6.40' 3.00 6A, 1c 4 1 ax ii 7 3 7 3 7 1 _7 1 4 5 7 3 8 3 Bt3l�Bt 1625 2.00 5 3 8.201 3,00 6.2 11 5 3 7 3 7 2 7 3 5 3 6.20 2.80 624 It 4 3 7 3 5 2 7 3 8 3'6.20' 2.80 62• 1e 8 3 7 1 3 5_10 1 5 3;6.20 2.60 e2{jI sx 2 5 7 3 8 4 8 3 8 1 8.20+ 3.20 60; 11 4 3 8 3 4 5 8 3 aim 13 6.00' 3.50 e0 16 6 3 1 3 3 10 1 1 5 6.00' 2.60 eoi4 5 3. _7 0 1 5 1 10 1 /0 1600 1.40 6,0� is 5 3 8 3 6 3 5 3 B",ttI3.00 6o a 6 3 5 6 2 5 t0 1e,00; 7 1 16.00 4.20 60; iry6 3,--4 _6 51 6 39tMm 8 1;600, 3.00 wkl9911.wk4: M21197 Page 3 CITY OF MONTIC. .LO 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Group ranking by average score on scab of one to ten. TOP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN , BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED Imo Deadl—Key-0U I5porn- Y111o, t 6 to 25 yaan - LIN YOo 0-2 Individual Council Member Ratings Bill Roger Brian Bruce Clint Rtl Ave Ave Rw Tm Ran Tm Rato Tm Rate Tm RAW Tm Rate Time II.e_t11e:R�111P 1l\rt.r.11RI !w—i Ptxm R, In Ave Ave 84 erlmhvi.Lu. sae. 87 Mv. yawn•o<lyfm_ i 0— _ 3_ 10�' 4 _ t 0e13ne level oi., tram CiN e q _ `----uJq,ort Enhttace acol�rciulAorbratiial blB�ctulil if. Jo>o ng_Am>d�1/praoc9s. __ — _ , • K _ � 6 t ,u 4 1 5 � 5 5 5 _ B 1 Bla 51 5 5 3 101 t 5 1 5 80 5 3.5 80 2.50 300 68 Dov srn FItMd� 14miq 7$ Ikvo o fnedt ' whirl+ mmYeu tdoutioalb'x • . , + 6 3 7 5 7 3 • 6 1 3 5.580 3.40 91 78-1 Dev�iopuvlerb..mitnintopari; •. +„ 4 3 5,10 4,6 B 3 8 1,580 490 _tm�v,rt' _ _______ _ __ 89 _ nog. sm. n_e®_ 77 Review! mva ate 4+v em eotl>roement (m•koiE Ind nmcvre , r 5 3 3 5 5 5 8 3 B 3.580 3.80 93 �dom/gs PrdK ttd_ 8— A,xmbled kx iutClnc1aEP11rAllo_ _ __� •. z+ 6 1 5� 3. 6 4 6 3 Elan 131a575 2 75 92 ikV_1tm.CM_ tr.aar_179— FA".bA.Wocturdde ostmchrd.(Fown({m_ntaWn- IaIN� t, 4 t 8 1 5 3 6 I.MinBla575 1 50 96 Pvvt�ue. 'sum_ aoe 0 inaoll high w•efer i in mmago ptb. m _ _ _ - -1 �• 4 t 6. 5 7 , 1 1,10 •• t0 t 560 360 95 _ _ Pwl'ark _ �I,� 1 -_�T_- A�u>f ,nntvl�Ivncuces • mtroAla n�ivs �esae wfitaa e�,fol,riaro.. _~ _ „ 5 J 8 J 2 6 10 t 5 3.560 3 50 94 AdmieParltlN. IJIr.r 2 hud�roL. ; 1 �• 1�� 8 3 7 3 5t 3 3 3 5 3 560 3 00 97 n> sen. fD.vlarA _bT_renpro�mtmloa M.►1s w __._____� - —_ __—__-_T_ Ta F almt • mid JF- rives d_ imkt owoar aouaiod .nd�r lulu ) (l kmxnttead)., _ _ • " , + 8 3 7 5 5l 8 5 3 5 3'5 60 4 30 1001 1 k Bev.ut^ _ .3_ lneWrE 38 �Aadvmmtdti•family•potdblorumn�lmdiomceamrnlNrmtmmgy._,— _ _ -j _ •, +�� 5 t 7 3 • 8 3 7 J , 2; 5'5 40 300 99 1kv. eay. rat ' 1 trasa. 34 - S,nxaio�.Cenw etmdutb • wpro n dc(Imaan of ruindrawlards for amm vid ty. - _ , , 11 2l 3 6 3 5 1 8 1 B. 1,540. 1 80 70 ,usrxavw am. la ity 35 •- -- - IPenirdslnb is City/vasv_mrudM1• arnim. ctp. _ j • , I r 5 1 6 t 6 7 3. 3 • 7. 1.540 1 80 t0t Puy _ , ,raeu•em 37 _ Rev_ j nrlro auh5 mSmiou --• y---��__ -_ . ltpat � ,, •, _• 3, 1. 6 5 7 3 5� 1,Bbn,Bl525 250 103 �. ;,. P!FYe•_ _Fin ,39_- _tfryFro�tm . _ IlesrlapFurIhr-Pian{logrmtCmeotnmutd4l,iuhtAdal-b¢dldittg._ _ ,+ 8 3 6 3 4 5 51 3. 5 3 520 3 40 102 Itev. aov. ares_ area+. 38 — . Gataido!Iomb°- RcP^wn t_b aWido ao e _ - 2 3 8 3 7 t 6 1 5 3 520 2 20 104 ( Pwt/r kkk. u _ nes 3 j vend wma Imtt _ _ . --^ ---'.. Compkb fcof 810.0W Saos do-po mie8 r • 4 1 7 3 B 1 t 10 5 3 500 360 85 NtmlPlbe.fiev URr. I!snllil��rtlavlt,rpalPblvol%cmealinprot•xniondmgaaystioat(MRPAMftOF) � �� _• 8 1 8 3 6, Da 5 3� 2 3500 250 10611 AldaFaoaain _ Ir I�r.q [?3 1 Void4tson - . +. u� 8 3 7 5 5 5 3: 5 3 5480 460 107 PIi!'e6pe I P, _ C orraderCo&I.ofitIOClCewOf w/C_MnInitV Smite offbxf pont" .-_ _-- 1 M 1' 2' 5 B 3. 4) 8 5 3 5 5 480 4 70 tt0 nMnt'sYlxa u'P1e+•m _ liquor Spurinpo—al•pocnraoatrin8✓(hot•00r eNJC36eddldnn +r• ,+ 4, t 1, 3 (1 5 5 5 3 3,460 340 t 14 l A*elarea srrv. i serKa toJrauo anca tuildkl}t vrootr�ctma ul►a hwsa r , r 4 3 S 3, 3 5 3 5 5 3,4 00 3 80 113 f ,vbde»m, ftay. _ serve �(nhrwuo sen•1or meminyr (MomEave M&M)alM&M)alh. ) _� r 10 4l 3 5� 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 400 300 69 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 1t 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 39 77 3D 39 L44 CITY OF MONTICELLO 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Group ranking by average score on ttaale of one to ten. TOP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN, BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED Tune Deanne Key -0 to 1.5 years . vemw. 1.9 m 2.5 tens . urn Ye5m. Dora z5 - Wltae ma'%ckjof c IA -1 I ProberDese Wen AR Tm I.eadQ 1 Frees. aPert- - conceonssiarea.- . . _ . _ _ - . -0 -- ITrackmg gvmcm for properties owing util. fns. hookup ehp . deferred asmts. area chits. j I CS IComputu Link from Motor Vehicle I I CS ICompulcr Mairttm cc and PC replacement prepare and impkmrntation. I CS IRemodeltupgradc city hall garage - blg insp vehicles. FP Finalize the prepanrion of building permit and site review process materials FP I Interior pamtanghtpk'eep at moor vehicle o6rce. I FP I I Develop awca #r service feedback survey chew. I FP tram cmvhance with ADA gurdehom FP I Removd/replacemeni city hall air conditioner encbrsure. FP i!Revise ou-site sewage treatment ordi . (assist OnmhJing Ofi-rcial). I I FP I Tciccommuaicatim tower ordiaaac anxcadmenu. I I FP I ISm ndnedoc address system. I FP !Install new ftuomzmt fight system at hgmr store. I x I Purchase btunidor to accommodate increasing cigar sales n liquor dart. I I ji I TV monitor for liquor aero to make costomen aware they are an frbo. I I .34 !Rebuild mer gnrbagc fcnee at bquor dom 7j tcpair. mc0nm"or 0 new air canchtioning system fur liquor store. Art Hill- 40 -acre msideutid development. I .D !Close out ICkin Farms Faaates. ,D Ilohn Lecr"m - 10 -acre residential project. I D I Cbse ore Riv'tt Mill project. I X) Cloeru um l3rw Oa►p liwto 11 improvement prvjcct I ,D grin Thurupaun . RB -Acre rcaidcntial Pte• LID. nut Meaduw Oak 4th vu rmcmca�ffujcc1 n Il Ig.LMAIiao unitary wwm_'r eooncotion- complete tho project. ,D FRcplat Meadow Oaklots into Eastward Moll dwclop®cm. I D �Kkin Farrrra III •Plat appnn•ai and public ®_ prot'emm_t proccsa. _ -- - _- � - . ,D `Parki_adaluag CR 75 across from Pimwuod Scbml. -- -- - lligh Setmi build np wastruct- - _ jec - - -- - - `xadmRoad/!liUbwav25rcaliFament. I)cvc4.cwsistatadmini►VativupuGcinAcodoapplicaums. - it hnpiul plat update and record.,.Comp 1 STHA prxje pFdcstrm wcrpass u Co_mty Rd 11 B. - -- _ _ D !St. 1-lenn's - dctcrarinc rain. for 7th St. - CUP and pubLic kup.kromaa. ISS rt_e_m Ikrve_lopmcor - P& k -A !khedoling- I hFh Schuol building mvirun gal arseutuml and CUP process - D St stem larvclaproenm • Nctwark versus AS 4000. - - — - - D St stcm oevcgupmcm • !attract APFlieatims --- -- - - -- wk1997x.wk4: 05/21197 Page 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO M,��of�t-� 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Group ranking by average score on scale of ore to ten. TOP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN, BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED Tient DeaaY trey - 0 to 1 5 yeah - Yellow. 1.6 to 2 5 ymm - U9N YeGow, Over 2.5 - Whte wk1997x.wk4: 05/21/97 Page 2 IAve IAve I Project Proper Dewrwtl n Rt Tm I.eeder 41 f Mi1rm Dee•elopmcnt - Computer Aided Design I I 110 1 43 ' System Development - Geographic Information stems I I I10 44 'Sysicm Development - Building inspection II Ito i 45 ,Computer System ADDlicatioo Dcvclopment - Otaall Planning I Ito 1 49 I Im nove follow-up ua indn•idul cases. I I to 1 50 i Caimamo/Pt_ticr ten Funeral Homo - Process CUP, variances 1a ordinance amendment. I I JO i 51 1 Resurrection Church - site rcvicly/ananatios/n-j.=iag process. 1 ' 110 52 1PUlueate Commutax Parking l.at -� -J.10 53 Dave Peterson Monticello Ford expansion - Proms CUP. I 1Jo 1 54 RadT Auto Planned Unit Dee•elopmcal - Complete the project. I 1JO 1 55 ICnmld Bros'. expansion - Prawn CUP. I Ito ' 56 1 Finalize Monticello Busiacss Center plat. 110 57 H%% -v 25/Chchca Rd impnn•emenu and all associated land transactions. I 110 58 LRcsolrc storm sewn tin► fee Program - Follow'•up I IJo 59 1 Enhance customer applications. fortis. records. bru :hwcs R appli atiums. ! IJO 1 52 ' Create tad implement records management plan. I s.a 1:1, oo 60-Frww&v Parl - NWou' OaL Out{ot A. parting lot. i41 48 ;11'TEA - Pathway Constru ctioa along CSAI 1118 c =ting School Bh•d to CSAi i 75. }I i IJO 47 over stormsewa at Mississippi Shures pathway. to 46 �Bndgc IsT111%- PathwayConstruction from Middle Scdtol to McadoW Oak. - --- -- -_ _�10 29 I7<.•vcdop Prairie: Creek Park. _ t 42 tl1<•vc at6wry mainteiana to wattum with MN D0T stds. Ioµ .,tnuFT I 1 - 110 1 JO� p --�gra10 —— - 32 'ilh� clop aid snpktnrnt pend vegetation pilin afurdl. - _- — _ 1r lo_ 88 Rcn'F&ovc safcn eirtrnittec and continuo programs and job hazard auah•ai+.- 71 [litctittt maintenance -caper. tiouWings, paint bathroom tile. shelving. Wa_upeper. 70 , Maiutcnamx to libitum building exterior - lights, sipagc_resnrfact parkm Ion. -_ IJuildandrela:atoaug_ptluna_-__ -�t-s , _---�--�- 73 __ 114__ 74 Draft new rate s ructure and ordinance for sanitar• setter user cbarFe. —_ I 15 _ a 69 'Cwnplctc Plant. lighting. ant sc_rccaing at PW facihn•. 67 �Spccilicotuma t obtan (it" for rxd'rcpair to ()Wwa of Public R'txts.- - Y - —_ 84 l Jwpathwov maintenance lhnds to financo pathwn-Jsiduwalk snow rcnun•al equipment is _ 1 62 Coutrut lin' additional power at Facbo at togttcat of Liana Club. --- - _ 1is _ 84 FSpetidkattta %. buds. R purchaac small loader aW troika for parts dcpl - - 78 Spceaftcatuws. bids. A purchaw new paint stripes �js 7' RAihxW ertming upltradc at Wast Co. Rd. t9 and Walnut. - - 81 Specdicatums. bid%. and purchase now au comprcuor for queen dept. tfis t 75 spaxs, buds m quoics ton pavement tcpta anent on aomc 77.3 mte�rsectwns. _ - --- 1- 1'-5 `Plan. 7t Inspection and repay of dowwowo hating s;•atcm. - 1 1 11S wk1997x.wk4: 05/21/97 Page 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO ►�''>, 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET Group ranking by average score on scale of one to tan. TOP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN, BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED Terse Deaft* Key - 0 to 1.5 yens - yellow, 1.8 to 2.5 years - UGM Yetwv. Orta 2.5- Wh to 97 Finalize IAo_Tool. Prairie West and Fay-Mar_prujects. - --- !-- OK I 98 Develop a n'atam wor►shect) to cakvlaro etavclupmrnt tett fur iadrotrini �ospa u. - OK I 99 hDc%-caupmcnt of wcond phase of Mississippi Shores. _ _ OK 103 I�lastall coda nilposta at various part, hu canners eA Kidpe, ctc.). _ -� -- RM I 100 plsN ound eq! iptnent - edditum ol'tundkap ac" uciblo egniptaeat. - -- - I RM 102 Playpuund cyuipmcnt nuintcoana .. - -�RM� 101 Clean up Ilanlc Rapids Park. . — - _— - _ _ _ - - RM__ 106 IXv'clop local pcAurmance aid progrw to meet gate rcquircmrnu for 1 -CIA. RW 104 rlludjwt mvicvv process - aatembb budEct data & 8it_c to Couxil. -_ _ RW 105 r Ipdatc persomel polio• to reflect current stamtcaAsws - -- - -� RW_ 10711<trc4tp a cost accountin tin ucm lar GMIiF Loans_ _ _ RW_ 108 Ikfinc_level of' sudysupport ucccsaary W Rippon Eawc Dcvcb_ 1o8po0moa. RW 109 Ikvp a csacontiq rn)i ta rDevelop gccs lir semoo for Riv'ersido Ccwxwq a!d advcnise and Eire ansaetor. _L 1 IR W wkl997K.wk4: 05/21197 Page 3 Ave Ave I Project Preleat Description Rt Tat Leader 82 Nrchase and install lubc rack at PW shop. I I is 72 Scalcoat program - 1998. I is 80 Regrade and restore West Co. Rd. 39 ditcb at PW facility. is 65 iContinue sanitary sewer mffow and mf hratiou efforts prior to April 1997. is 83 ITree planting. building fluor. and entry roads on biosolids site. is 76 1Integrate 30 -gallon garbage cart into newsletter & garbage piclup system- I I is 60 ISpecificaticus. bids. and refurbish well a2. I is 61 romplctc water tower painting project. I is 63 !Develop contract with Elk River landfill. I is 66 I Wastewater treatment plant construction project- is 91 IAdd specific record categories to retention schedule. I I 94 *c%icw• all records from OSM (38 boxes) --copy those nocdcd-fdc copies. I JKD KD 93 Records destruction t -or 1997 (city hall). I KD 92 Research data privacy- act--distriMnc info, to clerical support suf. . I IKr) 87 Begin records destruction at public works. I IKD 90 Confine inventory of basement records. IKD 89 'Inventory records 81public works . I IKD �otnbinc basement administrative records into one system loll sidcub)• I IKD 88 Rcorganim HRA and EDA records. I IKD 88 Create economic dcv'clgment f�system. 96 Leal' detect' testing of various water mains, --- -- MT 95 �Ilbck rcpatr to pump hotuo b 1. I MT 97 Finalize IAo_Tool. Prairie West and Fay-Mar_prujects. - --- !-- OK I 98 Develop a n'atam wor►shect) to cakvlaro etavclupmrnt tett fur iadrotrini �ospa u. - OK I 99 hDc%-caupmcnt of wcond phase of Mississippi Shores. _ _ OK 103 I�lastall coda nilposta at various part, hu canners eA Kidpe, ctc.). _ -� -- RM I 100 plsN ound eq! iptnent - edditum ol'tundkap ac" uciblo egniptaeat. - -- - I RM 102 Playpuund cyuipmcnt nuintcoana .. - -�RM� 101 Clean up Ilanlc Rapids Park. . — - _— - _ _ _ - - RM__ 106 IXv'clop local pcAurmance aid progrw to meet gate rcquircmrnu for 1 -CIA. RW 104 rlludjwt mvicvv process - aatembb budEct data & 8it_c to Couxil. -_ _ RW 105 r Ipdatc persomel polio• to reflect current stamtcaAsws - -- - -� RW_ 10711<trc4tp a cost accountin tin ucm lar GMIiF Loans_ _ _ RW_ 108 Ikfinc_level of' sudysupport ucccsaary W Rippon Eawc Dcvcb_ 1o8po0moa. RW 109 Ikvp a csacontiq rn)i ta rDevelop gccs lir semoo for Riv'ersido Ccwxwq a!d advcnise and Eire ansaetor. _L 1 IR W wkl997K.wk4: 05/21197 Page 3 CITY OF MONTICELLO 1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET �4lU- n Group ranking by average score on scale of one to ton. -OP 30 PLUS TIES = GREEN, BOTTOM 30 PLUS TIES - RED ,Lim Deadlme Key - 0 to 1.5 years - raawv. 1.8 to 2 5 yeas - LgM relow. Oyer 2.5. Whin Ave IAve project Pm1t,rt Deacrtpdon Rt I Ta I I 17 Campus rtreminitforstaff. �� 1.1!t.a�l0 20 Develop dutch elm summit guideline, for timoh• completion uciag Cih, R. coatrwted forces. go, t.a I is 25 ;Complete Bridge Part; improvements as recommended by Parts Comm and MCP. 7.91 1.21JS 26 Develop plan for computerization of building permits. I 7.81 t.a 1FP 28 Participate in regional pianninit iaitiativev. 7.8, 3 a 1 JO 46 Pun ha.,e interact uoA stations, chaus, overhead projector. picnic mbk. 7.21 3.0 RW 76 Organvo interne developmentroem - p+ for updating data a o I 2.S Ih) 90 Develop scope and schedule for West Riva Street street & storm seuer unprovements. j 501 39,1S 98 Obtain NSP funding for conversion of tra-R'n; lights to LED. I 3.5: )oils 105 1 Plan, develop plans R Tm s for parking lot overlays in do ntoum parking las. I 4.8 1 211 Js �, e 108 I lillside Cemctcty feacmg Pmja1, search out additional fords or groats. 1 1.8' 101 JS d� 1 109 T IMmk e proper vcl of Chamber mppon farff. m City sta. 1 1 O 1 t 5 i RW '� o onsider 111 Cmerging GDAMRA. 1.3' 5 J 10 L, �• `� ,� 112 :Improvo lilthting at Cit 1 call in Cooperatiuo with NSP. - _ 1.21 3,a' FP _i 115 istablish polar• for usu of Cin• Uxlr0 - Who can as and four color versus mo coos -- --- 3 a' 12+10 - -- 11 Bcein Wait term plannin- a ftw local police -- -- 131 3 8; RW — -- - 1 vdd ICttchcu factlnrw at Jeeps Center. - - -- - - - -- - - -- � 3 0�15�J0 117 Addttonal parking at the Senior Center _ _ _ -- 10, 5110 _ - _ - - 119 Add 00ice/Wurk Space at the Semor C_enta - -- _ - - - - _I - ~-� o� 45 10 120 ' Additoul meeting norm at the Senior Center 3 0� 1 a 10 _ 121 Additional bathroom facilities at the Smits Center- _ -_ - - ---- - - 1 2 i 1 SY1O _--- - wkl997z.wk4: 05/21/97 Page 4