The URL can be used to link to this page

08-22-05 CC ITEM 5 -1 CLAIMS LIST CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 2005 TO: Judy Hudson Attached is the Claims List for the City Council. For more details, please refer to the Check Detail Registers. If you have any questions regarding this service, please let me know. Claims Register 08 -10 -2005 $ 530,561.32 08-18-2005 $ 234,508.66 PAYROLL 08 -17 -2005 $ 40,422.64 GRAND TOTAL $ 805,492.62 If you have any questions or if you would like to review this list further, please let me know. Kathy Grover Bookkeeper CITY OF OTSEGO 1 08/18/05 8:57 AM Page 1 *Check Summary Register© ■ AUGUST 2005 1 Name Check Date Check Amt: 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER UnPaid ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC $79.88 QUARTERLY SERVICE UnPaid AIRGAS, INC. $23.05 OXYGEN /ACETYLENE UnPaid AVENET, LLC $540.00 1 MONTHS /MAINT /CUST SUPPORT UnPaid B & D PLUMBING & HEATING IN $415.00 I REPAIR A/C UnPaid BENJAMIN & SARAH AMES $2,500.00 ! LANDSCP REF - 9094 OGDEN AVE NE UnPaid BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF $8,370.00 ADMIN - SEPT UnPaid BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLI $58,164.90 l EAST WWTF PHASE 3 UnPaid BRADLEY BELAIR $120.00 1 AUG /SEPT CELL PHONE UnPaid BRIAN BRADWAY CONSTRUCTI $1,800.00 I REPAIR STUCCO CITY HALL ENTRANCE UnPaid CAROL OLSON $708.5017/31 THRU 8/13 - 54.5 HRS UnPaid COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION $969.801 REPAIR COUNCIL CHAMBER SOUND SYS UnPaid CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMEN $294.37 MISC OPER SUPPLIES UnPaid DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES $1,083.45 LILYPOND PARK REBID UnPaid DK PRO GRADING, INC. $1,200.00 KAHLER AVE CULVERT UnPaid DON MASS $120.00 i QUG /SEPT CELL PHONE UnPaid DUSTCOATING, INC. $225.00 ; CHLORIDE /DUST CONTROL UnPaid EARL F ANDERSON INC $2,254.46 KITTREDGE CROSSING UnPaid ECM PUBLISHERS INC $112.20 PUBLIC NOTICE UnPaid ELDON AND LEANN MARTIN $400.00 REFUND - EASEMENT VACATION UnPaid ELK RIVER FORD INC $24,073.55 2006 FORD F350 PICKUP UnPaid ELK RIVER PRINTING & PARTY $190.64 BLDG PERMIT APP FORMS UnPaid EMPLOYER PLAN SERVICES IN $776.20 ADMIN - SEPT JnPaid FENNA HOMES $1,000.001 LANDSCP ESC - 7997 LANDER AVE NE UnPaid G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTE $419.87 UNIFORMS UnPaid GARY LAWSON $1,500.00; DRIVEWAY 9157 NABER AVE UnPaid GODFATHER'S PIZZA $275.79 PIZZA FOR MEETINGS UnPaid GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC $995.40! LOCATE TICKETS UnPaid HALLMAN OIL COMPANY $1,125.14 DIESEL FUEL UnPaid HOMES PLUS $1,500.00 DRIVEWAY ESC - 7580 LANDAU AVE NE UnPaid ICC, INC $100.00 la MEMBER DUES UnPaid ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $537.31 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 UnPaid JACQUIE ROGNLI $875.00 JULY /AUG OTSEGO VIEW UnPaid JERRY OLSON $1,907.50; 7/31 THRU 8/13 - 54.5 HRS UnPaid JOHN DEERE CONSTRUCTION $38,309.82, SKIDSTEER & BLADE UnPaid KENNETH NATHE $21.29; 1 101 MARKET ADDITION UnPaid KNISLEY CONSTRUCTION INC $1,000.06 LANDSCP ESC - 11395 77TH ST NE UnPaid KNUTSON RICK $120.00; AUG /SEPT CELL PHONE UnPaid LANDCOR INC $197.501 H OLIDAY INN EASEMENT VACATION UnPaid LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRU $9,671.00 ANNUAL WORK COMP PREMIUM I. UnPaid MARTIN BENEFIT ADMINISTRAT $52.00 MONTHLY BILLING UnPaid MICHAEL JOHN ROBERTSON $540.00 :CONFERENCE REIMBURSEMENT UnPaid MINNESOTA LIFE $160.40 IADMIN - LIFE SEPT UnPaid MONARCH HOMES, INC. $1,000.00 ILANDSCP ESC - 11323 74TH ST NE UnPaid MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL $105.00 (JULY ANIMAL CONTROL UnPaid NORTHERN PERENNIALS, INC. $319.29 GRASS /PERENNIALS - PRAIRIE PARK UnPaid NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMEN $469.83 [HEDGE TRIMMER UnPaid NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULT $7,807.19 'GOODYEAR UnPaid NOVAK -FLECK INC $2,500.00 ILANDSCP ESC - 7755 LARGE AVE NE UnPaid OERTEL ARCHITECTS $5,513.00 CONSULTING - PW BLDG UnPaid OFFICEMAX $70.96 ;BLDG DEPT SUPPLIES UnPaid PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME $3,566.02 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 UnPaid TIRE CENTERS $127.83 :TIRE REPAIR - BACKHOE UnPaid TOSHIBA AMERICA INFO SYS IN - $211.83 ; TOSHIBA COPIER UnPaid ULMER CONSTRUCTION INC $860.84 , REFUND - PRAIRIE CRK 5TH UnPaid USA BLUE BOOK $519.91 I WWTP SUPPLIES UnPaid WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TRE $46,476.67 I AUGUST SHERIFF PATROL CITY OF OTSEGO 08/18/05 8:57 AM Page 2 *Check Summary Register© AUGUST 2005 Name Check Date Check Amt UnPaid WRIGHT - HENNEPIN CO -OP ELE $111.11 STOP LIGHT BULB CHANGE UnPaid XCEL ENERGY $120.16 8899 NASHUA STREET LTS Total Checks $234,508.66 FILTER: None CITY OF OTSEGO 08/18/05 8:57 AM Page 1 *Check Detail Register© • AUGUST 2005 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER Unpaid ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC E 101 - 41940 -390 Contracted Services $79.88 224456 QUARTERLY SERVICE Total ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC $79.88 Unpaid AIRGAS, INC. :m_ E 101- 43100 -210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL) $23.05 105750110 OXYGEN /ACETYLENE Total AIRGAS, INC. $23.05 Unpaid AVENET, LLC E 101 -41400 -390 Contracted Services $540.00 10023 12 MONTHS /MAINT /CUST SUPPORT Total AVENET, LLC $540.00 Unpaid B & D PLUMBINN G & HEATING INC E 101- 41940 -402 Repairs /Maint Buildingss $415.00 15967 REPAIR A/C Total B & D PLUMBING & HEATING INC $415.00 Unpaid BENJAMIN & SARAH AMES E 702- 41400 -310 Miscellaneous $2,500.00 • LANDSCP REF - 9094 OGDEN AVE N Total BENJAMIN & SARAH AMES $2,500.00 U aid ..._._.. .- BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD _._ _ ...._.. 'Unpaid OF MN E 101 -41400 -123 Health $2,374.00 ADMIN - SEPT E 250 - 42410 -123 Health $3,982.00 BLDG - SEPT E 101 -43100 -123 Health $1,272.00 PW - SEPT E 101 -41600 -123 Health $742.00 FINANCE - SEPT Total BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN $8,370.00 Unpaid BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK E 430 -43256 -302 Engineering Fees $14,298.75 121105 WEST WWTF PHASE 1 E 432 -43256 -302 Engineering fees $43,866.15 121107 EAST WWTF PHASE 3 Total BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK $58,164.90 U` npaid % BRADLEY BELAIR E 101 -43100 -320 Telephone $120.00 AUG /SEPT CELL PHONE Total BRADLEY BELAIR $120.00 w Unpaid BRIAN BRADWAY CONSTRUCTION r E 101 - 41940 -402 Repairs /Maint Buildingss $1,800.00 REPAIR STUCCO CITY HALL ENTRAN Total BRIAN BRADWAY CONSTRUCTION $1,800.00 Unpaid CAROL OLSON E 101 -41400 -104 Part-time - Employees Regular $708.50 7/31 THRU 8/13 - 54.5 HRS Total CAROL OLSON $708.50 ........._ Unpaid COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS CO E 101 - 41940 -220 Repair /Maint Supply (GENERAL) $969.80 34021 • REPAIR COUNCIL CHAMBER SOUND S Total COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS CO $969.80 Unpaid CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT E 101 -43100 -240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $274.35 113180 RAKES AND FORKS E 101 - 43100 -210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL) $20.02 113180 MISC OPER SUPPLIES Total CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT $294.37 'Unpaid — DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES E 203 -45210 -390 Contracted Services $1,083.45 17228 LILYPOND PARK REBID Total DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES $1,083.45 Unpaid DK PRO GRADING, INC. CITY OF OTSEGO 08/18/05 8:57 AM Page 2 *Check Detail Register© AUGUST 2005 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101 -41560 -302 Engineering Fees $1,200.00 416 ' KAHLER AVE CULVERT Total DK PRO GRADING, INC. $1,200.00 Unpaid DON MASS E 101- 43100 -320 Telephone $120.00 AUG /SEPT CELL PHONE Total DON MASS $120.00 Unpaid DUSTCOATING, INC. E 101 -43100 -436 Dustcoating $225.00 5545 . CHLORIDE /DUST CONTROL Total DUSTCOATING, INC. $225.00 Unpaid EARL F ANDERSON INC k R 101 -34301 Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees $2,254.46 67075 KITTREDGE CROSSING Total EARL F ANDERSON INC $2,254.46 Unpaid ECM PUBLISHERS INC E 101 -41400 -350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $46.20 195513 PUBLIC NOTICE E 101 -41400 -350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $66.00 195514 + PUBLIC NOTICE Total ECM PUBLISHERS INC $112.20 Unpaid — E LDON AND LEANN MARTIN It G 701 -22418 ELDON MARTIN VAC OF EASEMEN $400.00 ' REFUND - EASEMENT VACATION Total ELDON AND LEANN MARTIN $400.00 j� P d ELK RIVER FORD INC k E 206- 43100 -501 Equipment $24,073.55 26847 ■ 2006 FORD F350 PICKUP Total ELK RIVER FORD INC $24,073.55 • Unpaid ELK RIVER P RINTING & PARTY PLU t E 250 - 42410 -350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $105.44 21775 BLDG PERMIT APP FORMS E 250 -42410 -350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $85.20 21805 INSP NOTICE FORMS /STP WRK SIGN Total ELK RIVER PRINTING & PARTY PLU $190.64 Unpaid EMPLOYER PLAN SERVICES INC E 250 -42410 -123 Health $319.39 1 BLDG - SEPT E 101 -41600 -123 Health $30.90 FINANCE - SEPT E 101 - 41400 -123 Health $235.02 ADMIN - SEPT E 101 - 43100 -123 Health $190.89 PW - SEPT Total EMPLOYER PLAN SERVICES INC $776.20 .sue.,:.. ._...,.m... �.. �p. ....__ Unpaid FENNA HOMES E 702 - 41400 -310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 1 LANDSCP ESC - 7997 LANDER AVE Total FENNA HOMES $1,000.00 Unpaid G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEM I E 101 - 41940 -390 Contracted Services $79.99 10437872251 MATS E 101 -43100 -225 Uniforms $92.40 1043787226 UNIFORMS E 101 - 43100 -225 Uniforms $58.72 1043792155 UNIFORMS E 101 -41940 -390 Contracted Services $79.99 10437971241 MATS E 101- 43100 -225 Uniforms $56.70 1043797125 UNIFORMS E 101- 43100 -225 Uniforms $52.07 1043802099 UNIFORMS Total G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEM $419.87 Unpaid GARY LAWSON E 702 -41400 -310 Miscellaneous $1,500.00 DRIVEWAY 9157 NABER AVE Total GARY LAWSON $1,500.00 "°`" --- ** G ODFATHER'S PIZZA 4 Unpaid I E 101_41400 -310 Miscellaneous $275.79 j PIZZA FOR MEETINGS CITY OF OTSEGO 08/18/05 8:57 AM Page 3 *Check Detail Register© AUGUST 2005 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total GODFATHER'S PIZZA $275.79 Unpaid GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC E 250 - 42410 -310 Miscellaneous $995.40 5070660 LOCATE TICKETS Total GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC $995.40 Unpaid HALLMAN OIL COMPANY E 101 -43100 -202 Gas & Oil $641.70 159637 GASOLINE E 101 -43100 -202 Gas & Oil $483.44 159638 ' DIESEL FUEL Total HALLMAN OIL COMPANY $1,125.14 Unpaid�� HOMES PLUS E 702 - 41400 -310 Miscellaneous $1,500.00 DRIVEWAY ESC - 7580 LANDAU AVE Total HOMES PLUS $1,500.00 Unpaid ICC, INC E 250 -42410 -355 Dues & Memberships $100.00 05- 5213962 GOV MEMBER DUES Total ICC, INC $100.00 Unpaid ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST E 101 -41400 -121 PERA $192.31 `PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 G 101 -21705 Other Retirement $345.00 ' PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $537.31 npaid JACQUIE ROG E 101 -41400 -347 Newsletter , $875.00 2005 -04 JULY /AUG OTSEGO VIEW Total JACQUIE ROGNLI $875.00 Unpaid JERRY OLSON E 250- 42410 -390 Contracted Services $1,907.50 7/31 THRU 8/13 - 54.5 HRS Total JERRY OLSON $1,907.50 Unpaid - JOHN DEERE CONSTRUCTION E 206 -43100 -501 Equipment $38,309.82 25968 SKIDSTEER & BLADE Total JOHN DEERE CONSTRUCTION $38,309.82 Unpaid KENNETH NATHE G 701 -22382 NATHE 101 MARKET $21.29 101 MARKET ADDITION Total KENNETH NATHE $21.29 Unpaid KNISLEY CONSTRUCTION INC E 702 - 41400 -310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 ' LANDSCP ESC - 11395 77TH ST NE Total KNISLEY CONSTRUCTION INC $1,000.00 Unpaid _ KNUTSON RICK E 101 -43100 -320 Telephone $120.00 AUG /SEPT CELL PHONE Total KNUTSON RICK $120.00 Unpaid LANDCOR INC G 701 -22412 HOLIDAY INN EASEMENT VACATIO $197.50 HOLIDAY INN EASEMENT VACATION Total LANDCOR INC $197.50 Unpaid LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST E 101 -41400 -204 Insurance $9,671.00 6757 ANNUAL WORK COMP PREMIUM Total LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST $9,671.00 OVMM Unpaid MARTIN BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS E 101 - 41400 -390 Contracted Services $52.00 4654 MONTHLY BILLING CITY OF OTSEGO 08/18/05 8:57 AM Page 4 *Check Detail Register© AUGUST 2005 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total MARTIN BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS $52.00 . ■ Unpaid MICHAEL JOHN ROBERTSON i E 101 -41400 -360 Education/Training /Conferences $540.00 CONFERENCE REIMBURSEMENT Total MICHAEL JOHN ROBERTSON . $540.00 ' Unpaid M MINNESOTA LIFE ,-.__ E 250- 42410 -130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $28.50 BLDG -LIFE SEPT E 101 - 43100 -130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $105.70 PW -LIFE SEPT E 101- 41400 -130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $22.10 ADMIN - LIFE SEPT E 101 - 41600 -130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $4.10 FINANCE -LIFE SEPT Total MINNESOTA LIFE $160.40 Unpaid MONARCH HOMES, INC. E 702 - 41400 -310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 I LANDSCP ESC - 11323 74TH ST NE Total MONARCH HOMES, INC. $1,000.00 Unpaid ..-.. - MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL . E 101 -42710 -390 Contracted Services $105.00 543 JULY ANIMAL CONTROL Total MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL $105.00 Unpaid NORTHERN PERENNIALS, INC. r E 203- 45210 -530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $170.19 05 -3174 GRASS /PERENNIALS - PRAIRIE PAR E 203-45210-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $149.10 05 -3207 HEMEROCALLIS Total NORTHERN PERENNIALS, INC. $319.29 , ---- ---- ---• —_ & EQUIPMENT Unpaid NORTHERN TOOL „„.�. - NT CO E 203 - 45210 -500 Capital Outlay (GENERAL) $404.65 193095040 , HEDGE TRIMMER E 101 -43100 -240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $65.18 195007996 WEED WHIP BRUSH BLADE Total NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO $469.83 'Unpd Unpaid �_ .. •---- --•-•- --..- NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS p E 101 -41570 -303 Planning Fees $75.00 14645 SHAMROCK COMP PLAN G 701 -22414 GOODYEAR/LANDCOR $495.00 14645 GOODYEAR G 701 -22449 KOLLES /DARE/TOM BROWN $626.45 14645 KOLLES /DARE G 701 -22460 FEATHERWIND - FARR $630.00 14645 FEATHERWIND G 701 -22450 OUTLOT L WFE RETAIL BLDG $672.53 14645 OUTLOT L - WATERFRONT EAST G 701 -22453 ER UTILITIES $784.50 14645 ' E.R. UTILITIES E 101 - 41570 -303 Planning Fees $1,094.68 14646 I GENERAL G 701 -22437 OTSEGO CITY CAMPUS $22.95 14646 OTSEGO CAMPUS - PW SITE , E 101 -41570 -303 Planning Fees $579.15 14646 PARK DISTRICT FINANCING E 250 -42410 -303 Planning Fees $651.93 14647 GENERAL E 101 - 41570 -303 Planning Fees $2,150.00 14648 MEETINGS E 101 -41570 -303 Planning Fees $25.00 14649 SIGN PERMITS Total NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS $7,807.19 Unpaid NOVAK -FLECK INC E 702 -41400 -310 Miscellaneous $2,500.00 LANDSCP ESC - 7755 LARGE AVE N Total NOVAK -FLECK INC $2,500.00 Unpaid OERTEL ARCHITECTS k E 101 - 43100 -302 Engineering Fees $5,513.00 #1 CONSULTING - PW BLDG Total OERTEL ARCHITECTS $5,513.00 Unpaid ' OFFICEMAX E 101 - 41400 -201 Office Supplies $39.12 80176 , OFFICE SUPPLIES E 250 -42410 -201 Office Supplies $31.84 80176 BLDG DEPT SUPPLIES Total OFFICEMAX $70.96 1 ' CITY OF OTSEGO 08/18/05 8:57 AM Page 5 *Check Detail Register© AUGUST 2005 Check Amt Invoice Comment Unpaid PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD E 101 - 41600 -121 PERA $149.14 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 E 101- 41400 -121 PERA $275.82 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 E 101 - 43100 -121 PERA $299.91 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 E 101- 41550 -121 PERA $653.09 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 G 101 -21704 PERA $1,710.89 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 E 250 - 42410 -121 PERA $477.17 PPE 8/13 CH DTD 8/17 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD $3,566.02 Unpaid TIRE CENTERS E 101 - 43100 -400 Repairs & Maint Cont (equip) $127.83 2790032511 TIRE REPAIR - BACKHOE Total TIRE CENTERS $127.83 Unpaid TOSHIBA AMERICA INFO SYS INC E 101- 41400 -413 Office Equipment Rental $211.83 42595363 TOSHIBA COPIER Total TOSHIBA AMERICA INFO SYS INC $211.83 Unpaid ULMER CONSTRUCTION INC G 701 - 21982 Prairie Creek 5th $5,262.69 REFUND - PRAIRIE CRK 5TH G 701 -21947 Prairie Creek 3rdi,Addn ($4,401.85) BAL DUE - PRAIRIE CREEK 3RD Total ULMER CONSTRUCTION INC $860.84 Unpaid USA BLUE BOOK E 430 - 43256 -530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $519.91 17724 WWTP SUPPLIES Total USA BLUE BOOK $519.91 Unpaid WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR- TREASURE E 101 - 42100 -390 Contracted Services $46,476.67 PATROL -05 -8 AUGUST SHERIFF PATROL Total WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR- TREASURE $46,476.67 Unpaid WRIGHT - HENNEPIN CO -0P ELECTRIC E 101- 43160 -322 Utilities $111.11 STOP LIGHT BULB CHANGE Total WRIGHT - HENNEPIN CO -OP ELECTRIC $111.11 Unpaid XCEL ENERGY E 101 -43160 -322 Utilities $120.16 8899 NASHUA STREET LTS Total XCEL ENERGY $120.16 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER $234,508.66 Fund Summary 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER 101 GENERAL FUND $87,237.66 203 PARK DEVELOPMENT $1,807.39 206 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REVOLVING $62,383.37 250 BUILDING PERMIT FEES $8,684.37 430 West Trtmnt Plant -Phase 1 $14,818.66 432 East WWTP Phase III $43,866.15 701 DEVELOPMENT ESCROWS FUND $4,711.06 702 BUILDERS ESCROW FUND $11,000.00 $234,508.66 Iii CITY OF OTSEGO 08 /10/05 10:04 AM Page 1 *Check Summary Register© AUGUST 2005 Name Check Date Check Amt 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER UnPaid BARBAROSSA & SONS $78,185.00 LIFT STATION 4 UnPaid BUFFALO BITUMINOUS $366,873.24 MACIVER AVE /70TH STREET UnPaid HAROLD LEONARD $131.52 AUG CELL PHONE UnPaid JOE ABRAHAMSON $146.67 AUG CELL PHONE UnPaid S. R. WEIDEMA $84,322.95 MISS SHORES 6 & 7 UnPaid WRIGHT COUNTY 'HIGHWAY DE $862.94 CITY HALL STREET SIGNS UnPaid WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER $39.00 METRO HOME INS - ZNG MAP AMEND Total Checks $530,561.32 FILTER: None • CITY OF OTSEGO 08/10/05 10:04 AM Page 1 *Check Detail Register© AUGUST 2005 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER Unpaid BARBAROSSA & SONS E 430 -43256 -500 Capital Outlay (GENERAL) $78,185.00 PAY 3 LIFT STATION 4 Total BARBAROSSA & SONS $78,185.00 Unpaid � BUFFALO BITUMINOUS E 427 - 43100 -530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $366,873.24 PAY 5 MACIVER AVE /70TH STREET Total BUFFALO BITUMINOUS $366,873.24 Unpaid HAROLD LEONARD E 250 - 42410 -321 Mileage/Travel $71.52 MILEAGE THRU JULY E 250 - 42410 -320 Telephone $60.00 AUG CELL PHONE Total HAROLD LEONARD $131.52 Unpaid JOE ABRAHAMSON 1 E 250 -42410 -321 Mileage/Travel $86.67 MILEAGE 5/9 THRU 8/5 E 250 -42410 -320 Telephone $60.00 AUG CELL PHONE Total JOE ABRAHAMSON $146.67 Unpaid S. R. WEIDEMA E 414 - 43100 -530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $84,322.95 PAY 1 MISS SHORES 6 & 7 Total S. R. WEIDEMA $84,322.95 Unpaid WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT ► E 101 -43100 -393 Street Signs $862.94 CITY HALL STREET SIGNS Total WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT $862.94 Unpaid WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER E 101 -41400 -340 Recording Fees $19.50 METRO HOME INS - ZNG MAP AMEND E 101 - 41400 -340 Recording Fees $19.50 DUERR CRK DEV AGR AMENDMENT Total WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER $39.00 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER $530,561.32 Fund Summary 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER 101 GENERAL FUND $901.94 250 BUILDING PERMIT FEES $278.19 414 Revolving Capital Improvements $84,322.95 427 MACIVER/70TH ST ACCESS $366,873.24 430 West Trtmnt Plant -Phase 1 $78,185.00 $530,561.32 • ITEM 5_2 NAC:., NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite !202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council i FROM: Laurie Shives /Daniel Licht, AICP RE: Otsego — Waterfront East; Outlots H, I, J, K, L and M; Final Plat REPORT DATE: 10 August 2005 SUBMITpTED: 14 July 2005 NAC FILE: 176.02 — 05.21 CITY FILE: 2005 — 39 to 44 BACKGROUND Landcor Companies has submitted six applications for the final platting of six outlots within their Waterfront East development into six Tots. The subject development is located east of TH 101 to the north and south of CSAH 39. A PUD District was established on 10 November 2003 with the preliminary plat of Waterfront East to specify allowed uses and performance standards for the development, including the subject sites. The developer is proposing to convert the existing outlots into buildable lot/block designations in preparation for their development. Exhibits: Exhibit A — Site Location Exhibit B — Approved Preliminary/Final Plat Exhibit C — Waterfront East 1 Addition Exhibit D — Waterfront East 2 Addition Exhibit E — Waterfront East 3` Addition Exhibit F — Waterfront East 4 Addition Exhibit G — Waterfront East 5 Addition Exhibit H— Waterfront East 6 Addition ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site for commercial land use as part of the City's primary commercial area at TH 101 and CSAH 39. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates development of a full range of retail, service and office type commercial use in this area of the City to serve both local and regional market needs. Zoning. The subject site is zoned PUD District with allowed uses the same as set forth by the B -3, General Business District. The development will potentially consist of grocery, retail, restaurant, office and theatre space althot gh no specific uses for the proposed lots have been specified at this point. Access. Vehicle access to the subject site will be provided by reconstruction of 90 Street and Quantrelle Avenue, which is being done as a City project. The City has coordinated plans with MNDoT regarding the pending TH 101 project which will upgrade the intersection of TH 101 and CSAH 39 to a freeway interchange. Full access to the subject site and Nathe 101 Garden Center will be maintained during the City construction project and the TH 101 project. Access to the majority of the individual buildings within the development will be via a central shared driveway extending north and south of CSAH 39/90 Street NE. The platting of these lots will require construction of the shared driveway with a 28 feet wide section and a 5 -foot sidewalk on both sides, subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements necessary to allow ingress /egress over the shared driveway must also be established. Lot Requirements. Lots within the PUD Development Stage Plan of Waterfront East are not subject to any specific lot area or width requirements. More importantly, the lot sizes should reflect the intended use and allowing for sufficient parking and circulation as well as applicable setbacks. The proposed Tots are generally consistent with those identified on the preliminary plat with conceptual development layouts illustrating the feasibility of development within required setbacks. Setbacks. The Waterfront East development is proposing to have a main street design which means that buildings fronting CSAH 39 and Quantrelle Avenue will maintain a zero front setback. The following chart shows the applicable setbacks for the subject development. Based on the preliminary plat review, each of the proposed lots can be feasibly built upon. TH 101 Internal Adjacent Wetland OHWM* Bluff* Streets Buildings 30 feet 0 feet 20 feet 40 feet ;75 feet 30 feet * The stricter of the two, OHWM (ordinary high water mark) setback or Bluff setback shall apply. 2 • I - Easements. Lot 1, Block 1 of 1 Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 of 2nd Addition and Lot 1, Block 1 of 6 Addition Otsego Waterfront East depict drainage and utility easements, which are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Additionally, the submitted final plats shall dedicate required cross parking and access easements against all Tots, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Landscape Plan. Implementation of the overall development's landscape plan shall be subject to further review and approval with individual site plans. Sewer/Water. Sanitary sewer and water utilities are being extended to the subject site as a City project. Determination of applicable SAC/WAC fees for each lot will be made at the time development plans are approved as commercial SAC/WAC fees are based on the specific users. Park and Trail Dedication. Park land dedication requirements for all of Waterfront East were satisfied with the first final plat of the subject site. Development Contract. Consistent with the direction of the City Council, all plans must be finalized and approved by City staff and a development contract ready to be executed prior to City Council consideration of a final plat application. RECOMMENDATION The proposed final plats are consistent with the Waterfront East PUD Concept Plan and preliminary plat previously approved by the City Council.` We recommend approval of the six submitted final plat applications, subject to other comments by City staff and the conditions shown below. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Motion to approve final plats for Waterfront East 1 through 6 Additons, subject to the following conditions: 1. A cross parking and access easement shall be recorded against all lots within the development, subject to approval of the City Attorney. 2. Development of all lots shall be subject to the requirements of the PUD District established 10 November 2003. 3. All easements, grading, drainage, utilities and construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and post all required fees and securities subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 3 B. Motion to deny the request based on a finding that the application is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Waterfront East concept plan. C. Motion to table. c. Mike Robertson, City Administrator Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator Andy MacArthur, City Attorney Ron Wagner, City Engineer Bob Fields, Landcor John Brickley, Landcor 4 NAC 1 _ G K• , * '. C� I II,/ , O 7 • loili■ V BASE MAP DATA PROVIDED BY r id � 11111 ii t & .,._ • P- 7-0 1r► w I Ha kanson � + '-�' .r , w• j� , _ °� �� - Anderson if.) :`iii:, ∎mil ' .. � I �7 e d �pu11 �,� ASSOC.,Ir1C. ' � 1 1 111■!1= �:. .; 11 °! rrrn P� '' „1� e ��i �--� I1� e l l I 11�� x..411 PREPARED OCTOBER 2001 _ I�a _ iI♦.2.1�I!io�.�� ., 1 4 — Mill rirtillireirikai'Lli :_ SU= JEC TSI •;....e -I r s ` _ is – ° ® i U 1• • : ��:: %% %itii�u NOTE[ ' '■ _ _ ' ■„ �/' ! ■" \ \ = ::MN \- h - Mme: \ 11 11 °, .._. � �1 �•� 11 I�rf /n �� a : ■ �.li �� iu'�� e l • ' .�� ■ THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING — Iii mill / /: //� �e�111 ■�� .. ■ u�•. ■ �� I �j.� PURPOSESONLYANDSHOULD �� e✓ • . ��111 g �• :.. L'i : . is 11 .r ■�� / � 1��,1U MOW �� ' i NOT BE USED FOR EXACT T � � ^T- 1111 r- X1 ��D ± w e O1 ; MEASUREMENT. ■ ■■ �7 .. _ hi I II�IIIIIiII , I = —� • ii. :. �- i- i � L -- �i /�..: - • ' .. mi u i • 'u . SCALE: 11IP� \1M 1111111 ii. 111,III ;a ,,1 ��1�_�_- �_d ■ \j �. ■ ` ®. �� 11 _ '- •:11111111 . -- ,V.:',...11, .7 ■ ..� ! � , ��■ 1 ..: r__:�..� 1,11= -! I I JI � ! 11111111111 '" II \ ♦��y ali;;. ; '- 1 r X1111 110— -- :,,::.�. ;;;,; N TH AIMEE !ilMI T istif tli� A �, • ,..� imsrmrurrr , •\� n ME. Iii/ ■- � ■ iT.11 1 1111 "��i • • if 1 c., _ ums • Eil \! ■■■ 1 ia l■1il�11 ■1 ■1 111117 1\ 1.� :: ■r IIII , • CITY OF iii � mOT SE GO MO X CO 1 ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD • a • A - gezu 1480.4"N ..6e ''. C .-. . '-■ a._ • , - ---..ffl =4 WO UM= IMAM • :\ 1. 1 1,/, .11.5 11/ MS ■0 WI ViRMS *we a wr we, a ..r, ron 024 IP • \ v , . 0..... .•• -.• --. 0 \ ‘ ), \ . • a 6un ta *I VI .5 .r0 .e0 Alt k. 7. 1k 1 ,- v A \ . -- .-- -- ,,-., ,..._ ,- , • i ? _co- •-•,- :, • 7...„) •,, .s . ______ _ . ,. --- • __-- - -. ., . < -. ‘,•.-g. I ly_ ... v. .'Y ..oi \ Stf -- 1. ... • , .. • .. . I t 1 g s. . .ts 1. • ''. cles--‘ \ \ \ ., ... • • , \ ,.- • 4,‘ --i-s. • 2.0 - s !-!.( „„,,,■. \ . \ . ■ % 4$ •' \ ik `i \_.• \ ,.- ,‘ 0 ,. _ , , I k k - \ 1. ,,-- 1, V\ \ .-. \'''' t z , ,,,.. , h.- \ ii . \ \ r - ....1 . ! k, ,..4 % r : p, \ . 1 \ ,... t --- - . . , 1 • • 1. . e. •-• .... ,- \ vc, 1 \ ,. . . \ \ \ \ 7 0 it .. `A .. ''' •• t-- - 1 \ 4. "0... b .•kar.z.s.A. • ', • st \ \ . \ t b....:t. , ,,..._spB- ':,;!.. I 1 I I. 1 \ ... ',, \ ;. 1 • , . •- \ ‘ 4 . ‘ , i l 'g \ % ..: Iftee 1 w •. -1----- ' 1 I t i \ I t •:, - . '5',\''s 1 \ 1 \I t CO 1a .ft _...1 -:--A 11 'tv, ; ■ 1,14. , 3 \t• -4 ', . , ..„ , . , ,„„, \ . 1 e•-= ,----. 1 t 1 , ' ,-, ' _., , ta? -r , , 12 , t\ I 1 1 I t Al t I I tt I II , 1 1 1- ft I itt ) r - . \ ■ r ■ A ._____, • 4 l.:4' • \ W •••-, l I I t s - - - ...„ ,. 2. -I I • i . g \ \ 1:1%- - ---- r- . . i \ SLI !" ..1 , - Ea 1 % ...... - .. - - 1: ■ - -, • 1•.. , 1 11 - - - I . IlliC tt •1 I I 0 I I t K I o A 1 I s„..1141. •••• • 4 i ,‘1 ‘.,.. t -1 I 1 I : .11,1 -tz . • /rPV°81.' % \ •••• 1 I I 61 t EE . , ) . . cs =I; • 1 ,,,, 1 ,, ‘„,....,.. r' _-- _---, % .2:' ■ 1 . i 1 r'; 1/41 1 1 I I Dr • I ....,,: tr --- cs s 1 ‘-- • --- i 1 kt 1 A tz. ,____-- 1,,s \ , ______________ _____,_______________d__It______ - 4 ., ------- \ 1 E ,t ::. . •,.. , • , s . , . , , A • \ ...: ..gl ....gil cil cn . :, \\ *s.,, .N ‘ -- .. • - „-...c m •.is 1 -= W,, • c. ' . f ... z:' ri.. cn - k e% NJ %a...Lc> ' --‘ • I F • \ ..., I A ' I ''-', i i 1, \ , ,._ i b I t• ,/ ': ' \ . .2. ' • . I I . I 1 14 1 . . - I I ' \ I 1 1 :* \ I i 7t . / ilaaaa • • '- 1 1 .1 ..-:i.. i \ ...,11so..24 ... • \ 1 up %Ists,, a. ,::, .. , , //1 `I'', • 1 Pii3ig.7. 44.44'4 ' t t ,,, t /4. .1,t_ i ■ Ar . / / 1 4 0 . L.L__ _ ___ k _ •. k / a ,zal. 17? 747 • * / • . // // . t • , • .... • , \ / \ . ' c/2 "- t ./ k '1 ' A .-, .4. .4 V , .,/ \ 0' , 44 'i • .:..-. • / / ....0, 2-11 1 IA 1 1 j k IP a i 1 glei i■ 1, /• 2 ■ ,'' ,, 1 i' S 1 i 1 i g - 1 —I--1 3 . 1. • pl 11 1 N • al. . / • Ps • - -; 1 . . I li li i i § 11 I iiiii i . / •,/ ,.::, a BISON ., • \,. e .... , 111 / ' \ ; tiN, ■ . .. . RIVER tot . WATERFRONT • •:••*: EAST 0 , 4 ,r• 47°,7 lje ,0 0 ..: ......... / .• • soo . ....,..*.,••:-.:..'-'°" • ri ill 1 . . . . . . .. CITY OF 0 100 200 5.} „,:::::, ,.,---- / S\ MINNESOTA r iUmmLENJ •.::::::::• ...." .0.' .,:,' I ="' SCALE IN FEET soTA .:::::,;i::::,.;,- • !W N Ls IIIIIIO I I I M Inc. , 0. 0 ,:i:iiiiii'. ..• :;, ''''- - • • •••• •••• •• Il . t ,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1,,,, 01,240.'1 ........ ........ ........ ....... ,•-t . ...::::::::::::::::::,. , : ..•:::::::::::::::::::::,- ■k ir, I .. : ...•:•:•:::::::::::::::::::•,e.• \ G.,.. ‘‘- i-i . 1 0 0 ; ' ' •='-• 1 0 7-4 : •::::::::::::::::::::::::::„,.• .... 0,0 ,. - - . ( ..II._ , .•:,:::::::::::::•:•:•:•:••• 1 i " 1 il e#A ' --\ *7 \\ 3 : 1 - ' . - '7 u'll ii 055.1....M. ..,::::::iii:.::•. \ 8 ‘V %. Mnmesle tun nun,' b, '1:!•1:i:::::iii1ii::/'''''''': % _ 1 -111P :_---- - ...... Nc' 1.. ' °. s. \ 4 ,,, . , 4 44.- -- 1 1 .4 1, TRE___ILB_ .. ' 0 -›‘ t% t,,,e .._ ..-", - -::::Alig l , _ -----", - s r . -,:,... \ '" '13141. WK \ ■ \1 1 i)1 s \ "..4 ,e,/ s' N''' • 4" \ \A . >'-'- ,e a..11.t-1-° . .."! t ••-• ' r .• „:", op. . ,.. , ." .• .. - . av iroo * . -•..\ , 4 4 -ve- * .. .A - i' - lii, . .• • _•• _.1111. N \- - .--• 't . \ N 0 pli \ 1. '',. ■ N\ <1.c .?--- -•--. 1221`..- ......-..----• . _.... .- ...... — awe.- Air" .. . "Pr . * % \ \ V.- - .11;V, - ''' - ■ - • . . — . - -.....---- . mr..2.-,=-.-...:::.:=1:•z-z=n-.. . ____ N , '41 110 . lib . . ... ...., ..._______- - w ag, 0# A ...■ . \ . / F.:-.....r.: = z r....1..---::-...-.....-7.- 1 . 7 111''.4.110 ••••.....W. if....... j..,.......vogiall, e 11.1.1 0 1 ' ==== . .0 t . V• 11111 4 / .. - -- nn cam mama nu • N . n % t ..' 4 .,. 461,6 ten Une an nu ,4w t I I---r—i ....011$ : "' -rs ' 'I ' . .. . -■_.4if. oi7 .... ,.............. mons tn. es= bum nu • . - • . 4./ uu a u suroulue . nrisus nua • . b , n •5 " Ifla 1.1.-- II . -V . • - u ...... 1 Ifillq• .:d .... ........ • ..... ene Is a Insu se .. ran ma ..-- . .0 onitu.... ,i11010 con onus mum • . ,- 1 MO „........ -••••• -• , \ ‘140■•=lir .4 L.-T... . . ./. .,...... .••''''' "t 41. • .-u--. n. .... . „... .--n.. ... r ,.• .,,,,,,....-....,...-_ , -- - - ___-- - , _ • ______- •. _ -- ...I\ . .......,..),FF cLet... ., . ,. - _ 1 0 1 - ----- ____- ■ \ 11- I— 1 • ,. • - _ HIGHWAY ___----- • . . STE SYMBOLS • \ tn.. ...Az. A.A.,.. -- 0. ...,.. ,_..._„... =11 1 ......• c.: .............. / ,,...7.... ....... 0 I • =moo ....• II I % . ......,.--•••■••• a — = ".r.:::;:" .■ it r _.„1 1 ■,, ,,. ? Ill OM ‘141r34 I „,..._____„ ga ..r...,,o_ _,.._ ..... ....4 .. - — 1 I— LOUCKS.1. Il■ 61:1 ee 7:11 -1 - , i• - = E" - ;:i• , Oa '.- Or p7^- .-E E 7.■ awl . -4: -...... ' -- = = 1 : leo • . i 1 . : , 1 ASSOCIATES CO ...a • ........ • la sm. II= A . ....1 .. 1 laninn WIWI • 040..3 • me, a t„,..,,,,,„ L- -- - _ • i ! 1 ------,..7.T.r.-zr.- I • ..,....‘,..., i; - _ . ; 2 = ■ • ;111111111111 CS = VI II 11111 :j Odiiinitin i PRELIMINARY 1111 al1111111111111111111119 1 NV 111111111111 9 I ! I /A avaurna r 1 C.) F _m W • I • k 4 ® `El x .1 s. z 0 —__ • gy o '0o Imo.. a � , _ ' \ \ • h s _ . \ d ■ q RI m ; \ 0 4 ■ p \` T pq{G� \� `\ 0 \ \ �C \� �\ ,1 .. V. ■ • ` I G ` , ' \ 7 ,, ~ / - ' 1.17 \ \ ■ �_! -' 0 ° ° \ ` • I \ _ • w \ \' \ ` k .\ \ \ \ • '�1; ; \ \ w — \ \ \ • o a s • 1 1 w a la 1S l . e E 1 1, 1 I sal g� 8 1 6 • 1 $ .t , 55 b �8 "s gg gI $ E I 5 66 1 S s i a 1 I I 1 1 J % . €$t 6 4 s k tg 0 9� i6 ey 6 �c I I l gg II C/3 if a ° E1 4 i I 1 g E ill G i o 0 fig 2 E 4 2 e @ I � s � � � E li if 1,, a a $ �j � a .. s s - tiq4 1 41 : e .25 gp. 11 I 1 i ll 1 441 l lA EA _ l _ `. . N FE Z K W ` $� i 1 1 -5 hi \ \ 2 � \ I i ih \ L .o N W - \, __ \ O \\ \ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` ■ a ■ A ° y \ a '\ \ \\ s� A \,\ s \ ry \ \ .:.:: \ 1 i i .k \ \\ C ''' ,,'''''' . 1 t T R8 ■ - i — f i E 9 . ., \ I y µ °. \9 1 /r \Oph ° i , —+ ' en 1 t g:. 1:: r LI N % 6 0 i t a g 11 1 C4 ' i I I 1 1 5. 1 g $ tI I � 44 $ 81 1 <* gag § ji I • 1 gti h i s I II h i B 111 I ° h AI CS s e 1 8 g 1 at r E s g� Pi i g 8 I I g • �l ; % E a $ Alia B 1 g I 1 . 1 6 E Q 3 B 8 1 h '1 1_ I 1 1 1 t ' 4 i 11 i 1 .1 i I . -. - 4111 '4 a 1 1 I r 1 1 1 i I . a I li F kil h1 n i b I I, i ll d i N it R N i 1 A C 6 _ i _ fli - i W • N m . 1 x • W X 4 C 1 i i 8`d " "t— �� \ \ I iv. 31° \ \ p X b \ 4:- \ \ ` � ✓ \ \ g x3 A . \. 9 O af , ` , \\ 11441 q—+— -1 -r -- § °B 1 ■ \ A S 1 V r \ 0 ?a 1 C " \ \ 444 il 13 ., \ \ M = 3 ; \ \ . 9 A g \\ o CI) \ „ ° 1 w 6 0 6 1 1 r� g a '�1 g a ' I Ic a a a a E @d : II jj . 1 Ji I 8 , E _ 5 i a �� a I s i ft r+1 11 a il Ea a ! i fl - a' 1 I c 1 cum ii a � 5 y A $iii s i 4 ii CZ �� = g 1 e• , . • la ii 2 : a € a 11 ' mt 1 g i 1 0: 1 a !gil 11 i . 0 a ii t . . , 4 1 ; I: 11 1 b I g 1 1 11% !sa q g li 19 • i OTSEGO WATERFRONT EA LO T FOURTH ADDITION Q7AWA& a min EASEII0110 6 GRAPHIC SCALE ARE crow DM KNOW ALL YEN 5T RIESE FRESOIIS That WATER/R001 EASE u4 0 100070010 IIMad (kWh/ mompels he awn at the NAoAip NORTH dwo' 0 ptepstiy situated h the State of 84 . oto, Carty of WfyrL to de _ HO 7 lair. w reed 10-1 1 FOR NNE PURPOSE OF 1110 PIAT 7NE SOUTH LINE ��11 NO 07111.01 L OTSEGO WATERFRONT FAST. BEARS _I LJ_o _ NORM 5515'72' E 04 ACCORDANCE EAST. BE RS Oafaf I GISMO WATERFRONT EAST, mmi91p to Me ne0o deed plat therm( an Oe h W oh*. of the Comfy Raende, 114141t t TT PLAT astral Lowly I NO SCALE PLAT Taw red tame in to be Bandied and platted 00 OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST MIRTH ADDITION and do henry dmnte an m d o olt NM a IA t BY a eo1 son brew th. 700000010 as .seen m Ol p lot hr barrio mu/ Why warm we SEE mu m OM 0110 o Rv 0 ... dedYat7 10 Ma prb0e Kr puu00c we MOB 000.10 I O uo xo m 1 oe BAT In .)amt 707004 said WATERTRO41 EAST LL 1 0 Yh0e00to mood Ibb0fy company has mused thew prevents to be egnd by . Its office/ 0110 —_ au of --- WATERFRONT EAST, LLC • • • STATE 10 MN/QmTA li - WATT 10 O U 1 1' 0 T • The krepor0 b nanant was ricsarsdpd born mints -- day ./ 2L0_ by an Wail W aid _.__. - _ _.. - ot EASE. LL4 0 ma...a...0.0 l�OVm7pmA : _ I .:.�ppEA5 -- ' campers __ 1 I • au ntA Yene BOto �, •-•; - iNOrany FaeSC __ Yr W nr7lbwrr app. ' 1 1 I herb/ earthy that I haw a end patted the crawly domed an fhb plat as OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST FOURTH Oi/Tl (: 1 1 A... that Mb b a cared n¢eemnt0707 of the $ that m Or e. an correctly stun an the plot r Art and i x n 1 1 nanamw a/ a 005 that m monuments ham been manwur placed h a° � 100 3 oioid stem stem Nat "" outer. baraid.7 uITres an 1 1 Or designated an 0n plot end that ate the no .al land m deOrea 014 9H / ed a prrOfb I'I 10 w , i 1 OUTI.OT J I • d.ely .10. than as shoo N \ 00110 4 YnInIHe 00. L Lo,d SunelaT / L I 0810 L. Nth 25851 1 / L ( n / L 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA . � L I CO 10 LOT I The Demote, s Ceil0lcnte orY..0. rod bobs me Mb — day of 200- . by 00 A • , 1 NeO .. , BLOCK 1 1 .. T� • ,taYMd " ° Cued . EOmed l uau.. No 2.5654 < , \ 1001 1 • Notey rams County YO08000 : ` � .� /•' • 03-0-•51 /�• 1 11 • 107 Cammfder Eve.. :tip.. % _ L 1.^ f ed h amrprews AN YMmo10 31010tw I Rde t p 000 W4TFRFR FAST ORIN 4000)04 ev eOPrmed e'd acer \ .� s cYm 303 0E 05000 m 7 ; er a. af y + ar ao a tY a 0tmpq 10h ar o mrMp /ai Ihb _ d ui oI 1 . I . THIRD ADDITION 9 :_ \ \ Motor \ L ‘i.:\ ■ EsvnEred and rarer tended hr . fhb .--_- d0' °/ ma — \ � ` • • \ \ . . '' I Co �• MOT to ntx 10107.eo10 \ • .• 1 � r A • m s� Tam paid ha Hn� —rai ba in tnid 1010 ay01 - p0�,. ,. , - - - _ - �. . . _ -. - � ' F \� : ` L p ` \I ` _ . _ _ 1 ` �.. ^ � , I L , i : . _ _. _ tanfyAUdfv. MOM County County 0011/100 1 ' # \ V, ` I / hereby 100100' that fur papWe h the pea an /alb herd demhed a7 poled Mb d0' d / $ •OL 0 ' 0' Co V / 200_-. .../ ` County Perrier, NNW Counts /nnewta /\ -- TLO / \OUTLOT !: I hereby wru0' that Mb remnant me red h thb oleo. 00 the Coady Raeder ar mold or Mb _day of Document / ' - 2av_� at o'loot A IL and eat Oib',•oend°d r Okra Steed m $ \ . Ibnbw __ Mpe Wawa* .......- a wa* � EXHIBIT F SHEET I OF I SHEETS • • 0 _1 _m . _ K W • ■ g 1ill - X 2• hia a b8i • v d:$ 4 �',,, : ___ - - -=— ¢' I a C A _ 1 � ig PI 1 ,, V W 1 EN i Q a i s ‘4 1 a l "1 a 1 . s s s e " 11! ^• 8 i � ! ' s 2 PP fi t 6 1 1 21c t I P 1 i € j l i o g 6 , 616!1 1 i a it I C5 it 1 11 1 tg l$ ; € ; 1 1 It Cl) P. 1 8 1 e� 8 �� g I s� 6 g _ $¢ y EB I a iii it i 1 E a : e I li E II 61 g Q 1 ' i B fi fi! @1. S y i 1 1 x 6 1 a,h ,, a its 1 It 1 4 i I. t L .. m . I � I t ga y : r ` �, i ." k i I I 1 1 i g1 o b a d s 4 y E i jj Z 8 1 aI €1 € I € 1 it € g 1 1 E 1 h 1 I iI k Z H m Z K W aas I b 1 KDI 21 .. z a I bri • 1 . • �b O 4 ' s ■ Y 1 � gg p ! � \ \ \ CI p i 0 F 11 .4 fa v.,,,,, ' 0% 0 • �� ` t''' -''. fti fir. '. . • ....::;:,\ \ \ 64 C k I s sg I i 1 AP tt ) 6 I i $S.g j 1 �i i t i g" PC 4 c 1 1 a E1 1 1 i j1 sp i j Cab I: i, 1 1. B 18 1 S I $ w a il Cn ° § zoos il. 2 I g e1 v i= i y zi 18 @ i t 5 j j I iI h I lb pp I I I I i i i L g pp 9 S V Q C iit b Set I A 1$ _1 ; ftl 1k • Hakanson 30 A nderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763/427 -5860 Fax 763/427 -0520 r.° : •#.�.�. -;, Assoc Inc :4�� °:�: -�.� 1 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator Judy Hudson, Clerk Dan Licht, NAC Andy MacArthur, City Attorney Bob Fields, LandCor John Brickley, LandCor Truc D. Ho, P.E., Metro Land Surveying & Engineering From: Ronald J. Wagner, PE Date: August 10, 2005 Re: Otsego Waterfront East 1 through 6th Additions - Otsego Waterfront East 1 Addition — Previously O.W.E. Outlot L Otsego Waterfront East 2 Addition — Previously O.W.E. Outlot M Otsego Waterfront East 3 Addition — Previously O.W.E. Outlot H Otsego Waterfront East 4 Addition — Previously O.W.E. Outlot I Otsego Waterfront East 5 Addition — Previously O.W.E. Outlot J Otsego Waterfront East 6 Addition — Previously O.W.E. Outlot K I have reviewed the above referenced final plats and offer the following comments: OVERALL 1. Otsego Waterfront East Outlots B, C, D, E, F and G, along with Otsego Waterfront East 5 Addition Lot 1, Block 1, do nothave direct access to a public street. Ingress/Egress Easements shall be provided to grant street access to landlocked outlots. 2. The final plats shall be submitted to Wright County for review /approval. 3. The dimensions of each plat do not agree with those shown on the Otsego Waterfront East plat. Please verify. 4. Additional drainage and utility easements will be required during individual site plan reviews. \\Ha01\shared docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx \2309 \ot2309outlotfprvwl.doc OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST 1 ADDITION — LOT 1, BLOCK 1 1. The third and eleventh paragraphs on sheet 1 of 1 shall describe the plat as "OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST FIRST ADDITION." t OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST 2 ADDITION — LOT 1, BLOCK 1 1. The third and eleventh paragraphs on sheet 1 of 1 shall describe the plat as "OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST SECOND ADDITION." Hakanson \\Ha01 \ shared docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx \2309 \ot2309outlotfprvwl.doc Anderson Assoc., Inc. COURI, MACARTHUR & RUPPE, P.L.L. P. Michael C. Couri* Attorneys at Law David R. Wendorf Andrew J. MacArthur 705 Central Avenue East Kristen H. Carr Robert T. Ruppe ** PO Box 369 Alison K Marwitz St. Michael, MN 55376 -0369 *Also licensed in Illinois (763) 497 -1930 * *Also licensed in California (763) 497 -2599 (FAX) courimacarthur@earthlink.net August 17, 2005 Otsego Mayor and City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Ave NE • Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Waterfront East Outlots Dear Mayor and Council Members: Attached is the proposed Developer's Agreement form for the existing outlots located in the Waterfront East Development. The agreement contains a provision addressing the allocation of the assessments for public improvements contained in the development and also a provision where the Developer agrees to waive any and all right to appeal the assessment on that particular parcel. The agreement also requires that Site and Building Plan approval must be obtained prior to any construction or other activity occurring on the premises. Andy MacArthur will be present at the meeting to address'your questions or comments. Very truly yours, + C()Av Kristen H. Carr COURI MACARTHUR & RUPPE PLLP • DRAFT- August 17, 2005 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA DEVELOPER'S CONTRACT- RETAIL /OFFICE BUILDING LOT BLOCK _ , OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST ADDITION AGREEMENT made this day of , 2005 between the City of Otsego ( "CITY"), a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota and ( "DEVELOPER "). The AGREEMENT affects the following described real property located in Wright County, Minnesota: LOT , BLOCK , OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST ADDITION according to the Plat on file and of record at the Office of the County Recorder, Wright County, Minnesota. 1. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL. No construction or other activity may occur on the property until DEVELOPER has received Site Plan and Building Plan approval. On CITY approved the Site and Building Plan, subject to certain conditions, which include execution of a Development Contract between the DEVELOPER and CITY. 2. DEVELOPER SUBJECT TO PREVIOUS AGREEMENT. DEVELOPER is subject to any applicable terms and conditions of the DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT between CITY and WATERFRONT EAST, LLC executed on December 20 2004, and on file at the Otsego City Hall. 1 3. DEVELOPER ASSESSMENT. Pursuant to the DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT set forth in Paragraph 2 above, DEVELOPER is responsible for its pro -rated share of the assessments for public improvements within OTSEGO WATERFRONT EAST, City of Otsego Project No. 20p4- . The assessment for the pro -rated share is $ . Said assessment is to be paid out for a period of seven years. DEVELOPER must either submit a Letter of Credit in the amount of the pro -rated assessment for the above described property, or make actual payment of one year's assessment (at 7% interest) which is $ Said payment of one year's assessment must be made prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on the described Lot. 4. WAIVER OF APPEAL. DEVELOPER hereby specifically agrees to the waiver, payment and surety provisions contained in that DEVELOPER' S AGREEMENT dated December 20, 2004 and agrees that the lot under development benefits to at least the amount of the estimated assessment and hereby waives any and all required hearings, any irregularity in the proceedings and any and all rights of appeal, either statutory or other. 5. SEWER AND WATER AVAILABILITY CHARGES. DEVELOPER shall be charged for sewer and water availability in the estimated equivalent of Residential Equivalent Charges (RECs). The estimated amount of the total charge is $ . This amount is due prior to execution of this Agreement by CITY. The SAC and WAC charges are calculated based upon office use of the facilities. 6. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEE. Park and Trail Dedication fees for Lot Block , Waterfront East Addition are waived in exchange for DEVELOPER's conveyance of a permanent drainage and utility easement and DEVELOPER's construction of trail improvements contained in Lot _ Block _ of Waterfront East Addition. 7. OWNER TO PAY ALL COSTS. It is understood and agreed that amounts set forth in this Agreement as costs, unless specifically specified as fixed amounts, are estimated. DEVELOPER and OWNER agree that OWNER will pay the actual costs, provided the costs are consistent with the feasibility reports and preliminary cost estimates as determined at the time of assessment roll, associated with the proposed development together with platting cost's, interest, administrative, engineering and legal costs with respect to their respective parcels, unless and to the extent same are included in the assessment. !� 8. MISCELLANEOUS. 2 (a) Third parties shall have no recourse against the CITY under this Agreement, except for permitted assignees as approved by the CITY. (b) Breach of any of the terms of this Agreement by the DEVELOPER shall be grounds for denial or revocation of building permits. (c) If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. (d) If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the DEVELOPER shall assume all liability for the costs resulting in any delay in completion of public improvements and damage to any public improvements caused by the CITY, the DEVELOPER, is/her contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents, or third parties. No one may, occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface, unless a specific exception is approved by the CITY. (e) The action or inaction of the CITY! shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the CITY Council. The CITY's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. (f) This Agreement shall run with the land, shall be recorded against the title to the property, and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interests in the plat or any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns. After the DEVELOPER has completed the work required of them under this Agreement, at the DEVELOPER's request, the CITY will execute and deliver to the DEVELOPER a release or partial release (s) of this Agreement. (g) Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the CITY is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to CITY, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the CITY and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. 3 (h) Should development of the lot proceed at a pace slower than anticipated, and for that reason, specific terms of this agreement become onerous or unduly burdensome to the DEVELOPER, upon his/her application, the CITY will enter into negotiations regarding those specific terms and shall not unreasonably withhold consent to appropriate changes in the terms of this Agreement. (i) DEVELOPER shall demonstrate and maintain compliance with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. (j) DEVELOPER shall be responsible for all on site drainage as well as for any affects that their actions may have on adjoining properties. Specifically, DEVELOPER shall maintain existing drainage tiles on site, and shall be responsible for any and all drainage problems related to either the site drainage tiles or problems with on -site drainage facilities to be constructed in accordance with this agreement and plat approval. (k) Separability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein and any other application thereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. (1) Notices. Required notices to the DEVELOPER and OWNER shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the DEVELOPER and/or OWNER, their employees or agents, or mailed to the DEVELOPER or OWNER by registered mail at the following address: Notice to the CITY shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the CITY Clerk or Deputy CITY Clerk at the following address: CITY of Otsego, CITY Hall, 8899 Nashua Avenue NE, Otsego, MN 55330, Attention: CITY Clerk or Deputy CITY Clerk. 9. AGREEMENT EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding and extend to the respective representatives, heirs, successors and assign i of the parties hereto. CITY OF OTSEGO By: 4 Its: Mayor And: Its: City Clerk DEVELOPER By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) SS. CITY OF OTSEGO ) On this day of , 2005, before me personally appeared Larry Fournier and Judy Hudson to me known to be the persons described in the foregoing instrument and who did say they are, respectively, the Mayor and City Clerk of the municipal corporation named therein and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said Larry Fournier and Judy Hudson acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) SS. CITY OF OTSEGO ) It On this i day of , 2005, before me personally appeared , the of , to me known to be the person described in the foregoing instrument and who did sign said instrument as`a free act and deed.. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: COURI, MACARTHUR & RUPPE LAW OFFICE POBox369 It 705 Central Avenue East St. Michael, MN 55376 (763) 497 -1930 i a 6 I ' - ITEM 5_3 i • I NAC NORTHWEST ASSOCIATE CONSULTANTS, INC. \\V 4800 O Memorial Highway, Suite ,;202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Tele 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners @nacplanning.com I I MEMORANDUM; i TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council it FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: X16 August 2005 III O tsego — Comprehensive Plan; Riverwood National ! NAC FILE: j176.08 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 15 August 2005 to consider a proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Plan addressing the long -range operation of the waste water treatment plant to be constructed at Riverwood National. Mr. Chris Bulow, the developer of Riverwood National, was not in attendance. There were no comments from the p ublic. Iv i The Planning Commission agreed with the need to clearly state the City's policy for the treatment plant to be constructed. Their main concern with the proposed amendment was weather the language was strong enough to discourage applications to expand the service area of the plant and prevent additional users from connecting. City staff explained that the criteria for connection to the as yet to be constructed Riverwood National waste water treatment plant were the same as,applied to the City's other two waste water treatment plants and that any proposal for development must first comply with the Comprehen,s`ive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No new development plan would meet these criteria. ! The Planning Commission also expressed concerns that there have been houses constructed and occupied without the waste water treatment plant being constructed. City staff explained that the developer has been slow to submit full plans for the treatment plant for review by the City Engineer. Waste water is currently being hauled from the completed lift station to the City's west waste water treatment plant at the developers cost. Staff noted that one positive of the current situation is that when the treatment plant is finally constructed, the start-up time will be minimized due to the number of in -place homes ready to send effluent to the facility. . • The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment as outlined in Resolution 2005 -40. This item will be placed on the consent agenda of the City Council meeting on 22 August 2005 at 6:30 PM. I , c. Mike Robertson, City Administrator Judy Hudsontoning Administrator /City Clerk Andy MacArth ir, City Attorney Ron Wagner, City Engineer Chris Bulow I ' 1 ' I i I I • I 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2005=40 CITY OF OTSEGO i WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION; AMENDING THE CITY OF OTSEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING THE PLANNED RIVERWOOD•NATIONAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND EXTENTION OF SERVICE TO LANDS BEYOND RIVERWOOD NATIONAL. i WHEREAS, the City Council approved a PUD Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for Riverwood National on 8 July 2002; and, i� WHEREAS, these approvals allowed for approval of a final plat on 22 September 2003 for development of 157 single family dwellings and an 18 hole golf course and ancillary facilities within Riverwood National; and, WHEREAS, these approvals provide for the allowed uses within Riverwood Natiortal to have sanitary sewer service by a wastewater treatment plant to be constructed by the project developer; WHEREAS, the design of the Riverwood wastewater treatment plant is approved by the City Council to provide capacity only as required for the project and is subject to approval by the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, upon construction of the Riverwood National wastewater treatment plant and establishment of operations, said facility is to be dedicated to the City for Tong -term ownership, operation and maintenance; and, WHEREAS, the project developer has yet to begin construction of the proposed Riverwo National wastewater treatment plant to provide service to the development;I and, WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that includes a staging plan for expansion of sanitary sewer service and extension of sanitary sewer to lands adjacent to or in proximity of Riverwood National would be inconsistent with these plans and would negatively impact the City's service capabilities; and, 1 . WHEREA the lands adjacent to or in proximity of Riverwood National would be anticipated to be provided sanitary sewer service from the City's established Wes4wastewater treatment plant and the operation and maintenance of two wastewater treatment plants where one facility is adequate is inherently inefficient; and, j i WHEREAS, the City cannot collect additional fees or assess charges to existing users of the Riverwood National wastewater treatment system for construction of capacity at the West wastewater treatment plant at such time as the Riverwood National wastewater treatment system is integrated With the West IL wastewater treat system; and, l WHEREAS, the expansion of the Riverwood National wastewater treatment plant a its collection system to service additional users beyond Riverwood National increases the future costs to the City to integrate the Riverwood National wastewater treatment system with the West wastewater treatment System" and, i WHEREAS, the City has received numerous informal inquiries as to the potential to expand the capacity of the Riverwood National wastewater treatment plant and its collection system to provide service beyond the Riverwood National project; and, ` 1 WHEREAS, the City Council is to definitively rnemorialize its policy and intent regarding the potential expansion of the capacity of the Riverwood National wastewater treatr'nent plant and its collection system to provide service beyond the project by this resolution. WHEREAS, the Otsego Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regular meeting ont5 August 2005 to consider an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan related to the waste water treatment plant to be constructed at Riverwood National, preceded by published notice; upon review of the issue, and other evidence, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission recommended by a 7 - vote that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment based on the aforementioned findings. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Otsego that Page of the Otsego Comprehensive• Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: A third sa sewage treatment system is being to be constructed by a private developer in conjunction with the Riverwoocl National golf course subdivision located at Kadler Avenue and CSAH 19 in the northwest comer of the City. This system is to be designed to provide service only to this development, _ - _ _ _ - - : -- = = _ _ = - _ - - - -_ - = -_ _ _ - - - = _- -- i 2 itk Upon construction and successful establishment of the treatments system, the developer is required to tum thewaste water treatment plant over to the City for long - term ownership, operation and maintenance. The City anticipates that this system will be maintained as an interim facility until such time as the City's current west wastewater treatment plant. collection system and water system is expanded to include the`Riverwood National development in accordance with the Urban Service Staging Plan. At that time it is anticipated that the Riverwbod National Treatment Plant would be decommissioned for operational efficiency. Because the City cannot collect SAC fees from new development outside of Riverwood National and then collect such fees again when the Riverwood National Wastewater treatment plant is decommissioned, it is financially unwise forthe City to allow for additional connections beyond those already approved. Furthermore, allowance of additional connection's to the Riverwood National Wastewater treatment plant beyond these already approved would compromise the City's established growth management policies creating a third node of development and increasing the potential number of new dwellings that may be constructed requiring additional City Services. - Therefore, itthe City has resolved that: 1. At such time as the City's established West wastewater treatment plant and collection system are expanded to include Riverwood National in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Riverwood National collection system is anticipated to be connected to the West wastewater treatment system and the Riverwood National wastewater treatment plant decommissioned: and. 2. Expansion of the capacity of the Riverwood National wastewater treatment plant and its collection system to provide service beyond the boundaries of the Riverwood National development approved on 8 July 2002 by this resolution shall be allowed ONLY under' the following conditions: a. i Extension of sanitary sewer service mandated by public health safety concerns related to failed or failing on -site sewage treatment systems servicing existing developed parcels. 3 b. By petition of owners of existing developed properties served by existing on -site sewage treatment systems. c. ! 'Benefiting property owners shall assume all of the improvement and service costs., I ' ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 22 "d day of August, 2805. it CITY OF OTSEGO BY: Larry Fournier, Mayor ATTEST: Karee Rbwell, Deputy City Clerk Aye /Nay: Fournier: Heidner: Scharber: Stockcamp: Thorstad: 4 1 Engineers Pay Requests • 8/22/05 City of Otsego Project Project Name i Pay Estimate # No. ' k Contractor Amount Otesgo Waterfront East 2 04 -08 Veit $690,115.90 Quaday Avenue 1 04 -02 Imperial $179,345.28 Developers Total $869,461.18 I , • ITEM 5 _ 4- PAY ESTIMATE #1 , CITY OF OTSEGO Street and Utility Improvements Quaday Avenue NE SP 217 - 107 -04 MN Project # STPX 8606 (062) City Improvement Project No. 04 -02 August 8, 2005 1 Honorable Mayor & City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Quaday Avenue NE Contractor: Imperial Developers, Inc. . Contract Amount: $1,098,383.66 Award Date: June 15, 2005 Completion Date: June 16, 2006 Dear Council Members: ' The following work has been completed on the above - referenced project by Imperial Developers, Inc. (as of August 4, 2005). Bid Schedule "A" I it Item Description : Used to Estimated Quantity Unit Price Contract Price Date Extension 1 MOBILIZATION I 1 LS $31,200.00 $ 31,200.00 0.5 $ 15,600.00 2 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D It 1 EACH $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING It 1 LS $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00. 1 $ 2,000.00 4 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) 4 367 LF $8.00 $ 2,936.00 20 $ 160.00 5 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER A 250 LF '` $2.00 $ 500.00 $ - 6 REMOVE PIPE CULVERTS Ik 355 LF $6.00 $ 2,130.00 60 $ 360.00 7 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 766 SY $2.00 $ 1,532.00 $ - ' REMOVE RIPRAP :L. 15 CY I $10.00 $ 150.00 $ REMOVE BITUMINOUS FLUME li 1 EACH $250.00 $ 250.00 $ - 10 REMOVE SIGN I 1 EACH $20.00 $ 20.00 $ - 11 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) 240 LF • $3.00 $ 720.00 $ - 12 SALVAGE & REINSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE 375 LF ' $12.60 $ 4,725.00 388 $ 4,888.80 13 SALVAGE & REINSTALL ELECTRICI 480 LF $6.30 $ 3,024.00 410 $ 2,583.00 14 SALVAGE SIGN 1, 6 EACH $20.00 $ 120.00 ' $ - 15 SALVAGE CONCRETE APRON Ill 2 EACH ' $100.00 $ 200.00 $ - 16 COMMON EXCAVATION IL 87000 CY : $2.38 $ 207,060.00 43500 $ 103,530.00 17 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 100 %RUSHED • 11440 TON $11.97 $ 136,936.80 $ - 18 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (2 ") 4 410 SY $6.25 $ 2,562.50 $ - 19 TYPE LV 4 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) 3425 TON l $34.60 $ 118,505.00 $ - 20 TYPE LV 2 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) 4100 TON $31.00 $ 127,100.00 . $ - 22 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TAC COAT 1100 GAL $1.55 $ 1,705.00 $ - 21 15" RC PIPE APRON 'L 4 EACH $310.00 $ 1,240.00 $ - 23 18" RC PIPE APRON I L 2 EACH $333.00 $ 666.00 $ - 24 24" RC PIPE APRON W/ TRASH GU 1 EACH $660.00 $ 660.00 $ - 25 30" RC PIPE APRON W / TRASH G 4 EACH $895.00 $ 3,580.00 $ - 26 INSTALL CULVERT MARKER 'k 9 EACH t. $20.00 $ 180.00 $ - 27 INSTALL CONCRETE APRON' ?4 2 EACH ' $200.00 $ 400.00 $ - 28 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V 1391 LF $21.50 $ 29,906.50 $ - 29 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III 268 LF_ '• $23.00 $ 6,164.00 $ - 30 21" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III 153 LF $26.25 $ 4,016.25 $ - 31 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL I 59 LF $29.00 $ 1,711.00 $ - 32 30" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL IL 625 LF $39.00 $ 24,375.00 $ - "3 8" PIPE PLUG Ik 7 EACH _ $21.00 $ 147.00 8 $ 168.00 ot340PEPAY ESTIMATE #1 ; PE - 1 00300 PAY ESTIMATE #1 CITY OF OTSEGO Street and Utility Improvements Quaday Avenue NE SP 217 - 107 -04 - MN Project # STPX 8606 (062) City Improvement Project No. 04 -02 Bid Schedule "A" - Continued Used to Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Price Contract Price Date Extension 34 12" PIPE PLUG it 1 EACH $73.00 $ 73.00 $ 35 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER 6 EACH `$700.00 $ 4,200.00 4 $ 2,800.00 36 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARYISEWER 4 EACH ,'$900.00 $ 3,600.00 $ - 37 8" PVC PIPE SEWER t 310 LF $37.40 $ 11,594.00 270 $ 10,098.00 38 12" PVC PIPE SEWER !E 1821 LF $40.90 $ 74,478.90 $ - 39 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER M 4 EACH '$900.00 $ 3,600.00 $ - 40 INSTALL BUTTERFLY VALVE AND A. 12" 2 EACH $1,048.00 $ 2,096.00 $ - 41 RELOCATE GATE VALVE ;! 5 EACH :^$355.00 $ 1,775.00 2 $ 710.00 42 RELOCATE HYDRANT I 5 EACH $628.00 $ 3,140.00 2 $ 1,256.00 43 ADJUST CURB BOX 1. 5 EACH $200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ - 44 GATE VALVE AND BOX 6" IL 3 EACH .:$685.00 $ 2,055.00 $ - 45 HYDRANT 1` 3 EACH $2,027.00 $ 6,081.00 $ - A. 46 6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 5 65 LF $21.50 $ 1,397.50 $ - 47 12" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CLI2 1880 LF $31.25 $ 58,750.00 270 $ 8,437.50 48 WATERMAIN FITTINGS ?E 3256 LB 1 $2.86 $ 9,312.16 2440 $ 6,978.40 49 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DE 27 -4020 2 EACH $745.00 $ 1,490.00 $ - 50 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48 -4020 9 EACH $1,308.00 $ 11,772.00 $ - u 51 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 54 -4020 2 EACH $1,757.00 $ 3,514.00 $ CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 66 -4020 1 EACH $2,227.00 $ 2,227.00 $ - _ CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 2' X 3' 7 EACH $989.00$ 6,923.00 $ - 54 INSTALL MANHOLE I. 9 EACH $2,286.00 $ 20,574.00 3 $ 6,858.00 14 55 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 1 3 EACH $1,491.00 $ 4,473.00 $ - 56 RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 10 EACH $595.00 $ 5,950.00 4 $ 2,380.00 57 RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHO 19.8 _ LF '4160.00 $ 3,168.00 13 $ 2,080.00 58 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III ik 64 CY ' $45.00 $ 2,880.00 $ - u 59 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 8500 LF $8.05 $ 68,425.00 $ - 60 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESI 8612 210 LF $12.35 $ 2,593.50 $ - 61 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 18 SY '' $35.75 $ 643.50 $ - 62 6" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER 1, 720 SY $34.75 $ 25,020.00 $ 63 TRAFFIC CONTROL 'E 1 LS $4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 0.5 $ 2,000.00 '64 SIGN PANELS TYPE C I. 65 SF .' $23.00 $ 1,495.00 $ - 65 INSTALL SIGN PANEL TYPE C" ;l: 6 EACH $84.00 $ 504.00 $ 66 PAVEMENT MESSAGE - EPDXY ! 2 EACH '$155.00 $ 310.00 $ - 67 PAVEMENT ARROW - EPDXY !l 2 EACH `$105.00 $ 210.00 $ - 68 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - PAINT 4200 LF $0.32 $ 1,344.00 $ - A. 69 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPDXY 4200 LF • $0.35 $ 1,470.00 $ - 70 4" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY i1 8500 LF $0.18 $ 1,530.00 $ - 71 CROSSWALK WHITE - EPDXY '! 3 EACH $440.00 $ 1,320.00 $ - 72 12" STOP LINE WHITE -EPDXY 1 75 LF . $3.75 $ 281.25 $ - 73 BALE CHECK I1 50 EACH , $13.35 $ 667.50 $ - 74 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED 2500 LF $2.40 $ 6,000.00 2457 $ 5,896.80 75 SEEDING TYPE LAWN RESTORATI 13 . ACRE ,3200.00 $ 2,600.00 $ - i I o1340PEPAY ESTIMATE #1 PE - 2 00300 I i PAY ESTIMATE #1 CITY OF OTSEGO 1 I Street and Utility Improvements', Quaday Avenue NE SP 217 - 107 -04 i . MN Project # STPX 8606 (062) City Improvement Project No. 04 -02 Bid Schedule "A" - Continued I Used to Item Description �1 Estimated Quantity Unit Price Contract Price Date Extension 76 SEED MIXTURE 60B 1; 195 LB $3.14 $ 612.30 $ - 77 SODDING i 1700 SY $2.70 $ 4,590.00 $ - 78 COMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 10 -10 -10 6500 LB '• $0.30 $ 1,950.00 $ - ii 79 HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZERS TYPE 6 16 TON $17.00 $ 272.00 $ - if Total Bid Schedule "A" $ 1,098,383.66 $ 188,784.50 1 SUMMARY OF BIDDING I Bid Schedule "A" Removals I $ 1,098,383.66 $ 188,784.50 TOTAL $ 188,784.50 LESS 5% RETAINAGE: $ 9,439.23 WE RECOMMEND PAYMENT OF: I • $ 179,345.28 APPROVALS: ! CONTRACTOR: IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS, INC. Certification by Contractor: I certify that all items and amounts are correct for the work completed to date. Signed: i Title: Date Ik 1 IEER: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lertification by Engineer: We recommend payment for work and quantities as shown. Signed: 'ii I Title: Date I OWNER: CITY OF OTSEGO I , Signed: Title: Date , ' , 1 . ot340PEPAY ESTIMATE #1 PE - 3 00300 • ITEM 5_5 � PAY ESTIMATE NO.2 ITEM NO. 5. CITY OF OTSEGO • Waterfront East Street and Utility Construction Project 04 -08 ,, August 22, 2005 Honorable Mayor & City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. Otsego, MN 55330 RE: WATERFRONT EAST, COP 04 -08 Pay Estimate No. 2 Contractor: Veit & Companies; Inc. Original Contract Amount: $ 1,650,674.80 Award Date: May 11, 2005 1 Substantial Completion Date: November 15, 2005 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: i The following work has been completed on the above referenced project: I ACCUMALATED QUANTIES TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO DATE Bid Schedule °A° - Str Construction Quantity Completed this Pay Item # Description Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension period Extension 1 Mobilization ik 1 LS $45,000.00 $45,000.00 0.50 522,500.00 2 Remove Existing 24' & 2T RCP!' 225 LF 311.00 $2,475.00 0 $0.00 3 Reprove Existing 15 RCP IL 65 LF $11.00 $715.00 0 $0.00 IA 4 Remove Existing Curb Inlet Structure 2 EACH $85.00 $170.00 2 $170.00 5 Remove Existing Curb & Gutter !k. 860 LF $1.20 $1,032.00 860 $1,032.00 6 Remove Existing Concrete Median 350 SY 31.50 5525.00 350 $525.00 7 Remove Bituminous Pavement IL 3,920 SY .. $2.00 $7,840.00 0 $0.00 8 Sawing Bit Pavement (Full Dept 250 LF ', 53.25 $812.50 0 $0.00 9 Salvage & Reinstall Sign I 4 EACH .. $110.00 5440.00 0 50.00 10 Granular Fill I : 12,000 CY t $1.50 $18,000.00 6,000 $9,000.00 11 Topsoil Stripping (P) i1 •1,000 CY $1.50 31,500.00 1,000 $1,500.00 12 Class 5 Aggregate Base (T) 4- _ 5,033 TON 1 $11.00 $55,363.00 0 $0.00 13 MITI Bituminous Surface I I 30 SY :. 517.50 $525.00 0 $0.00 14 Type LV 4 Wearing Course Mixture (B) 1,405 TON $32.90 $46,224.50 0 $0.00 15 Type LV 3 Non - Wearing Cours M ixture (B)(2.5 ") 1,273 TON . 530.80 $39,208.40 0 $0.00 16 Bituminous Material For Tack C g oat 450 GAL $1.80 $810.00 0 50.00 17 ,Adlust Valve Box iL.. 22 EACH $350.00. $7,700.00 0 $0.00 18 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting 1 8 EACH 3600.00 $4,800.00 0 $0.00 19 Concrete Curb & Gutter Design B618 2,708 LF � 58.00 $21,664.00 0 $0.00 20 Traffic Control I ` . 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 0.50 $2,500.00 21 Sign Panels, Type C 111 . 65 SF 524.50 51,592.50 0 $0.00 22 Pavement Arrow - Epoxy ikt, , 6 EACH $125.00 , 5750.00 0 $0.00 23 Pavement Message ('ONLY') - Epoxy 6 EACH , 5175.00 51,050.00 0 50.00 24 4' Solid Line White - Epoxy 4.. 800 LF 50.60 5480.00 0 $0.00 I 25 4 Broken Skip Line White - Epoxy 240 LF . $0.60 5144.00 0 $0.00 ' 26 24' Stop Line White - Epoxy !L., 60 LF l 56.50 5390.00 0 $0.00 27 4" Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy ilL 3,504 • LF $0.60 52,102.40 0 $0.00 28 24" Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy it 576 LF k 52.50 $1,440.00 0 $0.00 29 Biolog Erosion Check IL 200 LF 56.80 51,360.00 0 30.00 30 Silt Fence T • : Machine Sliced 4 000 LF 51.60 $6,400.00 3,000 54 800.00 I i Total Bid Schedule °A' 3275,513.30 $42,027.00 1 i I 1. m8Zld.13PAY ESTOMiEF2 I PE - 1 • . I PAY ESTIMATE NO.2 ITEM NO. 5._ CITY OF OTSEGO Waterfront East I Street and Utility Construction Project 04 -08 I I ■ ACCUMALATED QUANTIES TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO DATE Bid Schedule 'B° - W atermaln - Quantity Completed this Pay Item # Description il Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension period Extension i 31 Connect to Existing Watemiain Ilk 2 LS $750.00 $1,500.00 1 $750.00 32 12' Ductile Iron Pipe CI 52 lE 1940 LF 552.00 5100,880.00 1,668 $86,736.00 33 8' Ductile Iron Pipe CI 52 li 525 LF ';542.00 522,050.00 400 516,800.00 34 6' Ductile Iron Pipe CI 52 ii 80 LF 527.00 52,160.00 54 51,458.00 35 1 -1/2" Copper Service Pipe !4 60 LF ,$30.00 51,800.00 0 50.00 36 1 -112' Service Tap and Curb Stool 1 EACH 5750.00 5750.00 0 50.00 37 Ductile Iron Fittings Ik 3000 LB ' , $4.00 $12,000.00 1,598 56,392.00 ` 38 12' DIP Cut-in Sleeve !! 2 EACH $450.00 5900.00 0 50.00 39 12" Butterfly Valve and Box I1. 8 EACH $1,450.00 $11,600.00 4 55,800.00 40 8" Gate Valve and Box ll 3 EACH 51,050.00 53,150.00 2 $2,100.00 41 6' Gate Valve and Box 11 10 EACH $800.00 $8,000.00 9 $7,200.00 42 Hydrant i, 8 EACH , 52,225.00 517,800.00 8 $17,800.00 43 Hydrant Extension lit 8 LF , 5450.00 53,600.00 0 $0.00 44 Salvage and Reinstall 1? Plug l�. 1 EACH .5300.00 5300.00 1 $300.00 45 T Insulation ik 1000 SF $1.25 51,250.00 500 $625.00 12" DIP CL 52, Fastite Jt., Installed by Jacking and Boring of 20" 46 Steel Casing 1 450 LF $240.00 5108,000.00_ 450 5108,000.00_ Total Bid Schedule B' $295,740.00 5253,961.00 I ACCUMALATED QUANTIES TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO DATE Bid Schedule 'C° - Sanitary Sewer - - I , Quantity Completed this Pay Item # Description I Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension period Extension 56 8' PVC SDR 35 8-10' Deep I. 335 LF 516.00 $5,380.00 339 $5,424.00 57 8" PVC SDR 35 10-12' Deep IL 270 LF 525.00 $6,750.00 300 57,500.00 58 8' PVC SDR 35 12 -14' Deep li : 350 LF $30.00 510,500.00 40 51,200.00 59 8' PVC SDR 35 14-16' Deep I 340 LF 532.00 510,880.00 63 52,016.00 60 8 PVC SDR 35 16-18' Deep AL 430 LF 543.00 518,490.00 272 511,696.00 61 10" DIP CL 52, Fastlte Jt., 16-18' D eep 34 LF '5110.00, 53,740.00 65 57,150.00 62 6" PVC SDR 35 Service Lateral !l. 250 LF •. 519.00 54,750.00 256 54,864.00 63 Standard Sanitary Sewer Manhole 0 -8' Deep 9 EA 52,800.00 525,200.00 4 511,200.00 64 Manhole Overdepth IL 50 VF .$185.00 59,250.00 25 $4,625:00 65 Remove Existing Manhole 8. Con ect to Existing Sanitary Sewer 1 EA 15850.00 $850.00 1 $850.00 66 6" PVC Riser Pipe A 30 VF 520.00 $600.00 36 5720.00 67 8 "x 6' PVC Wye I. 6 EA ' 575.00 5450.00 2 5150.00 68 6' Plug i. 6 EA 510.00 560.00 0 50.00 ■ 69 Package Sanitary Litt Station 1 1 LS 525,000.00 525,000.00 0 50.00 70 3' PVC SDR 21 Force Main I 565 LF '. 510.00 55,650.00 80 5800.00 71 Televise Sanitary Sewer 7 . 1725 LF . 50.50 $862.50 0 $0.00 I Total Bid Schedule 'C'' 5128,392.50 558,195.00 I. OT82313.0PAY ESTIMATED- PE E - 2 I I PAY ESTIMATE NO.2 ITEM NO. 5. 1 CITY OF OTSEGO I Waterfront East Street and Utility Construction I Project 04-08 1 I ACCUMALATED QUANTIES ■ TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO DATE Bid Schedule'D' - Storm Sewer, Det Pond and South Ditch 1. Quantity I Completed this Pay Item # , Description ! Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension period Extension 72 17 X 6' Concrete Box Culvert - Stra Section, ;lave 2('1 -R' Inver) 600 LF $525.00 $315,000.00 600 $315,000.00 73 17 X 6' Concrete Box Culvert-Curved Section, ;lass 7(3' -fl' cover) 198 LF $525.00 $103,950.00 198 $103,950.00 74 7'X 5' Concrete Box Culvert- Straight Section, ;lava 2(3' -B' cover) 36 LF $320.00 $11,520.00 0 $0.00 75 27 Class III ` l 268 LF $43.00 $11,524.00 0 $0.00 76 18 Class III ;i 160 LF $30.00 $4,800.00 0 $0.00 77 15 Class i11 I! 130 LF ,. $28.00 $3,640.00 0 $0.00 i 78 2T FES w/Trash Guard 4. 3 EACH .$950.00 $2,850.00 0 $0.00 79 18" FES w/Trash Guard I 2 EACH $650.00 $1,300.00 0 $0.00 80 15" FES w/Trash Guard I! 1 , EACH $600.00 $600.00 0 $0.00 81 48" Skimmer Outlet Structure ;1 1 EACH $2,100.00 $2,100.00 0 $0.00 82 48" Catch Basin Manhole IL 5 EACH $1,550.00 $7,750.00 0 $0.00 83 60" Catch Basin Manhole I. 1 EACH $2,000.00 $2,000.00 0 $0.00 84 12'x6' Box Culvert Cast-In-place Concrete Headwall 1 EACH $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1 $30,000.00 85 7'x5' Box Culvert Cast -in -place Concrete Headwall 2 EACH $20,000.00 $40,000.00 0 $0.00 86 Random RipRap Class III l` 40 CY $100.00 - $4,000.00 0 $0.00 87 Random RipRap Class V I 670 CY 1100.00 $67,000.00 0 $0.00 88 Gravel Filter Bed Under Rip Rap 11 350 CY $55.00 $19,250.00 0 $0.00 89 Filter Fabric Under Gravel Filter Bed 1000 SY $1.00 $1,000.00 0 $0.00 90 Common Excavation -Detention P & Ditch 200,800 CY $0.55 $110,440.00 80,000 $44,000.00 91 Topsoil Stopping (P) 4 39,500 CY 1 $2.35 $92,825.00 20,000 $47,000.00 92 Waste Topsoil Replacement FIII 1 76,500 CY . $0.01 $765.00 0 $0.00 93 Seeding Mixture - 60B I 2,550 LBS ' $2.10 $5,355.00 0 $0.00 94 , Commercial Fertilizer, 10 -10-10 1, 8,500 LBS $0.45 $3,825.00 0 $0.00 95 Erosion Control Blanket - Category 2- Straw 1S 63,000 SY $1.00 $63,000.00 0 $0.00 Erosion Control Blanket - Category 5- Coconut 96 2S li- 1,200 SY ' $2.10 $2,520.00 0 $0.00 97 Mulch Material -Type 1 1 34.0 TON .i$120.00 $4,080.00 0 $0.00 98 Seeding - Type Lawn Restoration' 17 ACRE $105.00 S1,785.00 0 $0.00 Total Bid Schedule '1:11 $912,879.00 $539,950.00 1 I I I I 1 f I I i 1 I C . OT61]mteEPAYESTINATEtl1 I PE - 3 , PAY ESTIMATE NO.2 ITEM NO. 5. CITY OF OTSEGO , Waterfront East I Street and Utility Construction i Project 04 -08 1 ACCUMALATED QUANTIES TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO DATE Alternate Bid Schedule ;E' - Waterrnaln - ' t , Quantity Completed this Pay Item # Description Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension period Extension 99 12" Ductile iron Pipe CI 52 ■1 745 LF , ' 2 0 LF $25.00 $18,625.00 0 $0.00 100 6' Ductile Iron Pipe CI 52 1 • $20.00 $400.00 0 $0.00 101 Ductile Iron Fittings I4 400 LB $4.50 $1,800.00 0 $0.00 102 12" Butterfly Valve and Box 11. 2 EACH $1,250.00 $2.500.00 0 $0.00 103 6" Gate Valve and Box 1 .1 1 EACH $800.00 $800.00 0 $0.00 104 Hydrant ii. 1 EACH $2,225.00 $2,225.00 0 $0.00 105 Hydrant Extension Ik 1 LF $450.00 $450.00 0 $0.00 106 Z" Insulation I. 100 SF _ $1.25 $125.00_ 0 $0.00 Total Alternate Bid Schedule ''E" $26,925.00 $0.00 I ACCUMALATED QUANTIES I T CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO DATE I I Altemate Bid Schedule 'F'.- Sanitary Sewer - ' i Quantity Completed this Pay Item # Description Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension period Extension 107 8' PVC SDR 35 14-16' beep I` 300 LF $20.00 $6,000.00 0 $0.00 108 8' PVC SDR 35 16-18' Deep i! 40 LF ` 321.00 , 3840.00 0 30.00 109 6' PVC SDR 35 Service Lateral I` 10 LF 316.50 3165.00 • 0 $0.00 110 Standard Sanitary Sewer Manhole Deep 1 EA $2,850.00 $2,850.00 0 $0.00 111 Manhole Overdepth ;` 6 VF 1$185.00 31,110.00, 0 $0.00 112 6' PVC Riser Pipe 1 4 VF , . 320.00 $80.00 0 $0.00 113 6' Plug IL: 1 EA • $10.00 $10.00 0 $0.00 114 Televise Sanitary Sewer 1 340 LF ! $0.50 3170.00 0 30.00 I Total Alternate Bid Schedule '7' $11,225.00 $0.00 ■ I' • OT6230.0PAY ESTD. TEJ12 PE - 4 _ I , PAY ESTIMATE NO.2 ITEM NO. 5. CITY OF OTSEGO Waterfront East Street and Utility Construction Project 04 -08 Total Base Contract A-0 i' $1,612,524.80 Total Alternate E-F $38,150.00 Total Contract Amount $1,650,674.80 TOTAL USED TO DATE $894,133.00 LESS RETAINAGE 5% $44,706.65 LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 1 $159,310.45 $159,310.45 Pay Estimate No.1 $159,310.45 • Pay Estimate No.2 WE RECOMMEND PARTIAL PAYMENT OF: $690,115.90 APPROVALS: � CONTRACTOR: Veit and Company, Inc. Certification by Contractor.' I certify that all items and amounts are correct for the work completed to date. Signed: Title: Date: ENGINEER: Certification by Engineer. We recommend payment for work and quantities as shown. HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Signed: Date: i Tttle: OWNER: CITY OF OTSEGO Signed: Tina: Date: I , oTersa1tatPAYESTIMATEM2 PE - 5 ,. ITEM 6_ CITY OF OTSEGO Memo To: City Council From: Brad Belair Date: 8/18/05 Re: Painting of plow trucks I have received a quote from Crysteel Truck Equipment to paint the two single axel plow trucks we are purchasing. The quo does not include bodywork, which I expect to be minimal, or the painting of the plow equipment. The trucks will be availabe in September and the painting will take about two weeks. I have attached the quote for you to review and will be attending the council meeting to answer any questions. I ' I , • Page 1 -�• •�• •• . Y 1 FAA !Oa Oil DUNI CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT g 002 C RYSTEEL 763 -571 -1902 TRUCK EQUIPMENT 1130 73rd Avenue NE 1- 800 J 95 -1280 Fridley, MN 55432 Fax 91 ( 4N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY a/PL DYFR August 16, 2005 . I Brad Belair City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Ave NE! Otsego, MN 55330 -7314 Reference: Quote for Refurbish of 9' and 10' dumps Dear Brad: Per our conversation we are pleased to quote the following: • Prep Cab, Hood, & Door Jams, Prime / seal w/ urethane primer /sealer & Paint one fleet color w/ poly urethane baked on finish $2100.00 Blast body, prep, prime / seal w/ e P p /urethane primer / & Paint 1 fleet color w/ Poly urethane baked on finished $1250.00 Blast Frame & ,Wheels, Prime / seal w/ urethane primer / & Paint Frame Black Poly urethane, & Rirns Lt Gray $ 900.00 Blast Body underside, Prime / seal w/ urethane primer / Sealer, & undercoat w/ rubberized undercoating $ 355.00 Total Per Truck $4605.00 5 -year warranty on paint. All applicable taxes will be added at time of invoicing. Please look over this quote and if you have any questions, please give me a call. Delivery on these units is approximately 10 working days after we receive the trucks. • I ' ITEM 6_2 CITY OF OTSEGO M emo To: City Council From: Brad Belair Date: 8/18/05 Re: Prairie Parkdrash receptacles and grills I have attached quotes for the purchase of trash receptacles and grills to be installed in Prairie Park as directed by the City council and park commission. The installation will be completed as soon as the order is received. I expect sometime in September. • I • i • Page 1 !I , From:EARL F ANDSEN INC. 952 884 5619 08/16/2005 14:03 #422 P.002/002 I . Page: 1 i PROPOSAL ENTERED BY: PMS QUOTE NUMBER: 0073489 QUOTE DATE: 8/10/2005 I ' I ' QUOTE TO: I SHIP TO: CITY OF OTSEGO I CITY OF, OTSEGO ' OTSEGO CITY HALL OTSEGO CITY HALL 8899 NASHUA AVENUE N.E. 8899 NASHUA AVENUE N.E. ELK RIVER, MN 55330 I` ELK RIVER MN 55330 ATTN:• BRAD BELAIR 763 -441 - 8137 :' PHONE: (763)441 - 81 FAX : (763) 441 -8823 QTY ITEM NO DES PRICE EACH EXT. PRICE DUMOR RECEPTACLE AND GRILL PRODUCTSBELOW: 11 A 2.00 102 - 32SH 32 GAL. STEEL RECEPTACLE W/ SHIELD 1,119.00 2,238.00 4.00 21-00 4 POSITION GRILL FOR EMB EDMENT 171.00 684.00 FREIGHT FOR DUM• O $59 , PETERSEN RECEPTACLE W/LID AND LINERS BELOW: • i 2.00 TCR - DF ROUND TRASH RECEPTABLE W /LID 533.00 1,066.00 16, FINISH FOR TRASH RECEPTABLE - SAND TAN ETCH LID C LOR: BROWN IL 2.00 200 -0083 PLASTIC LINER 19 -1/2" x 29 -3/4" 49.00 98.00 i . F FROM PETERSEN RECEPTABLE, LID�I& LINERS $402.00. IF 1 " I i NOTE: This auotation Is valid for 30 days: Please call for confirmation after that date. Prices are NOT based SUBTOTAL $4,086.00 on prevailing wages. t. SHIPPING &HANDLING $993.00 DISCLAIMER FOR UNKNOWN CONDITIONS: The following disclaimer applies only when installation is quoted. SALES TAX $330.14 This quotation is based on the arca being free of all debris such as, but not limited to the following: *concrete 'footings or blocks of any type. *Bedrock or rocky conditions Of any type. *Tree stumps, trees, cans, bottles, metal or any other debris. *Utilities TOTAL $5,409.14 requiring any holes to be dug by hand. *If area Is not accessible to a bobcat and other equipment necessary for installation. *If water exists in site area or footings after they are dug. *Or any other unknown conditions not listed or visible. FOR. FACTORY 1 II TERMS: NET 30 DAYS SI ent approx. 4 -6 weeks upon receipt of order and subject to credit approval. , Do , require a 24 -hour delivery notice? 0 Yes Q No Approved by: I Signed by: -/ 0 k. CONTRACTOR CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES Date DAVID OWEN I 1 1 ITEM 6_3 CITY OF OTSEGO M em� To: City Council From: Brad Belair • Date: 8/18/05 Re: Prairie Park3helter I have received a quote for $350 from Canvas Craft to make a vinyl canvas for the West End of the pavilion at Prairie Park to be used as a windbreak. The canvas would be installed and removed as needed. I estimate another $50 for supplies to attach the canvas to the pavilion and two hours labor to complete the work. If approved by the City Council, the work can be completed before the fall festival. • Page 1 ITEM 7_1 NAC NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. P? 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite !k202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plannersr nacplanning.com � I MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM: !Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 1 1 6 August 2005 RE: i Otsego — Featherwind Farms 1 NAC FILE: ! 176.02 — 05.23 The Planning Com fission held a public hearing on 15 August 2005 to consider the proposed development plans for Featherwind Farms. Ms. Lucinda Gardner of Shadow Creek Corporation rind Mike Gair of MFRA and others were present to represent the project. The public hearing was well attended with three main issues being raised: • Adjacent property owners were concerned about future access to their properties. City staff explained that a street extension is to be required to the west plat Tine that right -of -way will be dedicated to allow two access points to the 28 acre exception area west of Maclver Avenue and that the two lots with single family homes`cannot be accessed from within the development and that this is likely the ultimate use of those parcels. • Adjacent property owners wanted fences installed along the perimeter of the project where HOA trail corridors abutted private! property. Staff explained that the City has not made this a requirement of other cluster subdivisions in the past and the Planning Commission agreed. The developer did indicate a willingness to consider installation of a fence. • Traffic and access onto CSAH 39 was a major concem. City staff explained that there currently are no plans for expansion of the 'roadway to four lanes, but that the County Will likely require that turn lanes and by -pass lanes be constructed at each accessto the development. A question was also raised about a trail along CSAH 39, which will require further discussion with Wright County. • Several people raised questions regarding the manure handling aspects of keeping horses within the project. A manure management plan will be required and has been added as a condition of approval. 1 i The Planning Commission's discussion focused on the proposed density of the project from two perspectives: What is appropriate for the project and what precedence would be established by allowing the proposed density. The Planning Commission noted that the proposed plat exceeds the open space requirements of the R -C District and that an exceptional amount of the frontage along the Mississippi River has been preserved as either HOA or publigpen space. While the Planning Commission did have concerns about the number of jots backing up to CSAH 39, the developer rightfully pointed out that configuration of the plat could be altered to extend lots into the 400 foot DNR easement along the river to relocating some of the lots from the CSAH 39 area. The trade off would be reduced open space along the Mississippi River, which they believe to be detrimental to the neighborhood and the City. Ultimately the Planning Commission determined that they approved of the site design as presented. 1 , The second part of their discussion related to preceden for allowing higher densities within the rural residential preserve area was equally important. The Planning Commission noted qat will the exception of the pending replat of Mississippi Cove, no other large parcels remain in the rural residential preserve for cluster development. The Planning Commissio y further discussed the issue of balancing the R -C District open space requirement relative to other approved projects. Based on this discussion, we reviewed our files and have the following summary of the five approved R -C District ii, developments compared to the proposed project: . Open Space Development Gross Net , ` Area Area li Area % of Gross % of Net Grenins Mississippi Hills 83ac. 83ac. 56;ac. 67.4% 67.4% Mississippi Pines ji 245ac. 224ac. 125ac. 51.0% 56.8% Forest Hills IL 51ac. 50ac. 25ac. 49.0% 50.0% Norin Landing ;k 61ac. 56ac. 31:ac. 50.8% 55.3% Mississippi Cove IL 64ac. 54ac. 26ac. 40.6% 48.1% Featherwind Farms ;t 325ac. 295 ac. 160ac. 49.2% 54.2% Ii Grenins Mississippi Hills exceeded the open space requirement significantly by arranging the homes' ithin "the development to access off of existing streets at the perimeter of the site, ieliminating the need for consumption of land by rights -of -way within the development. Mississippi Pines was also over :the required open space in part because the hogestead of the two existing property z owners were separated from the balance of the property and not included as part of the net figure. lk if The percentage of the proposed open space for Featherwind Farms is similar with that of Mississippi Pines and Norin Landing, both of which were developed at 12 dwelling units per 40 acres. What is unique about the proposed development in comparison with the other two is that approximately one -half of the open space area will be dedicated to the City. It must be noted however, that the City has the right to require such dedication under its Future Parks and Trails Plan or the establishment of ownership of required ``� open space within the R -C District as set forth by Section 20- 60 -7.E of the Zoning Ordinance. I 2 I I t • 1 The dedication of the land to the City and the overall configuration of the open space _ within the proposed plat are to be considered factors in allowing density over and above four units per forty acres. Whether the design of the project fits with the site and the City's overall goals need to be considered in deciding to allow density bonuses above that which is established by the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission's conclusion on the issue of precedence is that each project within the rural residential preserve needs to bei'evaluated independently to determine the best outcome based on the parcel being developed and the design criteria established by the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission did not think that allowing the. +proposed development at approximately 14 dwelling units per 40 acres would establish a precedence for other new R -C District developments on the few remaining vacant parcels or expanded development of the approved R -C District plats. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Map amendment and the PUD- CUP /preliminary plat as presented, subject to;the conditions outlined below. The application is to be considered by the City Council at their meeting on 22 August 2005 at 6:30 PM. POSSIBLE ACTIONS Decision 1 — Zoning Map Amendment I A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A -1 District to R -C District based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I B. Motion to deny the request based on a finding that the application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Motion to table the application. Decision 2 — Preliminary Plat/PUD -CUP it , A. Motion to approve the preliminary plat and PUD -CUP for Featherwind Farms, subject to the; following conditions: 1. Approv, I of the preliminary plat is subject to a decision by the City Council in response to the submitted EAW that the project does not have the potent al for significant environmental effects and that an EIS is not required. 2. The number. of allowed dwelling units shall not exceed the number identified on the submitted preliminary plat and compliance with any and all conditions that result in a decrease in the number of lots. 1 ■ i 3 3. The developer shall identify the net area of the parcels set aside as perms `ent open space. Outlots B, C, D, ,F G, L, P, Q, R and S shall be restricted by conservation easement as permanent open space to be regulated by Section 20 -60 -7 of the Zoning Ordinance and subordinate to City drainage and utility easement rights. 4. Trails constructed by the developer within Outlots K, M or 0 must be 10 feet wide utilizing asphalt material. Those trails constructed to be maintained by the homeowners association shall be at least six feet wide utilizing material. 5. The keeping of horses shall be an allowed accessory use of the lots within Blocks 7-31 subject to the following conditions: a The density of horses does not exceed one (1) horse per acre. b. A shelter or stable facility shall provide a minimum of one hundred (l 00) square feet of enclosed area per horse. c. Detached accessory buildings used to shelter or stable horses shall c onform to the accessory building limits of the R -C District, except that such buildings are not required to be within 150 feet of the p rincipal building on the same lot. d. A manure management plan to be implemented by the HOA to P Y include provisions addressing horses within outlots deeded to the ,` ty and compliance with Chapter 27 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted. 6. The preliminary plat shall be revised to extend right -of -way to the west plat line through the area of Lots 2 -3, Block 1. 7. The preliminary plat shall be revised to establish 30 feet of the west edge of Outlot K as a separate outlot for future right -of -way use. 8. Outlot R shall be overlaid by an easement allowing the Featherwind Y g Farms HOA access to Outlot Q and then' conveyed to the owner of the abutting'exception property. 9. All public street and share private drive designs shall be subject to approva'I by the City Engineer. 10. All shared private drives shall be overlaid by drainage and utility easements, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 11. Street riames il on the preliminary plat shall be revised to conform to the Wright County grid. I 4 12. Outlots K, M and 0 shall be dedicated to the City in satisfaction of park and trail dedication requirements subject to conformance with standard R- C District density allowances. Improvements illustrated within these outlots)shall be constructed by the developer at their cost subject to approval by the City. 13. The applicant shall illustrate grading for a trail g g ail corridor adjacent to they proposed ponds and wetland mitigation areas within Outlots K and M as part of their final construction plans, subject to approval by City staff. 14. Drainage and utility easements shall be established over Outlots A B, C, D, E, FLG, H, I, J, L, N, P, Q, R and S. 15. All easements, grading plans and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. B. Motion to deny the request based on a finding that the application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. c. Mike Robertson, City Administrator Karee Rowell, [Deputy City Clerk Andy MacArthur, City Attorney Ron Wagner, City Engineer Lucinda Gardner, Shadow Creek Corporation Mike Gair, MFRA Kathleen O'Connell, MFRA Brian JohnsonMestwood Professional Services 5 1 CITY OF 08 -16 -05 OTSEGO MINNESOTA FINDI M DECISION WRIGHT COUNTY, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICANT: Shadow Creek Corporation APPLICATION: Request for a Zoning Map amendment to provide for a change in zoning classification for land in within the proposed Featherwind Farms preliminary plat. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 22 August 2005 FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact: A. The legal description of the property is described by Exhibit A. B. The subject siteis guided by the Comprehensive Plan for rural residential land uses within the Rural Residential Preserve Area. C. The subject site is zoned A -1, Agriculture Rural Service District. The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map amendment to zone the property R -C, Residential Rural Open Space Cluster District for the p, rpose of developing 117 single family lots and approximately 160 acres of permanent open space. D. Consideration of the application is to be based upon (but not limited to) the criteria established by Section 20 -3 -2.F of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Find i The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site for rural residential uses aspart of the Rural Residential Preserve Area established along the Mississippi River no'►th of CSAH 39. The subject site is one of the most significant parcels in this area, if tot the entire City based on its overall area, the extent of river frontage, and natural amenities. The Comprehensive Plan encourages creative development of the subject site to maximize the interrelation between natural features of the site and new single family dwellings, which the proposed plat achieves. The proposed development plan includes dedication of land with significant amenity value to the City over and above minimum park dedication requirements and maximizes access to the Mississippi River. The project also includes opportunities for an equestrian element i which was an original part of the rural; ?residential preserve concept. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: ;The subject site is bordered by a proposed R -C District development to the east, CSAH 39 to the south and rural residential parcels and a commercial conference center to the west. The proposed development will be compatible with these uses. The Mississippi River abuts the north boundary of the subject site and the existence of a DNR wildlife easement, establishment of permanent HOA open 1 i I I space ace and dedication of land for public park will ensure protection and P .� P P P enhancement of the river corridor. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise', etc.). Finding. The proposed development is required to conform to all applicable performance standards of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, subbjegt to modifications approved by the PUD -CUP. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Finding. The proposed use is anticipated to have a positive effect to the area establishing a neighborhood with extensive open space, unique amenities and public spaces.] I 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. i Finding�Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not anticipated to negatively impact area property values. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding) iThe proposed use is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic. 7. The roposed use's impact upon existing ublic services and facilities including P P P P 9P 9 parks, sehools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's service capacityj. Findingl proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the City's service capacity. E. The planning report dated 10 August 2005 prepared by the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. F. The engineering review dated 10 August 2005 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein. G. The Otsego Planing Commission held a public hearing at their regular meeting on 15 August 2005 totonsider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice; upon review of the application, and other evidence, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission recommended by a 7 -0 vote that the City Council approve the request based on the aforementioned findings. DECISION: Based on! the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested Zoning Map amendment is hereby APPROVED. 2 I , II I ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 22' day of August, 2005. CITY OF OTSEGO By: Larry Foumier, Mayor Attest: Karee Rowell, Deputy City Clerk 3 ORDINANCE NO.: 2005 -17 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION INCLUDED WITHIN THE FEATHERWIND FARMS PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. The official Zoning Map of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of the property legally described by Exhibit A. Section 2. The property is hereby rezoned from an A -1, Agriculture Rural Service District designation to an R -C, Residential Rural Open Space Cluster District designation. Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Otsego shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the City Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the City Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance, and all of the notations, references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 22 " day of August, 2005. CITY OF OTSEGO BY: Larry Fournier, Mayor ATTEST: Karee Rowell, Deputy City Clerk • r CITY OF 08 - 16 - 05 OTSEGO FINDINGS & DECISION WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PUD- CUPfPRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: Shadow Creek Corporation APPLICATION: Request for a Zoning Map amendment to provide for a change in zoning classification for land included within the proposed Featherwind Farms preliminary plat. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 22 August 2005 FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact: A. The legal description of the property is described by Exhibit A. B. The subject site is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for rural residential land uses within the Rural Residential Preserve Area. C. The subject site is zoned R -C, Residential Rural Open Space Cluster District. D. The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD -CUP and preliminary plat for the purpose of developing 117 single family lots and outlots encompassing approximately 160 acres of permanent open space. E. Consideration of the application is to be based upon (but not limited to) the criteria established by Section 20 -4 -2.F of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site for rural residential uses as part of the Rural Residential Preserve Area established along the Mississippi River north of CSAH 39. The subject site is one of the most significant parcels in this area, if not the entire City based on its overall area, the extent of river frontage, and natural amenities. The Comprehensive Plan encourages creative development of the subject site to maximize the interrelation between natural features of the site and new single family dwellings, which the proposed plat achieves. The proposed development plan includes dedication of land with significant amenity value to the City over and above minimum park dedication requirements and maximizes access to the Mississippi River. The project also includes opportunities for an equestrian element, which was an original part of the rural residential preserve concept. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The subject site is bordered by a proposed R -C District development to the east, CSAH 39 to the south and rural residential parcels and a commercial conference center to the west. The proposed development will be compatible with these uses. The Mississippi River abuts the north boundary of the subject site and 1 the existence of a DNR wildlife easement, establishment of permanent HOA open space and dedication of land for a public park will ensure protection and enhancement of the river corridor. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Finding: The proposed development is required to conform to all applicable performance standards of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, subject to modifications approved by the PUD -CUP. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Finding: The proposed use is anticipated to have a positive effect to the area establishing a neighborhood with extensive open space, unique amenities and public spaces. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. Finding: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not anticipated to negatively impact area property values. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: The proposed use is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the City's service capacity. F. The planning report dated 10 August 2005 prepared by the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. G. The engineering review dated 10 August 2005 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein. H. The Otsego Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regular meeting on 15 August 2005 to consider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice; upon review of the application, and other evidence, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission recommended by a 7 -0 vote that the City Council approve the request based on the aforementioned findings. DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested PUD- CUP and preliminary plat of Featherwind Farms is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the preliminary plat is subject to a decision by the City Council in response to the submitted EAW that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and that an EIS is not required. 2 2. The number of allowed dwelling units shall not exceed the number identified on the submitted preliminary plat and compliance with any and all conditions that result in a decrease in the number of lots. 3. The developer shall identify the net area of the parcels set aside as permanent open space. Outlots B, C, D, F, G, L, P, Q, R and S shall be restricted by conservation easement as permanent open space to be regulated by Section 20 -60 -7 of the Zoning Ordinance and subordinate to City drainage and utility easement rights. 4. Trails constructed by the developer within Outlots K, M or 0 must be 10 feet wide utilizing asphalt material. Those trails constructed to be maintained by the homeowners associption shall be at least six feet wide utilizing asphalt material. 5. The keeping of horses shall be an allowed accessory use of the Tots within Blocks 17 -31 subject to the following conditions: a The density of horses does not exceed one (1) horse per acre. b. A shelter or stable facility shall provide a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of enclosed area per horse. c. Detached accessory buildings used to shelter or stable horses shall conform to the accessory building limits of the R -C District, except that such buildings are not required to be within 150 feet of the principal building on the same lot. d. A manure management plan to be implemented by the HOA to include provisions addressing horses within outlots deeded to the City and compliance with Chapter 27 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted. 6. The preliminary plat shall be revised to extend right -of -way to the west plat line through the area of Lots 2 -3, Block 1. 7. The preliminary plat shall be revised to establish 30 feet of the west edge of Outlot K as a separate outlot for future right -of -way use. 8. Outlot R shall be overlaid by an easement allowing the Featherwind Farms HOA access to Outlot Q and then conveyed to the owner of the abutting exception property. 9. All public street and share private drive designs shall be subject to approval by the City - Engineer. 10. All shared private drives shall be overlaid by drainage and utility easements, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 11. Street names illustrated on the preliminary plat shall be revised to conform to the Wright County grid. 12. Outlots K, M and 0 shall be dedicated to the City in .satisfaction of park and trail dedication requirements subject to conformance with standard R -C District density allowances. Improvements illustrated within these outlots shall be constructed by the developer at their cost subject to approval by the City. 3 13. The applicant shall illustrate grading for a trail corridor adjacent to the proposed ponds and wetland mitigation areas within Outlots K and M as part of their final construction plans, subject to approval by City staff. 14. Drainage and utility easements shall be established over Outlots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, N, P, Q, R and S. 15. All easements, grading plans and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 22 " day of August, 2005. CITY OF :OTSEGO By: Larry Fournier, Mayor Attest: Karee Rowell, Deputy City Clerk 4 Review No. 1 ENGINEERING REVIEW 2 -1 Hakanson Residential Subdivision Anderson for the City of Otsego Asso Inc. y 9 o by Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council cc: Mike Robertson, City Administrator Judy Hudson, City Clerk, Dan Licht, City Planner Andy MacArthur, City Attorney Lucinda Gardner, Shadow Creek Corp. Brian Johnson, P.E. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Reviewed by: Ronald J. Wagner, P.E. Shane M. Nelson, P.E. Joseph J. MacPherson, E.I.T. Date: August 10, 2005 Proposed Development: Featherwind Farms Street Location A 325 acre portion of the northwest'/ of Section 18, T121 N, of Property: R23W, and the north 'A of Section 13, T121N, R24W, north of CSAH 39, and south of the Mississippi River. Applicant: Lucinda Gardner Shadow Creek Corporation 172 Hamel Road Hamel, MN 55340 Developer: Shadow Creek Corporation Owners of Record: Vernon C. Kolles & Sons Purpose: Featherwind Farms is a 117 unit single - family residential open space cluster development on approximately 325 acres in the City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota. The proposed development will be served with private septic systems, private wells, storm sewer, and public streets typical of a rural setting. Jurisdictional Agencies: City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota Department of (but not limited to) Health, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Wright Soil and Water Conservation District. Permits Required: NPDES, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (but not limited to) \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ MunicipalWotsego23xx \2307\ot2307RVW1.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS INFORMATION AVAILABLE NATURAL FEATURES AND SURVEY SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN STREETS TRAFFIC /ACCESS ISSUES WETLANDS SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS SUMMARY AND /OR RECOMMENDATION \\Ha01 \Shared Docs\ Municipal Wotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc INFORMATION AVAILABLE Natural Features and Survey, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Site Plan, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Preliminary Plat, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Preliminary Landscape Plan, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Draft, 7/12/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report, July 2005, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Flood Insurance Rate Map, 9/30/92, by Federal Emergency Management Agency City of Otsego Engineering Manual City of Otsego Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, 10/14/02 National Wetland Inventory Map, 1991 Trunk Stormwater Facilities Study for Portions of the Otsego Creek Watershed, February 2003. NATURAL FEATURES AND SURVEY (SHEET C -2) 1. ' Existing zoning classifications for land in and abutting the subdivision shall be shown on the plan (Section 21- 6- 2.B.2). 2. Existing 100 -year flood elevations shall be shown on the plan (Section 21- 6- 2.B.9). 3. Location, size, and elevations of existing storm sewer and culverts, or any other underground facility within 150 feet of the proposed plat, shall be shown on the plan; (Section 21- 6- 2.B.5). 4. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land need to be identified by name and ownership (Section 21- 6- 2.B.6). 5. The flood fringe zones shall be shown on the plans. 6. The limits of the Shoreland Overlay District shall be shown on the plan. \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ MunicipalWotsego23xx \2307\ot2307RVW1.doc IC I SITE PLAN (SHEET C -3 TO SHEET C-4) 1. The ROW width for Featherwind Parkway at stations 12 +30 (sheet C -3) and 3 +33 (sheet C-4) is depicted incorrectly. The ROW width at these locations is 90'. 2. The typical section for the private drives shall depict a bituminous width of 24' per City of Otsego Standard Plate No. 100. 3. Lot 1, Block 34 requires a 35' building setback along both streets. 4. Cul -de -sacs shall not exceed 500 feet in length (Section 21- 7 -6.A). 5. Blocks shall not exceed 1200 feet in length (Section 21- 7 -3.B). 6. The septic system, drain field locations are shown on the plans; however, they shall be labeled as primary and secondary. PRELIMINARY PLAT (SHEET C -5 TO SHEET C -6) 1. The easement and ROW shall be rounded at intersections parallel to back of curb to allow for utility installation (111.13.). 2. Featherwind Parkway shall be renamed Lamont Parkway NE, Highmark Trail shall be renamed 98 Street NE, Millway Run shall be renamed 96 Street NE, Rosewater Trail shall be renamed 97 Court NE, Thistledown Curve (southern most stretch between Featherwind Parkway and Rosewater Trail) shall be renamed 96 Street NE, Legacy Turn shall be renamed 96 Circle NE, Ashdon Court shall be renamed Mackenzie Court NE, Thistledown Curve (northern most section between Featherwind Parkway and Rosewater Trail) shall be renamed 99 Street NE, Deepwater Curve shall be renamed 99 Circle NE, Burning Rock Road shall be renamed 99 Court NE and Plum Creek Trail shall be renamed 96 Court NE. 3. Location, dimensions, and purpose of all proposed easements shall be shown on the plans (21- 6- 2.C.5.). 4. Locations and widths of pedestrian ways shall be shown on plans (Section 21- 6- 2.C.2.). 5. Lots abutting collector streets shall have an additional 10' of width or depth to be overlaid with a drainage and utility easement for a landscape buffer yard (20- 16 -7 -D). PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL (SHEET C- 7 TO SHEET C -8) 1. It appears that not all lots are to be custom graded. All proposed grading shall be shown on the plans. More detail is required to determine locations of post construction drainage swales, cross drainage between lots and lot grades. 2. The invert elevations, pipe sizes and pipe lengths shall be depicted on the plans. \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ Municipal\ Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc 3. The 100 year water elevation of the Mississippi River shall be shown on the plans. 4. The inside slope along rural streets shall be 4:1 or flatter per City of Otsego Standard Plate No. 100. 5. Soil boring locations shall be shown on plans. Also, the soil boring and perculation test results shall be submitted for review. 6. Normal water elevations and 100 -year peak elevations shall be labeled for all ponding areas. Also, 2 -year and 10 -year peak elevations shall be labeled for each of the stormwater ponds (6.0.B.). 7. Runoff water shall be diverted to a sedimentation basin before it is allowed to enter the natural drainage system (Section 21- 7- 16.F.). 8. An earth berm at least four feet in height shall be installed in all designated buffer yards (20- 16- 7- D.3.b.). 9. It appears that the 100 -year water elevation of the Mississippi River will directly affect the septic system drain fields of Lots 1 -4, Block 32, and the lowest opening elevations of Lots 3 and 4, Block 32. Also, it appears that a section of Thistledown Curve between stations 31+00 and 34 +00 are within one foot of the 100 -year flood elevation of the Mississippi River. 10. The 100 -year elevation of the creek which runs through the development shall be shown on the plans. At this time, the City has not completed a study of said creek. The developer will be responsible for determining the 100 -year water elevation. The City will review this report. STREETS 1. The bituminous, base and subbase thicknesses shall be shown in the typical sections on plans. 2. A detail shall be included in the plans for the walking path and horse trail. TRAFFIC /ACCESS ISSUES 1. The County will have to evaluate the necessity for right turn lanes, by -pass lanes and left turn lanes along CSAH 39. WETLANDS 1. Avoidance of wetlands must be attempted. If wetlands must, be disturbed or filled they must be mitigated '. as per WCA requirements (Section 20- 16- 9.E.2). 2. A protective buffer of natural vegetation at least 20' wide from the delineated edge shall surround all wetlands. A principal building setback of 40' from the delineated edge of all wetlands or 20' from the protective buffer easement, whichever is greater, shall be provided. Some proposed structures do not meet this setback (Section 20- 16 -9.E). \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ Municipal\ Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc 3. The normal and 100 year water levels of the wetlands shall be shown on the plans. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 1. A complete stormwater drainage report shall be submitted as outlined in the City of Otsego Engineering Guidelines, Appendix C, Policy on Stormwater Drainage Submittal Requirements for Developer. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been completed. It has been submitted for publication in the EQB Monitor and is going through the 30 -day comment period. SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 1. It appears that the proposed location of the sanitary drain fields for Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, and Lot 2, Block 3, may conflict with the driveway. Please verify. 2. All sanitary drain fields shall be located a minimum of 10' away from all property lines (Chapter 7080). 3. The soil boring and perculation test results for the septic system areas need to be submitted for review. Also, the locations of said tests shall be shown on the plans. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1. Geotechnical data shall be submitted for review. Also, the geotechnical report shall include pavement recommendations (Section 21- 6- 2.B.11). SUMMARY AND /OR RECOMMENDATION 1. Revise and resubmit for City review /approval. \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ Municipal\ Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc ITEM 7_2 NAC: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Ask 4 '4 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 plannersaDnacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council • FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 16 August 2005 RE: Otsego — Rolling Meadows; Duke Realty Concept Plan NAC FILE: 176.02 — 05.27 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 15 August 2005 to consider the concept plan submitted by Duke Realty for the Rolling Meadows property located east of TH 101 at Queens Avenue and 60 Street. The concept plan also illustrates potential development of the Tom Jurgens property between 65 Street and 70 Street, but the acquisition of that property has not be agreed to by the parties and the layout shown on the submitted plan is for illustrative purposes only. Representatives of Duke Realty were in attendance to present their concept plan, City staff indicated that the Planning Commission is being asked to provide feedback primarily on the proposed land use. Discussions with the developer at staff level with regard to topography and wetlands suggest that the submitted plan will undergo major revisions prior to submission of any future preliminary plat or development plans. Comments from the public were heard from an adjacent land owner to the east concerned about the location and impacts to their property of extending Queens Avenue to the east. City staff responded that the location of the roadway is still being determined based on minimizing grading and avoiding wetlands, but that the property owners would be compensated for any land required to be taken from their parcel for the roadway. Other comments were heard from a resident of Wokson Hills along 59 Street related to traffic and the condition of existing Queens Avenue, potential wetland or stormwater drainage impacts, the need for parks within this area of the City and impacts to the Elk River School District of continued growth. City staff responded to each of these items. We noted that the timing of upgrading existing Queens Avenue would likely be tied to extension of sanitary sewer and water improvements, that the City has adopted comprehensive environmental protection and stormwater management regulations that will apply to the proposed project and that the City has adopted a future parks and trails plan as part of its Comprehensive Plan which identifies the need for neighborhood parks in this area. With respect to the school district issue we noted that Otsego is one of four growing communities within the Elk River School District and that we have tried to work with the School District to aid them in planning adequate facilities for the Otsego Area. Ultimately, this is a school board issue although we would note that development of 1.2 million square feet of business /warehouse uses is nothing but positive for both the City and the school district. The Planning Commission was very favorable to the proposed land use, subject to resolution of the many site and infrastructure issues. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 7 -0 to recommend favorable comment regarding tile concept plan. The City Council will consider the concept plan at their meeting qn 22 August 2005 at 6:30 PM. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Motion to comment favorably on a concept plan for Duke Realty subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the concept plan shall not be binding upon the City for any future approvals related to the proposed development. Implementation of the uses shown on the concept plan shall require request for and approval of the following applications as set forth by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances: a. Rezoning to 1 -2, R -4 and /or R -6 District. b. Preliminary plat. c. Final plat. 2. The timing and cost responsibilities for extension of sanitary sewer and water utilities to the subject site, including but not limited to acquisition of all easements and construction of the services shall be determined by the City Council. 3. The timing and cost responsibilities for the extension of and required improvements to Queens Avenue, including; land acquisition, shall be determined by the City Council. 4. All lots shall conform to the minimum requirements of the 1 -2 District, R-4 and R -6 Districts, as applicable. 5. All streets shall conform to the requirements of the Engineering Manual and are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. A landscape plan including the installation of a bufferyard adjacent to Queens Avenue along the residential portion of the site shall be submitted with any preliminary plat application. 2 7. Park and trail dedication requirements shall be satisfied as a cash fee in lieu of land at the time of final plat approval. 8. All grading plans, utility plans and easements shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer at the time of any preliminary plpt application. 9. Comments of other City staff. B. Motion to comment unfavorably that that the concept plan is inconsistent with the City's development policies as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, 4oning Ordinance and /or Subdivision Ordinance. C. Motion to table. c. Mike Robertson, City Administrator Karee Rowell, Deputy Clerk Ron Wagner, City Engineer Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney David Bade, Duke Realty Corp. 3 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Ronald J. Wagner, Otsego City Engineer Date: August 11, 2005 Re: Otsego Industrial Park — Concept Plan cc: Mike Robertson, City Administrator Judy Hudson, Clerk Dan Licht, City Planner Andy McArthur, Esq. David Bade, Duke Realty Corp. Upon reviewing the Concept Plan, I have the following comments: 1. Frontage Road • Long range planning has the frontage road connection on CSAH 37 located 3/8 mile east of 101 ramp connection, to accommodate traffic flow and vehicle stacking. This is a County Road with access permitting controlled by Wright County. Access to the site from Wright CSAH 37 will likely require adding tum lanes on CSAH 37 for the traffic tuming on the frontage road (Queens Avenue). Access to the frontage road should be limited to one every 500' to minimize traffic conflicts. Street connections will be required for the parcels east of this project. Street grades for the roads shall not exceed 7 %. Access drives should enter the frontage road at minimum grade. With almost 30' being graded off the high spot of the site, concern about matching the grades on the adjacent properties should be addressed. The frontage road will require 100' of R/W with a 10 TON street section design and 66.67' B -B to accommodate a three lane design. 2. Wetlands A wetland report and delineation will be required to document the existing wetland areas. \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ MunicipalW otsego22xx \2267\ot2267memo 13-9- 05.doc The concept plan has complete wetlands being removed. Current WCA laws require avoidance first, minimization second and impact third with 2 to 1 replacement mitigation. Wetland impacts will require mitigation areas for replacement. The wetland review agencies will require alternatives to minimize the impacts. 3. Water City water is not located with -in the project site or adjacent to the project. Some preliminary discussions have placed a water tower on this parcel adjacent to Hwy. 101. A site located west of the frontage road near the crest in the frontage road would provide the desired elements for a new water tower to service the area. The water main would be required to connect the water tower at 70 street, west of Hwy. 101 and to service areas to the south of this development. 4. Sanitary Sewer City sanitary sewer trunk mains do not extend to the parcels. Trunk service lines have been planned to service the 2/3 portion of the project by gravity to Lift Station #1 located at Quaday Avenue. These trunk lines are planned for installation as development moves closer to this location from the north. The residential and south general industrial areas have a proposed sanitary sewer route which is south along the frontage road or East across the adjacent property owners to the sewer treatment plant. This connection route will require agreements and coordination between the city and the developer to provide the connection. 5. Storm Sewer All storm water runoff must be routed through a water quality pond and the rate of peak runoff from the site must not exceed the pre - developed condition as outlined in the Otsego Engineer Manual. Discharge from the south wetland is routed through an existing residential area to the south with some buildings located near the water levels. The central portion discharges east along 65 Avenue. The northern wetlands are semi confined basins with overflow locations located'/ mile north of 70 Avenue. \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ Municipal\Aotsego22xx \2267\ot2267memo8- 9- 05.doc 6. Buildings The concept floor elevations require considerable elevation changes from adjacent buildings. With the access roads routed between the buildings considerable retaining walls will be required to 'meet the street access requirements. Proposed buildings located on existing wetlands will require wetland impact approval and additional construction considerations prior to approval. III ' I I \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs\ MunicipalW otsego22xx \2267\ot2267memo8- 9- 05.doc ITEM 7_3 l NAC NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. \ 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite '202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners @nacplanning.com I MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 16 August 2005 RE: Otsego — Otsego Tire and Auto CUP NAC FILE: 176.02 — 04.26 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 18 July 2005 to consider the application for construction of a multiple tenant commercial building on the former Tom Thumb site, which includes a tire and auto repair business. The Planning Commission originally opened a public hearing on this application on 18 October 2004 to consider the request, but continued that hearing until site issues and reconstruction of the frontage road and extension of utilities have been resolved. There were no comments from the public at the second public hearing. Comments from the public hearing last October were limited to those of other property owners within Mississippi Shores concerned about the frontage road and utility issues and one resident urging that a tire store not be approved based on market factors. The City Council is fully aware of issues related to the Mississippi Shores improvement project. With regards to the comment not to allow a tire and auto store, the Zoning Ordinance establishes district in which certain specific uses are allowed. If a use that is allowed within a zoning district is proposed for a site designated s that district, the City has limited opportunity to deny the use if all applicable performance standards are met. Bob Fields of LandCor spoke on behalf of the application. The developer's only concern with City staffs recommendation is that construction not be allowed to proceed until a PUD District has been established for the Mississippi Shores project in conjunction with the current improvement project providing for cross access, maintenance and design standards for the frontage road area. City staff responds that until the PUD District is established, the proposed site and building plans do not meet setback and parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As of this date, a complete application to the PUD District bearing the signatures of any of the effected property owners has not been submitted. Mr. Fields suggested that the City could proceed with only a PUD District for the subject site and Godfathers qn the east side of the subdivision. This action would be inconsistent with the City Council's direction and understanding of the improvement project and City staff would not recommend this approach for reasons previously numerated. The Planning Commission's discussion focused on concerns about the circulation of the drive through on the north and west side of the building. City staff noted that a condition of approval is that the drive through be moved as far west as possible and some of the traffic control devices that will be required. Mr. Fields said that they have revised the building plans to provide greater visibility at the northwest corner of the building and to relocate the drive through window as suggested. These plans have not yet been received by the City. The Planning Commission also stated that the exterior of the building must be revised as recommended by City staff to be more consistent with the character of the buildings to the east within the Waterfront development. The PUD District design guidelines submitted for the Mississippi Shores area would require the same and should be applied to the proposed building. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and site /building plans for Otsego Tire and Auto as outlined below. The application is to be considered at the City Council meeting on 22 August 2005 at 6:30 PM. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Motion to approve a CUP and site/building plans for a multiple tenant retail /automotive use, subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued for construction beyond foundation /footings for the principal building until such time as the City Council approves a joint application of the Mississippi Shores properties to rezone the five lots to PUD District allowing for shared /indirect access to a public street for the subject site. 2. There shall be no outdoor sales, display or storage (including immobile, inoperable or unlicensed vehicles) on the subject site. 3. All automotive repairs shall occur within the principal building and that the service bay doors are to be closed except when moving vehicles in to or out of the service bay. 4. The drive through service window for Space F shall be relocated to the west, subject to City staff approval. 5. Specific floor plans shall be submitted for Space F to determined required off - street parking as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The number of off - street parking stalls required by the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided within the subject site (after vacation of the public right -of -way). 6. The proposed building plan is revised to: 2 • a. Provide brick or rock face block pilasters at the corners and at internal sections of the building. b. Provide real or faux windows on thel,southern portion of the west facade. d. A colors illustration of the proposed building materials shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council. 7. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to illustrate plantings to be installed separate of the on -going public project to include a planting area or large planters in the plaza area to the southeast of the building and plantings or planting containers along the northeast and south elevations. 8. All signs shall conform to Chapter 37 of the Zoning Ordinance and a sign permit is required prior to installation. 9. A revised lighting plan illustrating the location, type and illumination pattern of all site lighting shall be submitted. All exterior lighting shall conform to Section 20 -16 -10 of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. All street, grading and utility issues are subject to approval of the City Engineer. 11. An easement for use of the trash storage area by tenants of the subject site is required as are plans to enclose the trash containers with a gated masonry structure. The easement and trash enclosure are to be subject to approval of City staff. B. Motion to deny the request based on a finding that the proposed use does not conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. C. Motion to table. c. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Ron Wagner Bob Fields 3 CITY OF 08 -16 -05 OTSEGO FINDINGS & DECISION WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PEFfMIT APPLICANT: Landcor Companies APPLICATION: Request for approval of a conditional use permit and site /building plan approval for a multiple tenant commercial building that includes a minor auto repair / tire use. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 22 August 2005 FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact: A. The legal description of the property is Lot 5, Block 1, Mississippi Shores 6 Addition, City of Otsego, County of Wright, State of Minnesota. B. The subject site is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for commercial land uses within the east sanitary sewer district. C. The subject site is zoned B -3, General Business District; Minor auto repair / tire uses are allowed as a conditional use within the B -3 District. D. Consideration of the application is to be based upon (but not limited to) the criteria established by Section 20 -4 -2.F of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed commercial use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning of the subject site. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The subject site is to be surrounded by existing/planned commercial uses and will be compatible with those uses when developed. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Finding: The proposed use is required to conform to all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Finding: The proposed use is a redevelopment of a substandard site within the City's primary commercial center that will influence similar improvements in adjacent property and the character of the area. 1 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. Finding: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not anticipated to negatively impact area property values. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: The traffic generated by the proposed use is to be within the capacities of adjacent roadways currently being improved by the City. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City =s service capacity. Finding: The proposed use utilized available infrastructure and contributes to diversification of the City's tax base. F. The planning reports dated 12 October 2004 and 13 July 2005 prepared by the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. G. The engineering memorandum dated 30 June 2005 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein. H. The Otsego Planning Commission opened a public hearing at their regular meeting on 18 October 2004 to consider the application, preceded by. published and mailed notice; upon review of the application, the Otsego Planning Commission continued the public hearing to allow for resolution of street and utility issues; A second public hearing was held on 18 July 2005, preceded by published and mailed notice to consider the request based upon the length of time since the initial public hearing was opened; upon receipt of additional information and other evidence, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission recommended by a 7 -0 vote that the City Council approve the request based on the aforementioned findings. DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested conditional use permit and site /building plans are hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued for construction beyond foundation/footings for the principal building until such time as the City Council approves a joint application of the Mississippi Shores properties to rezone the five lots to PUD District allowing for shared /indirect access to a public street for the subject site. 2. There shall be no outdoor sales, display or storage (including immobile, inoperable or unlicensed vehicles) on the subject site. 3. All automotive repairs shall occur within the principal building and that the service bay doors are to be closed except when moving vehicles in to or out of the service bay. 4. The drive through service window for Space F shall be relocated to the west, subject to City staff approval. 2 5. Specific floor plans shall be submitted for Space F to determined required off - street parkipg as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The number of, off- street parkin stalls required by the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided within the subject.site (after vacatipn of the public right - of -way). 6. The proposed building plan is revised to: a. Provide brick or rock face block pilasters at the corners and at internal sections of the building. b. Provide real or faux windows on the southem portion of the west facade. c. A colors illustration of the proposed building materials shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council. 7. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to illustrate plantings to be installed separate of the on -going public project to include a planting area or large planters in the plaza area to the southeast of the building and plantings or planting containers along the northeast and south elevations. 8. All signs shall conform to Chapter 37 of the Zoning Ordinance and a sign permit is required prior to installation. 9. A revised lighting plan illustrating the location, type and illumination pattern of all site lighting shall be submitted. All exterior lighting shall conform to Section 20 -16 -10 of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. All street, grading and utility issues are subject to approval of the City Engineer. 11. An easement for use of the trash storage area by tenants of the subject site is required as are plans to enclose the trash containers with a gated masonry structure. The easement and trash enclosure are to be subject to approval of City staff. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 22n day of August, 2005. CITY OF OTSEGO By: Larry Fournier, Mayor Attest: Karee Rowell, Deputy City Clerk 3 August 5, 2005 Mike Robertson City Administrator City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Final Plan Review RIVER PLAZA OTSEGO (Former Tom Thumb Site) Review of the submitted Final Plans by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering for LandCor, Inc. I have the following comments: SHEET 2 1. Will the trash enclosure be closed off with gates? What is the wall material for the trash enclosure? Consideration of non - flammable material due to the electrical transformer located adjacent to this structure. 2. Label the signs within the parking lot area. The three stop signs in the parking lot east of the building are part of the River Plaza Otsego project. 3. The lane separation between the parking area and between the drive thru lanes delineated with a solid 4" painted white stripe. OTHER ITEMS Please forward construction specifications on the utility construction connected to the city facilities. Permits required: Minnesota Department of Health: Watermain Extension Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Sewer Extension Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. Joseph D. Pelawa Project Engineer cc: Ron Wagner, City Engineer Judy Hudson, Clerk Dan Licht, City Planner Bob Fields, LandCor, Inc. Truc D. Ho, PE, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering \ \Ha01 \Shared Docs \Municipal\Aotsego22xx\2500 \River Plaza Otsego \FINAL REVIEW LETTER8- 8- 05.doc ITEM 8 -' PROPOSAL DAVE'S CONSTRUCTION SERVICE, INC. 15700 JUNIPER RIDGE DRIVE RAMSEY, MN 55303 763- 422 -9074 (Home) 612 - 685 -6780 (Cep Phone) PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: PHONE: FAX: Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. DATE: August 15, 2005 STREET JOB LOCATION �th 90.. SStreet - Prairie Park Pavilion 90 Street Prairie Park – Otsego, MN CITY, STATE AND ZIP JOB°PHONE .. Otsego, MN 763- 427 -5860 We hereby submit specifications and estimate for: Install water fountain at Prairie Park – City of Otsego, MN Water Fountain Model # options 3150 or 3500 Installation 20' from well. Includes 8'x10' concrete slab No restoration included We Propose and hereby to furnish material and labor – complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: $12,900. Payment to be made as follows: Paid in full at completion of job. Authorized Signature i Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 5 days. CONTRACTORS NOTICE TO OWNER (A) ANY PERSON OR COMPANY SUPPLYING LABOR ORbMATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY MAY FILE A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY IF THAT PERSON OR COMPANY IS NOT PAID FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS. (B) UNDER MINNESOTA LAW YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DIRECTLY AND DEDUCT THIS AMOUNT FROM OUR CONTRACT PRICE, OR WITHHOLD THE AMOUNTS DUE THEM FROM US UNTIL 120 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THIS IMPOROVEMENT UNLESS WE GIVE YOU A LIEN WAIVER SIGNED BY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED ANY LABOR OR MATERIAL FOR THE LMPORVEMENT AND WHO GIVE YOU TIMELY NOTICE. Acceptance of Proposal -The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance Signature Signature Over 20 years experience Haws Corporation - haws drinking fountain, emergency equipment safety, eyewash show... Page 2 of 3 Drench Showers Parts & Accessories 0 Overview Haws Comfort ControlTM Questionnaire g. Engineered SolutionsTM E Enclosed Emergency EnvironmentsTM i Haws Warm Tech Blending Systems Haws Cool TechTM Blending Systems Pedestal Drinking Fountain Model: 3150 Components Options & Spec Drawings O &M InfoFax Accessories Sheets Registration Model 3150 is a dual height, Ask The Authority durable and vandal- resistant, - =2 Folder Mariam square, vibracast - reinforced 3 i Literature pedestal drinking fountain re y ` " � Lite Literr ato with exposed aggregate finish that °� rl Articles is a perfect complement to all F� InfoFax outdoor environments. It features `° ti }rrr "�� ° , t .�a � Standards, Codes & include bubblers hooded by an ; y;� fu Certifications extension of the precast concrete F I ndustry Links to deter bubbler damage, recessed z },i push buttons and waste strainers _•? Site Map / Help • that allow for top down access to u` `1 Contact Us the waste line of the fountain for `' { .44 ' Keyword Search ease of maintenance. Model 3150 i„ 1 Advanced Search includes recessed push button t - - -- - c -- valves with automatic stream "a M odel Number Search • regulation, concrete guard for ] '' °. „'- [GO] polished chrome - plated brass Y"t bubbler heads, stainless steel -4f‘, Log In access plates with vandal- resistant screws, top accessible waste a =Mail strainers and 1/2” NPT screwdriver stop. Standard color is Portland Model 3150 shown with optional inlaid tile. _ -- _ -_ Gray cement with exposed calaf &>- ��=hes , [GO] aggregate finish. Reinforced with CIe t' i iig & ? ' - Home 1/4" galvanized wire and 3/8" rebar. The mounting consists of an integral View most recent page using mounting plate plus anchor bolts. Flash Model 3150 meets all current Federal Regulations for the disabled including those in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Haws manufactures drinking Visited Pale History fountains, electric water coolers and electric drinking fountains to be lead free by all known definitions including ANSI /NSF Standard 61, Section 9, Most Recent Search Califomia Proposition 65 and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Model Category Drinking Fountains & Electric Water Coolers Emergency Equipment • Purchase & Locate Rep About Haws • Home Send Haws products technical questions to techsupport@hawsco.com http: / /www.hawsco.com/modelmain .asp ?componentid =84 &categoryid =3 &searched = l 8/14/2005 Haws Corporation - haws drinking fountain, emergency equipment safety, eyewash show... Page 2 of 3 c rj Drench Showers Parts & Accessories 0 Overview Haws Comfort ControlTM Questionnaire rg Engineered SolutionsTM V, Enclosed Emergency EnvironmentsTM ° Haws Warm TechTM Blendin: S stems Haws Cool TechTM Blending Systems Pedestal Drinking Fountain Model: 3500 Options & Spec Components Accessories Sheets Drawings O &M InfoFax Model 3500 is a StreetSmart dual Registration height vandal- resistant barrier -free y Ask The Authority pedestal drinking fountain with Folder Manager green powder - coated finish. Literature Pedestal, access door and arm are s Article constructed of corrosion resistant _ e InfoFax es type 304 all welded heavy -duty stainless steel. Bowls are integral t Standards, Codes & 3/8" cast stainless steel, which Certifications eliminates the possibility of being Industry Links removed. Recessed chrome plated push buttons operate front Site Map /Help adjustable automatic diaphragm Contact Us pressure regulated valves. Keyword Search Bubblers are chrome plated low Advanced Search profile forged brass with 3/8" NPS Model Number Search mounting shank with vandal proof locking pins to prevent tuming. [GO] Waste strainers are designed to allow insertion of a garden hose ' _ Log In: for top down unobstructed access e-Mail for waste clean out. Easy - - maintenance is possible thorough - - - -- - - a large access door (6" x 22 ") with eaia — [GO] heavy duty hinges and 5/16" S 'F'e =Pei on square key locks. All exposed die siingRiriiit Home fasteners are pinned socket type. Va«drF : ' E sistan View most recent pale using Ideal for installation in highway Comparison Flash rest areas, parks, correctional facilities and other vandal prone locations. Model 3500 meets current Visited Page History Federal Regulations for the disable including those in the American'with Disabilities Act. Haws manufactures drinking fountains, electric water Most Recent Search coolers and electric drinking fountains to be lead free by all known Model Category definitions including ANSI /NSF Standard 61, Section 9, California Proposition 65 and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Drinking Fountains & Electric Water Coolers Emer ency Equipment • Purchase & Locate Rep About Haws • Home http : / /www.hawsco.com/modelmain. asp ?componentid =1916 &productgroupid =10 &search... 8/14/2005 • ITEM 8_3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING REQUEST FOR QUOTES WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on 26 day of April, 2004, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the C.S.A.H. 37 Turn Lanes and has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, dated May 17, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Engineer shall prepare and send Request. for Quotes for such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall specify the work to be done, shall state that quotes will be opened at 2:00 p.m. on September 8, 2005, in the council chambers of the city hall, 8899 Nashua Avenue, Otsego, Minnesota, 55330. No quotes will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the clerk for 5.0 percent of the amount of such quote. Larry Fournier, Mayor Judy Hudson, Clerk \ \Ha01\shared docs \Municipal\AOTSEGO 1340 \ot340resrfq.doc ot, Minnesota Department of TransportatiorRECE1VED AUG 1 0 2005 (0) of MEMO District 3 — State Aid Office Tel: (218) 828 -2475 7694 Industrial Park Road Fax: (218) 828 -2210 Baxter, MN 56425 August 9, 2005 TO: Ron Wagner Otsego City Engineer FROM: Kelvin Howieson District State Aid Engineer SUBJECT: S.A.P. 217-020-03 This plan has been approved, and you are now authorized to advance the status ' of this project. KH /Ic cc: Wayne Fingalson Julie Skallman — M.S. 500 File ENGINEERS ESTIMATE C.S.A.H. 3 MSA Participating Item No. Spec. Ref. Description Unit Estimated Quantity Unit Price Estimated Cost 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 2 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 222 $2.50 $555.00 3 2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LF 113 $3.00 $339.00 4 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN EACH 1 $30.00 $30.00 5 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION / EMBANKMENT CY 1000 $4.50 $4,500.00 6 221 1.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 100% CRUSHED TON 900 $12.00 $10,800.00 7 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (2 ") SY 365 $3.00 $1,095.00 8 2350.501 TYPE HV WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON 215 $35.00 $7,525.00 9 2350.502 TYPE LV BASE COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON 330 $35.00 $11,550.00 10 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 90 $2.00 $180.00 11 2501.573 INSTALL CULVERT MARKER EACH 2 $10.00 $20.00 12 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 13 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SF 26 $28.00 $728.00 14 2564.536 INSTALL SIGN PANELS EACH 1 $30.00 $30.00 15 2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (ONLY) EPDXY EACH 1 $175.00 $175.00 16 2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT ARROW) EPDXY EACH 1 $125.00 $125.00 17 2564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY LF 580 $0.50 $290.00 18 2564.603 4" DASHED LINE WHITE -EPDXY LF 300 $0.50 $150.00 _ .19, 2564.603 . , _4" SOLID. LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF_ 1650 $825.00 20 2573.501 BALE CHECK EACH 30 $10.00 $300.00 21 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LF 1720 $2.00 $3,440.00 22 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 60B LB 225 $2.70 $607.50 23 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 1 SY 200 $2.00 $400.00 24 2575.531 COMMERCIAL PERT ANALYSIS 10 -10 -10 LB 750 $0.83 $622.50 25 2575.609 HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZERS TYPE 1 TON 1.875 $800.00 $1,500.00 Total $49,787.00 CITY CITY O F O TSEG GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS 1 THE 2000 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPNTMENT OF SHNSPORTATION 'STANDARD SPEGFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION' CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR EXCAVATION, AGGREGATE BASE, ALL FEDERAL GOVERN. ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND BITUMINOUS SURFACING IMPROVEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT. C.S.A.H. 37 TURN LANES CITY OF OTSEGO PROJECT 0402 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 04-02 SHEET INDEX SAP 217- 020 -03 THIS PLAN CONTAINS 11 SHEETS • S 1/2 OF SEC. 27 & N 1/2 OF SEC. 34, T121 N, R 23W 1 TITLE SHEET 2 ESTIMATED oUANTITIES GROSS LENGTH= 859.93 FT. OR 0.163 MI. 3 CONSTRUCTION NOTES & STANDARD PLATES 4 TYPICAL SECTIONS NET LENGTH= 859.93 FT. OR 0.163 MI. 5 RIGHT -OF -WAY & EASEMENT AOUIS TION PLAN 6 W PLANS TOPOGRAPHY AND REMOVALS PLS • 7 STREET AND STORM SEWER PLAN DETAIL SHEETS I _— _-�'I Q - � 1_ if SIGNING INTERSECTION STRIPING PLAN MI-11111111 _► �1� 1�.?�� . . ( 1 11 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN T " — "' i� 1� " \ a: 1.. LOCATION NAP 51 -03 CROSS SECTIONS . � . ∎, ", 146 11.1 � yh — _ ,000 o ,000 x000 � �►♦i� I�I \ — 1��wI/ a SC M N EE \� — _ems �I� I :VMS �� ► � gLizi l � � �j� 'A"�r�''�� ` \ pre I hereb tl that this I •�• ., •%`' \ pme b r ' 7 under d ecl p an i ificalion, or report Mas � I \�� LT ��'� � 11 ' . �3 \— Nka-- TTT m o dul Li onsed Professional En wptt union one tows I 1 LIE II �, ��, ir.— r 9ineer der Ina Io.B �: � 1��u �r r ♦ IC I' r (� a r . , _ ■ the Slate M • .ale T ... � � %ii 1 \ `.�3 ii ��„11{ � � 1111 I 0.■ , _ J7► �.� �t . .r = i ` - . _ _ �i' \IU�1Vi '' i� ` ,P� / 26052 lik NILOiles RONA J. ER P.; License No. Dal ' 4.efiii I n ....9........akvit I I / �` ; 'MI / CITY OF ' OTSEGO - - - WAYN FINGALSON . - ' Dale ' ` WRIGH CO UNTY ENGINEE ram I� / i � � WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA I III a STATE AID APPROVA'S �,��. `11 k� v ■w■1w . 'NA BEGIN S.A.P. 217-020-03 DI ICT STATE AID ENGNEER Dale E �♦ STA 1O7 }Q5 REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE Y4TH STATE 5 kiiquigtilAli t ��I , 1 �L;�� ` A I D RULE OUCY S P i �` . . PROJECT a -, wiw� `h LOCATION �� r �7 0 . �+ STATE AID ENGINEER: Dale ' �� APPROVED FOR STATE AID FUNDING i 1. L � END S.A.P. 217- 020 -03 e r ■ � i STA 110 +05.77 is ! L DATE REVISION r ■ SCALES � e S NG DISTANCE BASED ON: PUN 3,5 rT. NEIGNT Or EYE 50 0 . SD 100 a I I I : I s w. NDpIT or OBJECT - - .. scuE - u, rEEr PROJECT STA. TO STA. ADT ADT R TON SIGMA DESIGN. NUMBER NUMBER OF 8 e (2004) (2024) VALUE DESIGN N -18 SPEED OF LANES PARKING LANES CROSS SECTIONS /TORE. l0 0 TO 8 Hakanson SAP 217- 020 -03 101 +45.84 TO 110 +05.77 _ 7,300 14.525 50 9 1.42x10° 55 2 0 sw[ N o rEEt " Anderson .�.Y ASSOC:,InC: - -' _ _ moss sl:cTroNS� Rr. ,o - - ,�, S.A.P. 217- 020 -03 SHEET 1 OF 11 SHEETS SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES C .S.A.H. 37 MSA Participating Item No. Spec. Ref. Description Unit Estimated Quantity 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 2 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 222 3 2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LF 113 4 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN EACH 1 5 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION / EMBANKMENT CY 1000 6 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 100% CRUSHED TON 900 7 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (2 ") SY 365 8 2350.501 TYPE HV WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON 215 9 2350.502 TYPE LV NON- WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON 330 10 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 90 11 2501.573 INSTALL CULVERT MARKER EACH 2 12 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 13 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SF 26 14 2564.536 INSTALL SIGN PANELS EACH 1 15 2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (ONLY) EPDXY EACH 1 16 2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RIGHT ARROW) EPDXY EACH 1. 17 2564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY LF 580 18 2564.603 4" DASHED LINE WHITE -EPDXY LF 300 19 2564.603 4° SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY LF 1650 20 2573.501 BALE CHECK EACH 30 21 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LF 1720 22 2575.502 SEED MDQURE 60B LB 225 23 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 1 SY 200 24 2575.531 COMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 10 -10-10 LB 750 25 2575.609 HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZERS TYPE 1 TON 1.875 NOTE: BASIS OF ESTIMATED 0UANTIT1ES: BITUMINOUS - 110 POUNDS PER INCH PER SQUARE YARD BITUMINOUS TACK COAT - 0.05 GALLONS PER SOUARE YARD CLASS 5 - AGGREGATE BASE - 105 POUNDS PER INCH PER SOUARE YARD SEEDING - 150 POUNDS PER ACRE FERTILIZER - 500 POUNDS PER ACRE HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER TYPE 6 - 2500 POUNDS PER ACRE DATE REVISION I wee, cwWY and M. eM .e.ceemen ®m a: 6/15/05' STAIE RE OW COMMEN4 ° " P A " "ra ■ m" Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES a d .Rwe. ", Irw1 I " y RJE limo. " II un0i I"' a p5 711 "- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 04 -02 e.. Own Engine am one Lana S"rveyon Z / /Q �^ RhA 5 /17 /Da ]sDl Thurston Ave.. Anot". Minnesota 55303 IMPROVEMENT 37 m 0°' °' 9 ° ER. "c ^®e a 6]- +xT -seso FAY 763-427-0520 S.A.P. 217- 020 -03 14 •. .++qVa. v. i ..- wu\ oTUo-v \a.y\"rt_o.,,�i\an.o- e,w_n_yne. DA . 6/I V Uc, , .2001 RJW 05340 ..Mkonvon- anperoon.<°m CITY OF OTSECO, MINNESOTA �E CONSTRUCTION AND SOILS NOTES WHENEVER Ili, .:0 "INCIDENTAL" IS USED IN THIS PLAN, IT SHALL MEAN THIS PERFORMANCE GRADED (PG) ASPHALT b„nvcR PG 58 -28, SPEC. 3151 SHALL BE WORK WILL BE INCIDENTAL FOR WHICH NO DIRECT COMPENSATION WILL BE MADE. USED FOR ALL BITUMINOUS MIXES ON THIS PROJECT. STANDARD PLATES GRADING GRADE IS DEFINED AS THE BOTTOM OF THE PAVEMENT SECTION, I.E., THESE STANDARD PLATES AS APPROVED BY THE FHWA. SHALL APPLY THE BOTTOM OF THE CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE. THE BITUMINOUS MIXTURES SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF Mn /DOT SPECIFICATIONS PLATE NO. DESCRIPTION 2360, "PLANT MIXED ASPHALT PAVEMENT ", AND SPECIFICATION 3139, "GRADED AGGREGATE 80001 STANDARD BARRICADES TOPSOIL SHALL BE DEFINED AS MATERIAL MEETING Mn /DOT SPECIFICATION 3877, FOR BITUMINOUS MIXTURES ", CONTAINED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND THE 2000 EDITION NATURAL TOPSOIL, INPLACE SLOPE DRESSING, OR NATURAL TOPSOIL THAT HAS ' OF Mn /DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. BEEN BURIED. SWAMP SOILS WITH ORGANIC CONTENTS EXCEEDING 20 PERCENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED UNSUITABLE SOILS. COMPACTION OF ALL BITUMINOUS MIXTURES SHALL BE BY THE MAXIMUM DENSITY METHOD. UNSUITABLE MATERIALS SHALL BE DEFINED AS MATERIAL NOT MEETING ALL ASPHALT SHALL BE SUPPLIED FROM A CERTIFIED PLANT. - Mn /DOT SPECIFICATION 3149.281. UNSUITABLE MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PLACED WITHIN A 1V:1.5H SLOPE DOWNWARD AND OUTWARD FROM THE UTILITY COMPANIES WILL RELOCATE THEIR FACILITIES CONCURRENTLY WITH THE GRADING SHOULDER PI OR ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE BOTTOM OF THE • CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS UNDER THIS CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL EARTH MATERIALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN COOPERATION WITH UTILITY RELOCATION. SALVAGE. AND ALL DEBRIS, SHALL BECOME PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OUTSIDE THE RIGHT -OF -WAY. PLACE •" MIN. TOPSOIL. FERTILIZER, AND SEED OR SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS. USE A SHRINKAGE FACTOR OF 125% FOR MATERIAL SALVAGED FROM THE USE SEED MIX 60B AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. APPLY AT A RATE INPLACE ROAD CORE, 125% FOR OTHER GRADING MATERIALS EXCAVATED OF 150 POUNDS PER ACRE. AND FERTILIZE WITH 500 POUNDS PER ACRE 10- 10 -10. FROM THE PROJECT, AND 125% FOR BORROW MATERIALS. ON ALL SEEDED AREAS, APPLY HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER TYPE 6 AT A RATE OF - WHERE CONNECTING TO INPLACE ROADWAYS AT THE TERMINI OF PROPOSED 1.25. TONS PER ACRE. NEW CONSTRUCTION, CUT VERTICALLY TO THE BOTTOM OF THE INPLACE • SURFACING OR TO THE BOTTOM OF THE NEW SURFACING DESIGN, WHICHEVER IS DEEPER; THEN AT A 1V:20H TAPER TO THE BOTTOM OF THE RECOMMENDED SUBGRADE EXCAVATION. DISPOSITION OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION 2105.3D. SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL ON THIS PROJECT SHALL CONSIST OF ALL SOILS ENCOUNTERED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TOPSOIL, SILTS, DEBRIS, ORGANIC MATERIAL, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIAL. THE MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A CLASSIFICATION OF SP, SM, OR SP -SM, (USCS CLASSIFICATIONS). STRIP ALL INPLACE TOPSOIL AND SLOPE DRESSING IN AREAS TO BE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION AND REUSE AS SLOPE DRESSING. IN AREAS OF STREET, SHOULDER, AND INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION, THE EXPOSED SAND SHALL BE SURFACE COMPACTED TO 100% OF THE MAXIMUM STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY, ASTM D698, IN AT LEAST THE UPPER 3 FT. w000 BM •x "^ UNLESS OTHERWISE RECOMMENDED IN THESE PLANS, THE GRADING SUBGRADE ND OF WOO BUM. SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL. THE FILL SHALL BE • a, WOW 00999 PLACED IN B" TO 10" LOOSE LIFTS, AND COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 958 OF THE w ° w KU MAXIMUM STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY TO 3' BELOW GRADING GRADE, AND Y w 0 TO 100% THE REMAINING 3'. IN ANY PAVEMENT WIDENING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIVE TO SUBSTANTIALLY MATCH BACKFILL MATERIAL WITH IN PLACE SOILS TO FORESTALL ABRUPT FROST DIFFERENTIAL. GRANULAR FILL SHALL NOT BE PLACED BESIDE NON GRANULAR SOILS AND VICE VERSA. MOWN COMM BLIMP 51 a of ccp MB Swim .ummvc o,a W 59 FOUABIG nor 2c.r.n 1 SPUR • BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE ITEMS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BECOME VoLl a 09:11.1 . w m S "' THE PROFERT;Y OF THE CONTRACTOR .AND .SHALL BE DISPOSED IN ACCORDANCE - - - - - - - - - - - 0 L°S 14 tB �„ - - � - - WITH Mn /DOT SPEC. 2104.3. IN 0101119.9.1 .0 .c a m ..k ..a MR. • USE TACK COAT BETWEEN ALL BITUMINOUS MIXTURES. THE BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION MATERIAL SHALL BE APPLIED AT A UNIFORM RATE OF 0.05 gal /sy BETWEEN BITUMINOUS LAYERS. THE APPLICATION RATES ARE FOR UNDILUTED NO SCALE EMULSIONS (AS SUPPLIED FROM THE REFINERY) OR MC AND RC LIQUID ASPHALTS. THE ASPHALT EMULSION MAY BE FURTHER DILUTED IN THE FIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPEC. 2357. DATE REVISION e0y carfuy Om MI pkn, ep.cpkobw,, QM w 6/15/05 [TATF Iry COMyINfC ° •apon `m w wmo ^V � w ® 14 ..., .,,p.M em n„I I w„ a But, RJE Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. ' - wb• w• ways are /i4 /a Civil Englnee.e one Land s noyar4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 04 -02 CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND 3 ifc.: - /__ p/� ' 3601 Thurston > RM a Thurston Are.. Anoka. Minnesota 55.303 STANDARD PLATES ..5- ,:Nan OT P,[, 763 -e27- 0a®w nLi6 5660 FAY 763 -427 -0520 S.A.P 217- 020 -03 9 vet•.- 0005on.o-eoW.,1me_nw n\on•o.a.,,_»yua0, lM 0a. ell/ 4 . 28052 RJE 09340 we.nokonson- anderson,com C ITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA 1$ 1 R/W 12' EMST. 114RU LANE Rldi ACCELERATION ERA A IANE/ 41111 ACCEIER4E/B LANE MI II NM INSETA uoz o.oz ■ I._ at INSET A sue 0.0E./ II' EMT. GROUND �1 Ems— 2.0' BITUMINOUS WEAR 2350 TYPE HV4 (9) MATCN EXISTING C.S.A.N. 37 SECTION 3.0" BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR 2350 TYPE LV2 (B) ON 7.0 A PPR CLA55 OVED SUBGR 5 AGGREGATE ADE BASE 1000 CRUSHED C.S.A.H. 37 TURN LANE /BYPASS LANE 140 SCALE 1/3' NOTES: w 1.) TACK COAT SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN 81150180U5 • LIFTS. ALSO. THE FACE OF THE EXISTING THRU LANE SUB GRADE SHALL BE TACKED PRIOR TO EACH BITUMINOUS LIFT. INSET A 2.) THE STREET SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PLACING THE TACK COAT. EXISTING C.S.A.H. 37 NO SCALE • C • 40' - 50' 2' _ 4' 10' (CLEAR • ZONE 1 ► 1' 3 23' 12' 10.5' u ORNE LANE 50051008 0.5' T. 2.00 __. .__ __ __ . • - 8 BIKE TRAIL WITH _ _ ... _ _ _ - - 1' BIT. SHOULDER 2 1/2' BITUMINOUS 4" TOPSOIL WEAR 2350 TYPE LV4 (9) (TYPICAL) 4" CLASS 5 QUADAY AVENUE BIKE TRAIL (STA. 0 +39 TO STA. 0 +74) NO SCALE OATE R E515100 y ci t'a, mw 1M Mme Dec �0o v0 030010 SHEET Yg /D Fktt/r t6Pittt .1R TS K sN °� t� I � w 6� " RJE Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. " ^° "^°^"' IXme 'ouE: Civil Engineers 0 Lone Surveyors TYPICAL SECTIONS 4 e 5 B n55.5 an ro I MPROVEMENT PROJECT 04 -0 ADS 4 /14 /0o „' 3E01 rnw.mn •.,.. mom. uw,,,om 55303 S.A.P 41 IL 2055 - !Lot J. ER. PE. � RED 763 -627 -5660 FAY 763_427 -0520 S.A.P 217- 020 -03 C.S.AH 37 C 1[W_ep\bb wo}nr25W\ 01340- 5..Vgpec_n� w5\m34o-p m u1- 57- tsnaq Dote 5/11/ Lk. No. 2e032 RJ E 01340 www.6akons5n- 5Mery5n4am CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA SHEETS C.S.A.H. / i 7 r 4 r / n I I c.0 �a ' ,i /' j / `gi \`�� / l/ l! p EliEli i I Qv GJ 1 I EMMERICH , / r DEVELOPMENT EMMERICH �' n \I i DEVELOPMENT 1 1 �P -9� « /' � , /� . S E P T SN 'vat. P -9 . \�). /r �' 0671.3 , / / V 11 CO UE LLI I 1 ' dI1. 1 r 1f L1, • I ' I — oRRO «m L — won - -- - — - -- — 1- --1 ._ — F - —1— - 10._4_40 - —1— _.,02.0(1... _.,02.0(1... - t 1 - -' + - —♦— - - - +— _ 1 - 1. 210417:1 - F -- ® 1 ./ I // • -ik TEMPORARY EASEMENT TABLE �7 • LEGEND LENDTN DF l� EASE TEMPORARY NUMBER PARCEL WIDTH or si.o0r/ r DENOTES TEMPORARY EASEMENT PARCEL I.O. OWNER EASEMENT EONSTRUCTON 50 0 SO 100 (PP1) EASEMENT IN FEET EASEMENT FROM TO (ACRES) SCALE 01 FEET 0 118500341100 .3101 F. DARBENWAID 101425.28 1084.02.55 17' 0182 • DATE REVISION 1 M..Dy 0°001 O. 0,M 3444. .gcilkatlan, MOOTS SKEET 6/15•05 r vUw CT)4M NTS « °0°" 1O� « M me p ioi0°"F/ Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. RIGHT OF WAY AND + 0 + tro 1 «n A 0 °° g RJE nw c .kll ED4' " IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 04 -02 EASEMENT ACQUISITION PLAN 5 .441 .01.,. lk � w MM. • eel Y 1M CNP 1 '3601 Thwata" Ave.. Moto. Mimmoto 55303 NI S.A.P 217 - 020 -03 C.S.A.H �' - 11 3'N b' � 1 " 8/ 11 .L '®O 0.1 41. 763- 427 -5860 FAA 763 - 427 -0520 01 m L_.. sm . .. n A.,.- 2co4om- u c n yym_ ram - moo- o.w- 37- ao+.a., Dm. a /tt , ,2442E RJE 07T 340 wv..hokonaon- oM °rv°^.com CfiY OF OTSEGD. MINNESOTA L � w . C.S.A., 37 .ji I Z.1 I .6]0.2 N / // 1 1 ■ u YYYCCC /// / SEPTIC yt a: V bt 4 Or NEu OI I .■I1. CO ELLI I 1 I ° n - n a .1I), o r SAWGUT 95 LF AND I _ S N MILL 2 0 Y EXISTING BITUMINOUS 'EMOVE 210 SY 9 /,f EX. BITUMINOUS 1.�— tm. - -. -- e - _ -- r. ' F-- ,F —� - -- F - — H - I - — -b.i�' — co — oe.ro — m _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ - _ _ __ _ C.S.A.H. 37 - ZIT — — //////// ////////// / �/ /// / / // // //////,//,///,i,� /„ REMOVE 12 SY 1q I SAWCl1T 1 B Lf AND • SALVAGE AND INSTALL SIGN / / y EX. BITUMINOUS ' 9 1 YR1. 2' % Y EXISTING BITUMINOUS REMOVE AND REPLACE MAILBOXES / / 2 1 (INCIDENTAL) £Ti MILL 2- X 2• EXISTING BITUMINOUS $ / NOTE: THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FOR AN ON -SITE LOCATION (612 - 454 - 0002). LEGEND I■\ O DENOTES EXISTING BITUMINOUS REMOVALS N '¢ 50 0 50 lap 00 E W FED • DATE REVISION pr., cv01, Oat Pik pion. .0.00m0«. _ 671V05 STATE REVIEW COMMENTS « n«n .m we.o-« h .a o- wan ny Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc Civil En SHEET a. «t .wi ma trot i a RJE map emenb.er E- - and Lana Surveyors Engineers I MPROVEMENT PROJECT � c %P a4/13/04 ' 04 -02 REMOVALS PLAN 6 • : t4 tom - ham 3601 Thurston Ann.. Anoka, S - 55303 V �+W.a wlst -mwW *awe. W..U°c.a.w .Ptimaw- ¢w- nr¢rn 0.t a ,, „ J• j No. -2-M.2__- RJE 07340 � )61 w42) -5660 FAX ]83 -42] -0520 S.A.P. 217 - 020 -03 C.$.A.H. 37 .n.npkpna.n- anaanon.com CITY OF OTSEGO. MINNESOTA s -- - — DENOTES EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE j r A rar/% DENOTES PROPOSED TEMPORARY DRAINAGE & UfIUTY EASEMENT C. S.A.H. 37 50 0 I 50 I00 w _ R, 1 i ( / / / /04 . 11,, / '\ 0I. / p 1 11 I I / j„. / // /r / SEE SHEET 8 FOR INTERSECTION DETAIL I ) , , / /' `' /. )," // ! / / / / / / dc :ese.3 / :.,r / `J r. i i f /. l (l/ , / Q p / ,' ` ! ' / r I l a // ~; ' \` / / ii / ,--.. / 1 „ \ a . c i r. E 1 l_ - 2 , i I� r 1 1 CONSTRUCTION - ( /i/ J,/ � ` ;:I11I I/ / /f �I n I r 1 �LIE-_—_j I I I , , I I -' / . I . 870.2 r "... / //' ,_,..../ / / 1 I ^ I / /' /'� > � 1 11 ___ �� i 4 0 R ) 4 1 / • ' BEGIN $P217 -)6 7 04 / 1 \ / END SAP. 217 - 020 q3 - /,/ (f 4 SCPTIE ' " °\Phi s I / // :./ // (BY.OTHEFjS) / ` .1, _ ST0. 0 +7� / le / " ''11 " ,.. / gyp at MEI i/ I ;^ 1 MAicr?t (ISTINg, / // : � V / BITUMINOUS / I t STRE / 4'''''''7,•••:;'' f ` . �� e71.1 CO VEIL I // // / v / / 72 1 fi 180' TAPER 111. d /'/ % /f i 1 , . / 30d RIG TURN LANE ':—/".- BEGIN S.A.P. 217 020 - / ( 180' T/6 / / / /'/ / . "- LEA ' STA. 101 +45.84 I I • �./ I / t;: u r . --,- .- =��C`LEAR GRUB - - - -- ___ `J I �� - _ —_ , -- - -_- • _ - 217-020-03 ' THRU LANE - _ -- _ _ -___- __ -_ . _ 12 _.. lm ~.-I. .. _ Iod.m (� _ = t RI "- • Rk f 1:15 SLOPE . EXISTING r ,r J �SND SAP. mace m:pP jI R �� - -- - r22-* —� I— EXISTING 12 THRU LANE — _ ft - I1- - I I - —ar � -- - 4- -� � - m- — 1- i' i oc/ " _ _ _ . - - ' _ _' . _ 1 1 77 110+05.77 �_ _ - - 1:15 SLOPE ' BYP IANF _ �j " _---- +•_- ._ -.�__ .. _ - /• 7:15 SLOPB 1 - -' - - _. . _ - 11 180' TAPER 200' 50' 180' TAPER I I. ------ CLEAR AND GRUB --------- - - - - -- I I • DATE REVISION 1 tnrapy candy that N 01il Pun. .,2 n celi 09702; 8/15/0`5 57A1 REVIEW COMME aD COMMENTS m I e� °% A r m osr, ^0' RJE Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. STREET PLAN SHEET 1 ' `" ''......,;./.. 40 7 0 2 ' ' 1ei4tl''" on.. : c _ - Civil Surveyors Engineers and Land PROJECT 04 -02 2 -- -- - _ - / _ 1/30/Da + „ 3801 Thurston AnokAnoka. W ston Ave.. P. meeeto 53303, FSAH. 37 No'_ hnro IS V 01'^ n 7P °°-` 30^ in. -O.W13/0 -5. W8 5P_.+1 Ho- 7\ orcv e a x -aa -ry ., p a II s 7 / 5 No 28052 RJE 01340 763 vaa�NOkanaon a ]e3- `2] -os2D S'A. P. 217 020 -03 ' CIIY OF OTSECA. MINNESOTA 14 eeerson.c°m � Z • > I • Q • • > . I Q 0 Q D • • 0I • 10' WIDE BIT. BIKE TRAIL 1677.37 • X676.64 876.64 �0, o \ c l � O . it $ _, 677.3 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET s � _. .(SEE DETAIL SHEET 3 . 71) . — . . — 877.1 0.9% 877.71 J 1.6.% 878.92 _ _ I _ I I _ 105+00 I _ )oal oo _ I _ 107+00 oo • _ — )O C.S.A. • K I 20 0 20 50.1E 4 1E0 DATE REV1510N wq 1.102, 001 Via 00. w•cube,or. ODOR 0/25/0 57Ar0 'VFW 60A16{F NTS 1 na roe. .m w•wr•tl q m1 or and. .1. Hakanson Assoc., NTERSECTION DETAIL ' %. r•° Rr wo•n aon 4.4 0,41 °I 1 am 4 4M, nson erson ssoc. Inc. InC. RJE 8 - � 00.o,i° Rains.. �R o '.� C.2 (0900001 002 Land su,.,,yo1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 04 -02 . C.S.A.H.. & QUADAY AVE. -_ - -_ _ / 2 - / Q / v 1 5. -. R b l a /26 /O4 3601 n -227 A n o k a . Minnesota 55]03 14 427 wVm • w ° W+ > . x°°aMm410 0* .lVocJS.x. 7 \m>to_�. ,, _n- w,wan -on.w1 Om. 4/ ®a m.. 763 -427 -5860 FAX 763- 427 -0520 S.A.P. 217 - 020 -03 C. TS(C0 37 2k03L RJE 09340 woo.nWwnson- ontlsrson.c4m CITY OF 075ECO MINNESOTA SHEER 07340 C.S.A.H. 37 L___1 n �I 1 --ik , 1 ¢f I x cf-1 1 N a l I SO o W S 100 1 o I 1 sGNt ren 1 I 1 i i O _ al • © 0 -3 © • d © • a2 ^x SIGN SIGN SIGN 5166 SIGN LEGEND N0. (INCHES) MESSAGE COLOR REMARKS QUANTITY g R3 -61 30'X}0' RIGHT TURN BLACK ON 50' I 50' LANE 6017E 1 O W1 -7 48024- LARGE DOUBLE BLACK ON 1 M ARROWS - 8' -0" NIGH I WORDS ARROW YELLOW 1 _ _.100• - B- H IGH 40 ;, 0' 97 1. INITIAL SPACING -50 FT. RECOMMENDED. RANGE OF 81 -6 24 WRIGHT COUNTY 37 YELLOW AND WHITE ON BLUE LENGTH OF TURN LANE. © M2 -la 21'X15' JCT YELLOW AND WHITE YELLOW 120' 2. MESSAGE SPACING -40 FT. RECOMMENDED. MINIMUM ON BLUE 1 OF 25 FT. FOR SHORT TURN LANES. D -} VARIABLE OUMAY AVE NE WHRE ON 3. INTERMEDIATE SPACING- RECOMMEND A MINIMUM X 6' 70714 ST NE GREEN 1 OF 100 FT. AND A MAXIMUM OF 150 FT. DEPENDING 40' • ON APPROACH SPEED AND LENGTH OF TURN LANE. RI 4. FINAL SPACING- RECOMMEND 20 FT. OR AS CLOSE 20' - AS POSSIBLE WITH RESPECT TO THE SPACING CRITERIA PAVEMENT UNE LISTED ABOVE. MARKING UNE TYPE w UNE COMPOSITION REMARKS LEGEND (INCHE AND COLOR 5. NUMBER OF MESSAGE UNITS -FOR TURN LANES LESS THAN 200 FT. IN LENGTH ONE SHOULD BE SUFFIENT CENTER LINE 4' DOUBLE SOLID 4" SEPARATION I 30" AND FOR TURN LANES GREATER THAN 200 FT. IN LENGTH 1 YELLOW BETWEEN LINES !.T1R.YC/T� 11. STREET NAME SIGN O NOTES: ESSAGE BE REGARDLESS OF E IN RURAL AREAS THE LENGTH. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT IN THIS CASE O LANE UNE 4' SINGLE I 50Up 6 0 ALL STREET SIGNS SMALL USE 4' SERIES "6 LETTERING AND THE HEAD OF THE ARROW BE LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE NUMBERING MIDPOINT OF THE TURN LANE O MOUNTING BRACKETS SHALL 8E E -450 FOURWAY BRACKET OR EOUAL. PAV RREMOWENT SOLID WHITE FOR AUXILLAR0 I 6 6 ,. 3 AS ARROW RIGHT @ LEFT O MOUNTING POST SHALL BE 2.5' O.D. BY 10' GALVANIZED TUBE. TVRN LANES POSTS SHALL BE IMBEDDED IN A 12 BY 24 DEEP CONCRETE FOOTING 8 HIGH 4 O PAVEMENT SIGN O DETAIL © SIGN PLATES SHALL BE SINGLE FACED CONSTRUCTED OF 0.080 ALUMINUM, SOLID WHITE 'ONLY MESSAGE ENGINEER GRADE REFLECTIVE SHEETING. LETTERING 8' HIGH SO. SIGN SHALL BE PAID AS "SIGN PANELS TYPE C O LANE LINE 4 BROKEN UNE MOTE DATE REV1510N ...by calory Mal tb olw eca , fllcolen. 40121:0 It - 6/15 /115 SITE HEVBW 01 1464415 . q u, RJE N irnlemwl E.4Yw orb pep. . � 01 Hakanson Anderson ASSOC., Inc. SIGNING AND 51Qi _ m•. ; RAA.i 5/11/04 Civil e GI 014100 a ry ono i g Surveyors IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 04 -02 PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS . 9 -- ` -.. -- - - % 36 Minton AverM 16 Ia 55]03 • • Wl '".Vau w.1'"'-I°u0 51000 -%.WwW. ,410 4,511.o-ourbr_smn[_ya,•,, bola T / Mo. Z � RJE � OT340 763- 127 -5860 FAX 763-.27-0520 S.A.P. 217- 020 -03 C.S.AH. 37 w•. 7wAans0n- neenon.com Cm OF OTSEfA, MINNESOTA 14 91¢77 ) • SIGN 50' Sp' SIGN SIGN SIZE SIGN SIGN ESTIMATED ARROWS — 13'-13" HIGH REMARKS LEGEND N0. (INCHES) MESSAGE COLOR OUANTRI' ICJ R3 —XI 30 e RIGHT TURN BLACK R E N 1 700' 40' WORDS — B -0' HIGH ® WI -7 413-024- INTERSECTION BUCK ON GU 1. INITIAL SPACING -50 FT. RECOMMENDED: RANGE OF CONTROL SIGN YFLI OW 1 30 -80 FT. DEPENDING ON APPROACH SPEED AND Oil LENGTH OF TURN LANE. 120 2. MESSAGE SPACING -40 FT. RECOMMENDED. MINIMUM OF 25 FT. FOR SHORT TURN LANES. 3. INTERMEDIATE SPACING — RECOMMEND A MINIMUM OF 100 FT. AND A MAXIMUM OF 150 FT. DEPENDING 40' ON APPROACH SPEED AND LENGTH OF TURN LANE. C 4. FINAL SPACING — RECOMMEND 20 FT. OR AS CLOSE Y0• A5 POSSIBLE WITH RESPECT TO THE SPACING CRITERIA PAVEMENT - - USTED ABOVE. HARMING LINE TYPE pjl p7H LINE COMPOSITION REMARKS 5. NUMBER Of MESSAGE UNITS —FOR TURN LANES LESS LEGEND (INCHES) AND COLOR THAN 200 FT. IN LENGTH ONE SHOULD BE SUFFIENT AND FOR TURN LANES GREATER THAN 200 FT. IN LENGTH 0 CENTER UNE 4' DOUBLE SOLID 6" SEPARATION TWO SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. IN RURAL AREAS ONE YELLOW BETWEEN UNES MESSAGE UNIT MAY BE SUFFIENT REGARDLESS OF THE LENGTH. IT IS RECOMMENDED NAT IN THIS CASE THE HEAD OF THE ARROW BE LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE LANE LINE 4' SINGLE SOLID MIDPOINT Of THE TURN LANE 0, WHITE O PAVEMENT SOLID WHITE FOR AUXILLARY 3 ARROWS ARROW RIGHT & LEFT TURN LANES Y HIGH 0 PAVEMENT SOUD WHITE ONLY MESSAGE LETTERING 8 HIGH • )5 " +TS" b - 1 • 1 B" � 30" 9" rt 10" • c. PUNCHING FOR W1- 7(48 "x24 ") • PUNCHING FOR R3 -5R RIGHT TURN TYPE C & D SIGN STRUCTURAL DETAILS DATE REVISION I k.r.ey ceWy U.M Ub p...p.rirwmn. MOO IC 6/15/65 STATE RM • UN W LOMMS e . rapori p me4 • 1 1 1 ° "a^' my RJE " Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. SIGNING AND 911Ff 6nc .upmi.M a. WN am p al., . Ilaw. M M TE,�''v'��^ ansad ! "n"'"' pp.. Civil Engineers one Land Surveyors IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 04 -02 PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS )D � / � ��J/ RAS 5 /11 /0. I 3601 Thurston Ave.. Anoka. Y I 55303 C.S J7 `- ;::roAalCie:w• 0 A cpWea. .p *;.,/,l).csw_„_:�._,w..., m.. 1,1719 W In(R. p` "'Mr." IM m. _ 763 - 4n —SasD rAX 703- 27 520 S.P. 217- 020 -03 C.S 14 2 . 21052 RJE 01340 .Aakanson— Me,son.com CITY OF OTSEGO. MINNESOTA 5>EETS C.S.A.H. 37 ... w 1 r • 4 SALVAGED BARRICADE o r 1 I SIGNS (BY OTHERS) I > I I ■ I a. � �! �I I Em n. 7S0 ., ,m ., �� - -- - - -- 1- -� - • ,4rt. II n 1 rrr • 000 r.%.r. LEGEND ® DENOTES WORK ZONE DENOTES EDGE OF EXISTING. BITUMINOUS . - -.. ... - _ . - __. .:. _- ..-- _ . -- DENOTES EDGE OF PROPOSED BITUMINOUS N • • DENOTES RETROREFLECTNE DRUMS (MAPCO FIG. VI -10) I O F DENOTES TYPE A FIISHING WARNING LIGHT 100 o IW MD R11 - DENOTES MMUTCD CODE sruE w FEET • • DENOTES RETROREFLECTNE CHANNELIZING DEVICE NOTES: 1. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, INCLUDING "FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS - JANUARY 2004 2. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF HIGH INTENSITY GRADE SHEETING. AND ALL BARRICADES, DETOUR SIGNS AND WARNING SIGNS SHALL HAVE DIAMOND GRADE SHEETING. 3. BARRICADES AND WARNING SIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE FLASHERS(S). 4. ONLY ONE 510E OF C.S.A.H. 37 SHALL BE CLOSED AT A 710E. DATE REVISION caddy wc1 6 R that this LOMMF NT$ 1°•°H Nal RJE Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. ., SHEET 6 /ISlOS STATE REVIEW 1 ""°" TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN Il "°"° E "° Civil g 4 a L a Surveyors IMPROV PROJECT 04 -02. MSC Mp _ .. D 1p �'/' /'/ - Red 5/1I/04 3601 Tnua Anab Mwyip( 55303 C.EA.H. 37` 44. HoC ®¢ �'• ]63 -427 5660 FAX 763-477-0520 S.A.P. 217- 020 -03 CITE OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA 14 S.Ma -..0.4 , wk xwW160 6* 4Ww_csw->\on.o-d.- 4,_FO�:yoa pM. 11 .25062 RJE 01340 w.nokonaon nEanon,cpn SHEETS :1 El 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 ik 3 m 3 3 m 3 �Z 0 Z j 1'/ w P ... -1 --- a -1, - -- ter- - - . -1 u o . ■ �:a • . 1 N n o iLl 1 0 0 O 1 • U 2 2 1 R (., . I 1 d I I (1 1 1 1 4 O 1 u7 0 0 0 1 . + Wei— — � + W _ + W r ` — O CO 6YBB 00 -� 61'588 ° n T K'tB9 ° ^ W —t tr . I 0 1 0 1 a 1 t • o 1 • 1 , n O R i L„.., 1 I1 i -- -- ` . - 1 / . 1 ' 1 ' / $ 1 1 B 1 1 / U 1 c' i ° or a.s� �o,2g 1 .F o @ oW' o0 .n O� 0 O Z 3 3 m m 3 1 m m i IP 1 m m �-- - - -- ---- .T. - - -� �- -. -. -. - 3 1 ■ \ : o 1 1 I u ¢' Y 3. '¢ 1 ; J n n R n I€ = ^ Iii S °I ON i 1 0 i Op' + 1 O W�� W — + W 1 + W 8 O EOM c O [1 '088 ° i Z 6'BLB. � 1!) C19L6 LB ' l / 0 0 0 1 0 °R 1 1 i-P - s. ■ ■ I % , 1 t 1 1 \ ; C m 1 1 a 1 u 1 1 .1 y . 1 , i I 9 3 I 3 3 3° m 3 3 E -- — m m m a s i # 'i 3 § g ' • ki 1 I ■ - ▪ it � -g ■ B Ni , 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3, 3 3 3 3, 3 3 m --- .— . — 'T -- R k--- . —. —. -- g a Z gw 1 O ~ ? t 1 U N S 1. . i t e In t a g I- i — _ * 1 I_ N n O I I c / I � � O Z O tn Z Q / ' / = u • Q / / 1. i I 1 I O 1 O 0 in i + W -- — O W — } W — t W Q O i BG'LZB 0 1 Zt'[[8 M Ma M �- B9ZB O 1 n 1 O_ I I • • • (V ■ • • \ a • \ \ d vi \ \ t ' I y $ • 1 . 1 __ - ' 2 _ — _ ' . I U ` m m 1 ' m m 1 m m g 1. 3 N 2, o 1 3 m 3 � ri C N . IH1 Ou^ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 s 3 1 3 3 c 1 x r .I 1 / : -: 1 ,, 1s ..:„ , I 1 / / es R a ^ u 13.3 t i + O ° O o i�� _ 'n 1 0 �pp W �-~ t '—+— — t W — t 2 b O [Mg N Bt'B alga o t Wt — ti'ZBB € B u O O I 5 \ " dy • i 1 1 I gCYS• • • 1 1 1 Cr 1 t ' 1. s a ° 3 'g 5 • ti _- 1 • 3 3§ 3 3 3 3 m ` 1 N o \1 ( In 3 —\_ —_ 1 t - N n O — ■ U Z d N i w .9 U 1 1 1 O 0 0 \ 1. — — WON ° O ''''.--r i — ems ° 0 I n O 1 4 N • • • • . ` R s a \ a \ N o 4 - 1 .\ U C ■ 3 3 3 m 3 3 3 0 ; , o3 at 0 c tly 4 41 c y'_ n 0 0 • 3 3 3 m 1 3 3 3 irioiml 1 1 \ 1 ` s 1 . .0 0 a 2 A 0 g €_' I y .1 .4 + W Wr — B BBBB ° S i, �g, _T_ 1711'9121? ° y O O 2 111 e 8 $ B c \ 1 ','4\ 1 1 1 i S \ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C i $ o A `g p `afl 4 k n g ITEM 8_4 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF OTSEGO AND KEN AND JULIE NATHE REGARDING CONVEYANCE OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHEREAS, Ken and Julie Nathe are owners of certain property described on the attached Exhibit A and located in the City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Otsego desires to obtain a drainage and utility easement across said property; and WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to certain conditions for conveyance of the easement and have memorialized these conditions as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Otsego will waive all park fees either currently owed or that may be charged in the future against the above described property at the time of further subdivision or development, except that the City reserves the right to require, upon future development or subdivision of the property, a twenty (20) foot easement for the purposes of a trail extension to allow for connection of a trail to be constructed on the Plat of Waterfront East across the Nathe property and to the property to the South, in conformance with the approved Otsego Park and Trail Plan. The twenty foot easement shall be established only within that portion of the property designated on Exhibit B attached to this Agreement. 2. All City storm water requirements for future development of the described property would be handled by discharge into the Regional Pond located on Outlot A of the adjoining Plat of Waterfront East. Any required connection directing storm water to said ponds would be the responsibility of the Nathes. 3. Any dirt or material resulting from City construction activities within the easement would remain the property of the Nathes to be used as they saw fit. 4. At such time that Nathe's apply to the City for a public or private improvement project on the southern portion of the described property, the City will provide limited 1 engineering assistance to Nathe's related to any needed changes to the storm water conveyance system through the MN/DOT easement including assistance with the permitting process and conversion of the facilities from an open ditch to a culvert including a determination as to sizing of the culvert. All other costs of any said project (actual construction and any other related costs) will be the responsibility of Nathes. 5. The City Engineer will make all good faith efforts to delay grading of the ditch until late October of 2005. 6. The ditch shall be located in the general area as depicted as the easement area on attached Exhibit A. The easement will be approximately _ acres lying within the general area and to be legally described by the City. The City will allow minor adjustments to the proposed ditch location as long as the adjustments do not adversely affect drainage and/or result in an increase in earthwork more that an additional 10% above the Engineer's estimate. 7. City will allow modifications to the ditch cross section in order to facilitate crossing as long as said modifications do not adversely affect drainage ;and/or result in an increase in earthwork more than an additional 10% above the Engineer's estimate. At the time that a legal description for the permanent drainage and utility easement substantially as set forth as above has been agreed upon between the parties, the same shall be executed by Nathe's and recorded, along with an Easement Agreement executed by both Nathes and the City substantially reciting the conditions as set forth above. Dated: OWNERS Ken Nathe Julie Nathe Dated: CITY OF OTSEGO 2 Larry Fournier, Mayor Judy Hudson, City Clerk 3 E X WET T B (1514 � �-- - -w 854E 2 i-, \ I \ x 860.5 I / rir X 861.3 I 1 \ 78.8 x x 861.2 x 861.9 \ . I / x 10 \ x 861.7 \ \ J / / x 860.3 x 859.0 \ I 1 x 861,2 / // x 856.0 1 ..;1.: \ O / I / 817'.9 \ . X 860.6 / / .. 1 ' _ ... fA - \ -\ I\ .e \' \ x :. (0.3 / I / \ f� x' jos. t g 0 -` z �-- `1 `� 857. =.5. x 858.8 z 839.7 # 232200 f k q x es9s / I 1 .4414 }��11 I i I - i ,` : .: \ / I f x 979.5 I � II C� 9 ,� . 1 ` �� . I I x 836.1 ` V 85 r .j -� I I I I x 8569 ---,\ 1 I ^ � \ \ x 859.0 / x 8792 DI \4 ta I \ R Vs \ I ' 1160.3 k 963 857.3 1 � a x x 8553 \ t \ W BS x 4 A \ x 862.8 / t \ 855.3 A 814.8 �8 .9 x 4 Ib x x V \ • .,, � \ X :33.6 : . . I #232200 `\ r �,�►,w�OIWI P.....P4' . I 1 " ' t - N x C i ,-- x 858.7 v % \ . r • I it ` 860.3 ` _ Il 864. ` M1 x 857.1 ` Q i t _` a r 6 x 957.0 ��1, 4 .. „ ' I x 8 51 2 / 1 x 857.1 x :© ITEM 9_7 COURI, MACARTHUR & RUPPE, P.L. L. P. Michael C. Couri• Attorneys at Law David R. Wendorf Andrew J. MacArthur 705 Central Avenue East Kristen H. Carr Robert T. Ruppe•' Po Box 369 Alison K. Marwitz St. Michael, MN 55376 -0369 'Also licensed in Illinois (763) 497 -1930 "Also licensed in California (763) 497 -2599 (FAX) courimacarthur@earthlink.net August 17, 2005 Otsego Mayor and City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Ave NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Communications Site Lease Agreement - NEXTEL Dear Mayor and Council Members: Attached is the proposed Communications Site Lease Agreement between the City of Otsego and Nextel West Corporation (d/b /a Nextel Communications). Paragraph 6 addresses Nextel's access to the antenna facilities. It distinguishes access procedures to equipment on the water tank from access procedures to equipment located elsewhere on the site (for example, a grounded shelter). After initial installation of equipment on the water tank, Nextel must provide at least 48 hours notice to both the City and to PeopleService before accessing the water tank, and a City or PeopleService representative must be present during any testing or maintenance. Any other access by Nextel requires only that the City be notified in advance. As a result of these provisions, the "Site Access Procedures" are not included in a separate exhibit to the Agreement, as was present in the previous agreement with CITESCAPE. Under this Lease Agreement, Nextel is required to post both a $10,000 Payment Bond and a $10,000 Performance Bond. This is a proposed alternative to Nextel's preference of requiring a Waiver of Landlord's (City's) Lien provision. I have spoken with Jason Hall of Nextel and it is my understanding that he will be present at the Monday, August 22n City Council meeting. I also directed him to speak with the City Engineer prior to the meeting and to submit any plans or exhibits related to this agreement for your consideration. This agreement reflects other negotiated items between this office and Nextel. Andy MacArthur will be present at the meeting to address your questions or comments. Very truly yours, i1 Kristen H. Carr COURI MACARTHUR & RUPPE PLLP cc. Ron Wagner, City Engineer People's Service Jason Hall, NEXTEL • • te: Dayton / MN0804 darket: Chicago COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT (WATER TANK) This COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is dated as of , 2005, by Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications ( "Nextel" or "Tenant ") and City of Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Owner" or "Landlord "). For One Dollar ($1.00) paid to Owner, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Premises. Owner owns a parcel of land ( "Land ") and a water tank ( "Water Tank ") located in the City of Otsego, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, commonly known as 15966 70 Street NE, Otsego, MN 55330 (APN: 118 - 500 - 341104). The Water Tank and the Land are collectively referred to herein as the "Property." The Land is more particularly described in Exhibit A annexed hereto. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2 below ( "Effective Date/Due Diligence Period "), Owner hereby leases to Nextel and Nextel leases from Owner approximately Three Hundred Seventy Five (375) square feet of Land and space adjacent to and/or on the Water Tank and all access and utility easements necessary or desirable therefor (collectively, "Premises ") as may be described generally in Exhibit B annexed hereto. 2. Effective Date/Due Diligence Period. This Agreement shall be effective on the date of full execution hereof ( "Effective Date "). Beginning on the Effective Date and continuing until the Term Commencement Date as defined in Paragraph 3 below ( "Due Diligence Period "), Nextel shall only be permitted to enter the Property for the limited purpose of making appropriate engineering and boundary surveys, inspections, and other reasonably necessary investigations: and signal, topographical, geotechnical, structural and environmental tests (collectively, "Investigations and Tests ") that Nextel may deem necessary or desirable to determine the physical condition, feasibility and suitability of the Premises. Upon Nextel's request, Owner agrees to provide promptly to Nextel pies of all plans, specifications, surveys and Water Tank maps (if they exist) for the Land and Water Tank. The Water Tank map _all include the elevation of all antennas on the Water Tank and the frequencies upon which each operates. In the event that Nextel determines, during the Due Diligence Period, that the Premises are not appropriate for Nextel's intended use, or if for any other reason, or no reason, Nextel decides not to commence its tenancy of the Premises, then Nextel shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without penalty upon written notice to Owner at any time during the Due Diligence Period and prior to the Term Commencement Date. Owner and Nextel expressly acknowledge and agree that Nextel's access to the Property during this Due Diligence Period shall be solely for the limited purpose of performing the Investigations and Tests, and that Nextel shall not be considered an owner or operator of any portion of the Property, and shall have no ownership or control of any portion of the Property (except as expressly provided in this Paragraph 2), prior to the Term Commencement Date. 3. Term. The term of Nextel's tenancy hereunder shall commence upon the start of construction of the Tenant Facilities (as defined in Paragraph 6 below) or six (6) months following the Effective Date, whichever first occurs ( "Term Commencement Date" ) and shall terminate on the fifth anniversary of the Term Commencement Date ( "Term ") unless otherwise terminated as provided herein. Tenant shall have the right to extend the Term for three (3) successive five (5) year periods ( "Renewal Terms ") on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein. This Agreement shall automatically be extended for each successive Renewal Term unless Tenant notifies Landlord of its intention not to renew prior to commencement of the succeeding Renewal Term. 4. Rent. (a) Within fifteen (15) business days following the Term Commencement Date and on the first day of each month thereafter, Tenant shall pay to Landlord as rent One Thousand Five Hundred and 50 /100 Dollars ($1,500.00) per month ( "Rent "). Rent shall be payable to Landlord at City of Otsego, 8899 Nashua Ave NE, Otsego, MN 55330, Attention: City Clerk. All of Tenant's monetary obligations set forth in this Agreement are conditioned upon Tenant's receipt of an accurate and executed W -9 Form from Landlord Rent shall increase on each anniversary of the Term Commencement Date by an amount equal to four percent (4 %) of the Rent then in effect for the previous year. (b) Within thirty (30) days of the Term Commencement Date, Tenant shall deliver to Landlord a payment bond in the 'mount of Ten Thousand and 00 /100 Dollars ($10,000.00) (the "Payment Bond') and a performance bond in the amount of Ten aousand and 00 /100 Dollars ($10,000.00) (the "Performance Bond "), as security for faithful performance by Tenant of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement (which default is not cured by Tenant in accordance with Paragraph 10) below and for the ryment by Tenant of any claims, liens, taxes, penalties or unpaid fees or charges due to Landlord, which arise by reason of Tenant's ..se of the Premises. The Payment Bond and the Performance Bond shall be in a form and content as approved by Landlord's appointed City Attorney. Landlord shall give Tenant written notice of its intention to invade the Payment Bond and/or the Performance Bond and with that notice shall provide to Tenant, written documentation of the failure to perform within thirty (30) days after the date of the occurrence which gives rise to Landlord's claim. Failure to provide such notice and documentation within such period shall result in a waiver by Landlord of the rights under this subparagraph. The Payment Bond and the Performance Bond shall be and kept in full force so long as the Tenant Facilities are on the Premises. In addition, the Payment Bond and the Performance Bond are to ensure that the Tenant Facilities will be removed and the Premises restored to its original at termination, cancellation or expiration of this Agreement, reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Tenant's reasonable control excepted. 5. Use. From and after the Term Commencement Date, the Premises may be used by Tenant for any lawful activity in connection with the provision of communications services, and Tenant shall have the ongoing right to perform such Investigations and Tests as Tenant may deem necessary or desirable upon notice to Landlord. Landlord agrees to cooperate with Tenant, at no out of pocket expense to Landlord, in making application for and obtaining all licenses, 'permits and any and all other necessary approvals that may be required for Tenant's intended use of the Premises. 6. Facilities; Utilities; Access. (a) Tenant has the right to construct, erect, maintain, test, replace, remove, operate and upgrade on the Premises communications facilities, including without limitation utility lines, transmission lines, an air conditioned equipment shelter(s), electronic equipment, transmitting and receiving antennas, microwave dishes, antennas and equipment, a power generator and generator pad, and supporting equipment and structures therefor ( "Tenant Facilities "). In connection therewith, Tenant has the right to do all work necessary to prepare, maintain and alter the Premises for Tenant's business operations and to install transmission lines connecting the antennas to the transmitters and receivers. All of Tenant's construction and installation work shall be performed at , °nant's sole cost and expense and in a good and workmanlike manner. Tenant shall hold title to the Tenant Facilities and all of the anant Facilities shall remain Tenant's personal property and are not fixtures. Tenant has the right to remove the Tenant Facilities at its sole expense on or before the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, and Tenant shall repair any damage to the Premises caused by such removal. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, Tenant shall remove the Tenant Facilities from the Property. The Tenant Facilities are limited to those set forth in Exhibit B or in any plans submitted in connection with the issuance of any building permit. (b) Tenant shall pay for the electricity it consumes in its operations at the rate charged by the servicing utility company. Tenant shall have the right to draw electricity and other utilities from the existing utilities on the Property or obtain separate utility service from any utility company that will provide service to the Property. In connection therewith, Landlord hereby grants to the local telephone, power and utility companies (as appropriate) non - exclusive rights to locate, construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, alter, extend, and/or remove cables and lines on, over, under and across a portion of Landlord's Property as necessary or desirable therefor. Landlord agrees to sign such documents or easements, at no cost to Tenant or the utility companies, as may be required by said utility companies to provide such service to the Premises. Any easements necessary for such power or other utilities will be at locations reasonably acceptable to Landlord and the servicing utility company. (c) For purposes of accessing any portion of the Tenant Facilities not located on the Water Tank, Tenant, Tenant's employees, agents and contractors shall have access to the Premises twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, at no charge, provided that Tenant notifies Landlord prior to entering the Premises. Landlord grants to Tenant, and Tenant's agents, employees and contractors, a non - exclusive right and temporary easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress across the Property, and such right and easement may be described generally in Exhibit B. In the event that Tenant requires access to the Water Tank after initial installation of the Tenant Facilities for regular testing or maintenance thereof, Tenant shall provide Landlord at least forty-eight (48) hours notice and Landlord shall contact Otsego City Hall at 763 - 441 -4414 to arrange for a representative of either People Service, Inc. ( "People's ") or Landlord to be present during such testing or maintenance. If such testing or maintenance requires that a representative of People's or Landlord be present at the Premises at such times other than such representative is normally present at the Premises, and Landlord incurs additional cost or charges due to the need for the presence of such representative, Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for any such additional costs or charges within thirty (30) days of Tenant's receipt of a detailed invoice indicating -, ich costs or charges. Landlord shall provide Tenant, Tenant's employees, agents and subcontractors access to the Premises during )rural business hours (defined as Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and, in the event of an emergency, at any time during every day of each year. An emergency shall include any repair or maintenance work that is necessary to prevent the terruption of, or to reestablish, the normal operation or proper functioning of the Tenant Facilities. In the event that Tenant requires .nmediate access to the Water Tank due to an emergency, Tenant shall contact Landlord, and Landlord will use all its best efforts to provide access to the Water Tank within twenty-four (24) hours of the request, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth above. Tenant shall make every effort to provide notice to Landlord, via telephone, of any visit to the Premises outside of normal business hours, by calling People's at 763 - 441 -4414. Following such attempt, Tenant shall be entitled to access the Premises. (d) Landlord shall maintain all access roadways from the nearest public roadway to the Premises in a manner sufficient to allow pedestrian and vehicular access at all times under normal weather conditions. Landlord shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing such roadways, at its sole expense, except for any damage caused by Tenant's use of such roadways. (e) Initial installation of the Tenant Facilities on the Premises, including mast, antennae, line, equipment cabinet and utility connections, shall be coordinated through Landlord by contacting Landlord's City Administrator and a People's service representative at least two (2) weeks in advance of initial construction, or any lesser period of time approved by Landlord's City Administrator. At all times during the initial installation of the Tenant Facilities on the Premises, a representative of People's or Landlord will be present at all times that Tenant, its agents or contractors are on the Premises. Landlord shall use its best efforts to coordinate the timing of such installation so that it occurs during times when People's employees are at the Premises for regular maintenance or other work on the Water Tank. However, if the work requires that!a representative of People's be present other than at such times that they would normally be present at the Premises, and as a result Landlord is charged additional fees by People's under its contract with Landlord, Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for any such additional fees within thirty (30) days of Tenant's receipt of a detailed invoice indicating such additional fees. 7. Interference. (a) Interference Caused By the Tenant Facilities. The Tenant Facilities shall be installed and operated m a manner which does not cause interference with the communications facilities of Landlord or other lessees or licensees of the Property, in the following order of priority: (i) Landlord; (ii) public safety agencies including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance services, that are not part of the Landlord; (iii) other governmental agencies whose use is not related to public safety; and (iv) commercial users with " or modifications preceding the installation of the Tenant Facilities by Tenant. In the event the Tenant Facilities cause .terference with any of the higher priority communications facilities of Landlord or other lessees or licensees of the Property listed in this paragraph, Landlord and Tenant agree to cooperate with each other and use their best efforts to attempt to eliminate such interference within a reasonable time period. (b) Interference with the Tenant Facilities. (i) Temporary Interruptions of Service. If Landlord determines that continued operation of the Tenant Facilities would cause or contribute to an immediate threat to public health and/or safety (except for any issues associated with human exposure to radio frequency emissions, which are regulated by federal law, Landlord may order Tenant to discontinue its operation of the portion of the Tenant Facilities causing such threat. Tenant shall immediately comply with such an order. Service shall be discontinued only for such period of time as the immediate threat to public health and/or safety exists, as reasonably determined by Landlord. The Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant or any other party for any interruption in Tenant's service or interference with Tenant's operation of the Tenant Facilities, except as may be caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Landlord, its employees, agents, or contractors. In any event, the Landlord's liability shall not 'extend beyond the obligation to repair the cause of the interruption or interference. If such discontinuance of Tenant's operation of the Tenant Facilities extends for a period greater than three (3) business days, Tenant -shall have the immediate right to terminate this Agreement within its sole discretion. (ii) With Structure. Tenant shall not interfere with Landlord's use of the Premises and agrees to cease all such actions which unreasonably and materially interfere with Landlord's use thereof no later than three (3) business days after receipt of written notice of the interference from Landlord In the event that Tenant's cessation of action is material to Tenant's use of the Premises and/or the Tenant Facilities and such cessation frustrates Tenant's use of the Premises and/or the Tenant Facilities, within Tenant's sole discretion, Tenant shall have the immediate right to terminate this Agreement. (iii) With Higher Priority Users. If the Tenant Facilities cause impermissible interference with the parties identified in Paragraph 7(a) above or with preexisting Tenants, Tenant shall take all measures necessary to correct and eliminate such interference. If such interference cannot be eliminated within forty-eight (48) hours after Tenant's receipt of Landlord's written notice of the interference, Tenant shall immediately cease operating the portion of the Tenant Facilities causing such interference and shall )t reactivate operation of such portion of the Tenant Facilities, except for intermittent periods of operation for the purpose of testing, • mil the interference has been eliminated. If such interference cannot be eliminated within thirty (30) days after Tenant received ..andlord's written notice, Landlord may at its option terminate this Agreement immediately. (iv) Interference Study - New Occupants. Upon written notice by Landlord that it has a bona fide request from any other party to lease an area in close proximity to the Premises, Tenant agrees to provide Landlord, within twenty (20) days of Tenant's receipt of such notice, the radio frequencies currently in operation or to be operated in the future of each transmitter and receiver installed and operational on the Premises at the time of such request. Landlord may then have an independent registered professional engineer of Landlord's choosing perform the necessary interference studies to determine if the new applicant's frequencies will cause harmful radio interference to Tenant. Landlord shall require the new applicant to pay for such interference studies. Landlord agrees that it will not grant a future lease in the Water Tank or the Property to any party who is of equal or lower priority to Tenant, if such party's use is reasonably anticipated to interfere with Tenant's operation of the Tenant Facilities. 8. Taxes. If personal property taxes are assessed, Tenant shall pay any portion of such taxes directly attributable to the Tenant Facilities. Landlord shall pay when due all real property taxes, assessments and deferred taxes on the Property. 9. Waiver of Landlord's Lien. (a) Landlord waives any lien rights it may have concerning the Tenant Facilities, all of which are deemed Tenant's personal property and not fixtures, and Tenant has the right to remove the same at any time without Landlord's consent. (b) Landlord acknowledges that Tenant has entered into a financing arrangement including promissory notes and financial and security agreements for the financing of the Tenant Facilities ( "Colla'teral ") with a third party financing entity (and may in the future enter into additional financing arrangements with other financing entities). In connection therewith, Landlord (i) consents to the installation of the Collateral; (ii) disclaims any interest in the Collateral, as fixtures or otherwise; and (iii) agrees that the Collateral shall be exempt from execution, foreclosure, sale, levy, attachment, or distress for any Rent due or to become due and that such Collateral may be removed at any time without recourse to legal proceedings. 1. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated without further liability on thirty (30) days prior written notice as follows: (i) by either party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof by the other party, which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default, except that this Agreement shall not be terminated if the default cannot reasonably be cured within such sixty (60) day period and the defaulting party has commenced to cure the default within such sixty (60) day period and diligently pursues the cure to completion; provided that the grace period for any monetary default is ten (10) days from receipt of written notice; or (ii) by Tenant if it does not obtain or maintain any license, permit or other approval necessary for the construction and operation of the Tenant Facilities; or (iii) by Tenant if Tenant is unable to occupy and utilize the Premises due to an action of the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC "), including without limitation, a take back of channels or change in frequencies; or (iv) by Tenant if any environmental report for the Property reveals the presence of any Hazardous Material after the Term Commencement Date; or (v) by Tenant if Tenant determines that the Premises are not appropriate for its operations for technological reasons, including, without limitation, signal interference; or (vi) by Tenant if the Landlord fails to deliver to Tenant an executed memorandum of agreement or non - disturbance and attornment agreement pursuant to Paragraphs 19 (g) and (h) below. 11. Destruction or Condemnation. If the Premises or Tenant Facilities are damaged, destroyed, condemned or transferred in lieu of condemnation, Tenant may elect to terminate this Agreement as of the date of the damage, destruction, condemnation or transfer in lieu of condemnation by giving notice to Landlord no more than forty-five (45) days following the date of such damage, destruction, condemnation or transfer in lieu of condemnation. If Tenant chooses not to terminate this Agreement, Rent shall be reduced or abated in proportion to the actual reduction or abatement of use of the Premises. 12. Insurance. (a) Tenant, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance covering bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of at least One Million and 00 /100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Subject to the standard exclusions and limitations of CGL policies, such insurance shall insure, on an occurrence basis, against all liability of Tenant, its employees and agents arising out of or in connection with Tenant's use of the Premises, all as provided for herein. Within thirty (30) days following the Effective Date, Tenant shall provide Landlord with a ^ertificate of insurance ( "COP') evidencing the coverage required by this Paragraph 12. Alternatively, Tenant shall have the option of oviding Landlord with evidence of such coverage electronically by providing to Landlord a Uniform Resource Locator ( "URL ") ink to access Tenant's memorandum of insurance ( "MOI ") website in order for, Landlord to review the coverage required by this laragraph 12. (b) Landlord, at Landlord's sole cost and expense, shall continue to maintain general liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of at least One Million and 00 /100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Subject to the standard exclusions and limitations of CGL policies, such insurance shall insure, on an occurrence basis, against all liability of Landlord, its employees and agents arising out of or in connection with Landlord's use, occupancy and maintenance of the Property. Within thirty (30) days following the Effective Date, Landlord shall provide Tenant with a copy of Landlord's general liability insurance policy evidencing Landlord is insured through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust ( "LMCIT"). (c) Landlord shall be named as an additional insured on Tenant's policy. 13. Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Tenant release each other and their respective principals, employees, representatives and agents, from any claims for damage to any person or to the Property or the Premises or to the Tenant Facilities or any other property thereon caused by, or that result from, risks insured against under any insurance policies carried by the parties and in force at the time of any such damage. Neither Landlord nor Tenant shall be liable to the other for any damage caused by any of the risks insured against under any insurance policy required by Paragraph 12. 14. Liability and Indemnity. Landlord and Tenant shall each indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' and consultants' fees, costs and expenses) (collectively "Losses ") arising from the indemnifying party's breach of any term or condition of this Agreement or from the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party or its agents, employees or contractors in or about the Property. The duties described in this Paragraph 14 shall apply as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and survive the termination of this Agreement. 15. Assignment and Subletting. Tenant may not assign, or otherwise transfer all or any part of its interest in this Agreement or in the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord; provided, however, that Tenant may assign its interest to its parent Impany, any subsidiary or affiliate of it or its parent company or to any successor -in- interest or entity acquiring fifty -one percent 1 %) or more of its stock or assets, subject to any financing entity's interest, if any, in this Agreement as set forth in Paragraph 9 above. Upon assignment, Tenant shall be relieved of all future performance, liabilities, and obligations under this Agreement, provided that the assignee assumes all of Tenant's obligations herein. Landlord may assign this Agreement, which assignment may be evidenced by written notice to Tenant within a reasonable period of time thereafter, provided that the assignee assumes all of Landlord's obligations herein, including but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraph 9 ( "Waiver of Landlord's Lien ") above. This Agreement shall run with the Land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective successors, personal representatives, heirs and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Tenant may assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise transfer without notice or consent its interest in this Agreement to any financing entity, or agent on behalf of any financing entity to whom Tenant (i) has obligations for borrowed money or in respect of guaranties thereof, (ii) has obligations evidenced by bonds, debentures, notes or similar instruments, or (iii) has obligations under or with respect to letters of credit, bankers acceptances and similar facilities or in respect of guaranties thereof. 16. Warranty of Title and Quiet Enjoyment. Landlord warrants that: (i) Landlord owns the Property in fee simple, has rights of access thereto from the nearest public roadway, which Tenant is legally permitted to use, and the Property and access rights are free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and restrictions except those of record as of the Effective Date; and (ii) Landlord covenants and agrees with Tenant that Tenant may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises and such access thereto, provided that Tenant is not in default hereunder after notice and expiration of all cure periods. Landlord makes no other warranties, expressed or implied, whatsoever regarding the Premises. In particular, the Landlord does not warrant that the proposed Tower or equipment upon the Premises will be suitable for Tenant's intended use. Further, Landlord makes no warranty as to the condition or safety of the Premises for Tenant's employees, agents or independent contractors, other than the warranties contained in Paragraph 18, Hazardous Material, of this Agreement. 17. Repairs. Tenant shall repair any damage to the Premises or Property caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Tenant. Upon expiration or termination hereof, Tenant shall repair the Premises to substantially the condition in which it existed upon start of construction, reasonable wear and tear and loss by casualty or other causes beyond Tenant's reasonable control excepted. 8. Hazardous MateriaL (a) As of the Effective Date of this Agreement: (1) Tenant hereby represents and warrants that it shall not use, generate, handle, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material in, on, under, upon or affecting the Property in violation of any Environmental Law (as defined below), and (2) Landlord hereby represents and warrants that (i) it has no knowledge of the presence of any Hazardous Material located in, on, under, upon or affecting the Property in violation of any Environmental Law; (ii) no notice has been received by or on behalf of Landlord from, and Landlord has no knowledge that notice has been given to any predecessor owner or operator of the Property by, any governmental entity or any person or entity claiming any violation of, or requiring compliance with any Environmental Law for any environmental damage (or the presence of any Hazardous Material) in, on, under, upon or affecting the Property.; and (iii) it will not permit itself or any third party to use, generate, handle, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material in, on, under, upon, or affecting the Property in violation of any Environmental Law. (b) Without limiting Paragraph 14, Landlord and Tenant shall each indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against all Losses (specifically including, without limitation, attorneys', engineers', consultants' and experts' fees, costs and expenses) arising from (i) any breach of any representation or warranty made in this Paragraph 18 by such party; and/or (ii) environmental conditions or noncompliance with any Environmental Law (as defined below) that result, in the case of Tenant, from operations in or about the Property by Tenant or Tenant's agents, employees or contractors, and in the case of Landlord, from the ownership or control of, or operations in or about, the Property by Landlord or Landlord's predecessors in interest, and their respective agents, employees, contractors, tenants, guests or other parties. The provisions of this Paragraph 18 shall apply as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and survive termination of this Agreement. (c) "Hazardous Material" means any solid, gaseous or liquid wastes (including hazardous wastes), regulated substances, pollutants or contaminants or terms of similar import, as such terms are defined in any Environmental Law, and shall include, without limitation, any petroleum or petroleum products or by- products, flammable explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos in any form, polychlorinated biphenyls and any other substance or material which constitutes a threat to health, safety, property or the environment or which has been or is in the future determined by any governmental entity to be prohibited, limited or ;gulated by any Environmental Law. (d) "Environmental Law" means any and all present or future federal, state or local laws, rules, regulations, codes, ordinances, or by -laws, and any judicial or administrative interpretations thereof, including orders, decrees, judgments, rulings, directives or notices of violation, that create duties, obligations or liabilities with respect to: (i) human health; or (ii) environmental pollution, impairment or disruption, including, without limitation, laws governing the existence, use, storage, treatment, discharge, release, containment, transportation, generation, manufacture, refinement, handling, production, disposal, or management of any Hazardous Material, or otherwise regulating or providing for the protection of the environment. 19. Miscellaneous. (a) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements concerning the subject matter contained herein. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both parties. (b) Both parties represent and warrant that their use of the Property and their personal property located thereon is in compliance with all applicable, valid and enforceable statutes, laws, ordinances and regulations of any competent government authority. (c) If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable with respect to any party, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and each provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. (d) This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assignees of the respective parties. (e) Any notice or demand required to be given herein shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt :quested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below: Landlord: Tenant: City of Otsego Nextel Communications 8899 Nashua Ave NE 400 West Grand Avenue Otsego, MN 55330 Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 Attn: City Clerk Attn: Senior Manager Site Development Phone: 763 -441 -4414 Phone: (630) 379 -5700 With a copy to: Nextel Communications, Inc. 2001 Edmund Halley Drive Reston, VA 20191 -3436 Second Floor, Mail Stop 2E225 Attn: Contracts Manager - Legal Landlord or Tenant may from time to time designate any other address for this purpose by written notice to the other party. All notices hereunder shall be deemed received upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. (f) The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this contract and the legal relations between the herein parties and performance under it. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located within Wright County, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the herein parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. Any claim, controversy or dispute arising out of this Agreement may upon mutual agreement of the parties be referred to non - binding or binding arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association. (g) Landlord agrees to execute and deliver to Tenant a Memorandum of Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C and acknowledges that such Memorandum of Agreement will be recorded by Tenant in the official records of Wright County Recorder's Office, Wright County, State of Minnesota. (h) In the event the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust, Landlord agrees to use all reasonable efforts to obtain and deliver to Tenant an executed and acknowledged non - disturbance and attomment instrument for each such mortgage or deed of trust in a recordable form reasonably acceptable to both parties. (i) Landlord agrees to fully cooperate with Tenant (including obtaining and/or executing necessary documentation) to clear any outstanding title issues that could adversely affect Tenant's interest in the Premises created by this Agreement. (j) In any case where the approval or consent of one party hereto is required, requested or otherwise to be given under this Agreement, such party shall not unreasonably delay or withhold its approval or consent. (k) Each of the parties hereto represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. (1) Both parties took part in the negotiation of this Agreement and agree that legal concepts intended to construe the Agreement against the drafter will not apply against either party. (m) In the event of any breach or default by either party, the other party shall be entitled to all rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement and/or available at law, in equity, by statute or otherwise, all of which rights and remedies shall be cumulative (and not exclusive). (n) The captions and headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. (o) All Recitals set forth above, and all Riders and Exhibits annexed hereto, form material parts of this Agreement and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. • (p) This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. 20. Marking and Lighting Requirements. Landlord shall be responsible for compliance with all marking and lighting requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") and the FCC. Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for any and all marking and lighting requirements imposed on the Property by the FAA or FCC as a result of the presence of the Tenant Facilities thereon. Should Tenant be cited because the Property is not in compliance and should Landlord fail to cure the conditions of noncompliance, Tenant may either terminate this Agreement or proceed to cure the conditions of noncompliance at Landlord's expense, which amounts may be deducted from (and offset against) the Rent and any other charges or amounts due, or coming due, to Landlord. Tenant may not install signs or advertising of any kind on Premises other than what is required to identify the shelter as belonging to Tenant, unless otherwise required by law, including without limitation any requirements of the FAA or the FCC. 21. Supplier Diversity. Nextel is committed to equal employment and vendor diversity. As part of this commitment, it is the policy of Nextel that small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concems, women - owned small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns (including 8(a) business concerns) and historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions ( "Diverse Suppliers," as further defined below) shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in performance of contracting between Nextel and its vendors. The term "Diverse Supplier(s)" shall mean and be defined as set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 19 and 13 C.F.R. Part 121. In addition, "Historically black colleges and universities," as included in the definition of "Diverse Suppliers" for purposes of this Agreement, shall mean and include institutions determined by the Secretary of Education to meet the requirements of 34 C.F.R Section 608.2; any nonprofit research institution that was an integral part of such a college or university before November 14, 1986; and "Minority institutions," as included in the definition of "Diverse Suppliers" for purposes of this Agreement, shall mean institutions meeting the requirements of Section 1046(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. §1135d- 5(3)); and also Hispanic-serving institutions as defined in Section 316(b)(1) of such Act (20 U.S.C. §1059c(b)(1)). Landlord shall confirm in the space below whether or not Landlord reasonably lieves it qualifies as a Diverse Supplier. ** *SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE * ** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date of the last signature below. LANDLORD: TENANT: City of Otsego, Nextel West Corp., a Minnesota municipal corporation a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications By: By: Name: Larry Fournier Name: Jocelyn Prochilo Title: Mayor Title: Vice President of Site Development - Midwest Attested By: Date Name: Judy Hudson Title: City Clerk Date: Tax I.D.: Diverse Supplier: Yes No x • • i ATE OF Minnesota COUNTY OF Wright On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared Larry Fournier personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)'; to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by their signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF Illinois )LINTY OF DuPage On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared Jocelyn Prochilo, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by their signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: II EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF LAND to the Agreement dated , 2005, by and between City of Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation, as Landlord and Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications, as Tenant The Land is described and/or depicted as follows (metes and bounds description): APN: 118- 500 - 341104 The North 215.00 feet of the East 205.5 - feet in the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Northeast Quarter (1/4) of Section 34, Township 121, Range 23, Wright County, Minnesota, as measured along the North and East lines thereof. Commonly known as the City of Otsego Water Tank property along 70 Street NE, West of Hwy 101. • • • EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES to the Agreement dated , 2005, by and between City of'Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation, as Landlord and Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications, as Tenant. The Premises are described and/or depicted as follows: A 15 foot x 25 foot (375 square foot) area at the base of the Water Tank and space on top of Water Tank for the Tenant Facilities A drawing of the Premises shall be attached upon completion. • • • • • • • Notes: • 1. Tenant may replace this Exhibit with a survey of the Premises once Tenant receives it. 2. The Premises shall be setback from the Property's boundaries as required by the applicable governmental authorities. 3. The access road's width will be the width required by the applicable governmental authorities, including police and fire departments. 4. Without in any way limiting Paragraph 6 (or Tenant's right to make future changes), Tenant intends to initially install up to twelve (12) antennas, fifteen (15) coaxial cables and three GPS signal units and connections. 5. The locations of any utility easements are illustrative only. The actual locations will be determined by the servicing utility company in compliance with all local laws and regulations. EXHIBIT C to the Agreement dated , 2005, by and between City of Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation, as Landlord and Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications, as Tenant. RECORDED AT REQUEST OF, AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Nextel Communications 400 West Grand Avenue Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 Attn: Legal Specialist MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Dayton/MN0804 APN: 118 -500- 341104 This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT is entered into on this , 2005, by City of Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation, with an address at 8899 Nashua Ave NE, Otsego, MN 55330 (hereinafter referred to as "Owner" or "Landlord ") and Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications, with an office at 400 West Grand Avenue, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 (hereinafter referred to as " Nextel" or "Tenant "). 1. Owner and Nextel entered into a Communications Site Lease Agreement ( "Agreement ") dated as of , 2005, effective upon full execution of the parties ( "Effective Date ") for the purpose of Nextel undertaking certain Investigations and Tests and, upon finding the Property appropriate, for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a immunications facility and other improvements. All of the foregoing is set forth in the Agreement. 2. The term of Nextel's tenancy under the Agreement is for five (5) years commencing on the start of construction of the Tenant Facilities or six (6) months following the Effective Date, whichever first occurs ( "Term Commencement Date "), and terminating on the fifth anniversary of the Term Commencement Date with three (3) successive five (5) year options to renew. 3. The Land that is the subject of the Agreement is described in Exhibit A annexed hereto. The portion of the Land being leased to Tenant and all necessary access and utility easements (the "Premises ") are set forth in the Agreement. In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the day and year first written above. ** *SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE * ** LANDLORD: TENANT: City of Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b /a Nextel Communications By: By: Name: Larry Fournier Name: Jocelyn Prochilo Title: Mayor Title: Vice President of Site Development - Midwest Attested By: Date Name: Judy Hudson Title: Judy Hudson, City Clerk Date: Tax I.D.: Diverse Supplier: Yes No x • JTATE OF Minnesota COUNTY OF Wright On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared Larry Fournier personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by their signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF Illinois COUNTY OF DuPage On , before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared Jocelyn Prochilo, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by their signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: COURI, MACARTHUR & RUPPE, P.L. L. P. Michael C. Court• Attorneys at Law David R. Wendorf Andrew J. MacArthur 705 Central Avenue East Kristen H. Carr Robert T. Ruppe•• PO Box 369 Alison K Marwitz St. Michael, MN 55376 -0369 *Also licensed in Illinois (763) 497 -1930 **Also licensed in California (763) 497 -2599 (FAX) couritnacarthur@eanhlink.net August 16, 2005 City Council Members • City of Otsego c/o Judy Hudson, City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Recent Court of Appeals Decision Regarding Wastewater Treatment Dear Council Members: Enclosed please fmd a memo from this office which reviews and explains a recent Court of Appeals decision reversing MPCA's grant of a permit to construct a wastewater treatment facility for the cities of Annandale and Maple Lake. Also enclosed are copies of the current case as well as the Court of Appeals decision in the appeal of Wright County's approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the City. The memo explains the decision and its basis, which could be problematic for any City seeking a permit in the future if that permit arguably affects impaired waters. Following are some concerns raised by the decision: 1. Normally, when a Court reviews an agency decision they show strong deference to the agency because of its expertise in the area. In this case the Court viewed the decision as purely a legal question and thus did not show the normal deference to the agency's reasoning. Thus, m reviewing the question of whether or not impaired waters were actually affected the Court pointed to the MPCA determination that they were affected, and contrasted this with an Arkansas judge's determination that a discharge would not measurably affect impaired waters. The MPCA deals in measurement on a scientific level, while a judge reaches a legal conclusion. The Court pointed out that part of its rationale for the decision was MPCA's own finding that the permitwould "impact" impaired waters. It appears that these two different standards are being confused in this decision. Letter to Otsego City Council August 16, 2005 Page 2 2. The Court in this decision indicated that it would not rely on state agency interpretations of federal statutes and rules, even though most of the implementation of the federal rules is delegated to the state agencies. 3. The impaired waters referenced m the decision were a portion of the North Fork of the Crow River 18 miles from the discharge point as well as Lake Pepin which is 60 miles south of the Twin Cities. The case could be reasonably interpreted to mean that no additional discharge can be allowed if the discharge in anyway adversely affects an impaired water. In other words, if a plant can be constructed with no additional phosphorus discharge it would probably be allowed. This could end up being very expensive. 4. The decision in this case leads to the logical next step by the Plaintiff, MCEA, of challenging an expansion permit for an existing facility based upon the rationale for this decision. Whether or not the challenge will be ultimately upheld or not may not be the issue, the issue may rather be the time and expense in responding to litigation and dealing with the delay caused by the same. If the case is appealed, which is very likely, MCEA may have to maintain a position of opposing all expansions to remain consistent with their interpretation of the case. It may also make it harder for an individual City seeking accommodation on a permit to be able to reach any accommodation with either the MCEA or MPCA. MPCA could also make an internal policy decision not to review or approve expansions until the matter is finally resolved by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 5. The decision also raises practical concerns for any'City contemplating an expansion, especially related to costs incurred preliminary to the permit. These costs would include engineering costs and in some cases land acquisition. Normally, these costs would be included in the bond issued for the plant, but with no permit there would be no bond. In a case where a permit was not issued, these costs would have to be absorbed by the City taxpayers. The concerns listed above may have a direct impact on the City, especially in relation to the contemplated expansion of the West wastewater treatment plant. I will be available to further discuss this matter at the Monday City council meeting. Very u • • s, • t. ew J. Arthur OURI, CARTHUR & RUPPE, PLLP Letter to Otsego City Council August 16, 2005 Page 3 Encls. cc: Ron Wagner, City Engineer Dan Licht, City Planner Ted Field, Bonestroo Cou , acArthur & Ruppe, P.L.L.P. Memo To: City of Otsego From: Alison K. Marwitz CC: - Date: 8/11/2005 Re: In re Cities Annandale and Maple Lake — Minn. Ct. App. August 9, 2005 Issue: What affect will the holding of the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision have with respect to issuance of future National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") permits (especially for Cities and wastewater /sewer treatment facilities)? Rule: In re Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake, WL 1869497 (MN Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2005) Analysis: The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled on an appeal by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy regarding an administrative decision to issue a permit to the Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake allowing construction of a sanitary sewer treatment facility. In re Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake, WL 1869497 (MN Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2005). The Court of Appeals overturned the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)'s decision to issue this permit, citing the plain language of the pertinent sections of the Code of Federal Regulations as its authority. Id. at 7. This decision was a fact dependent decision and will likely be authoritative in any instance that a City is required to apply for a NPDES permit. The pertinent regulatory language implies that this will include any instance that construction of a new source (e.g. new treatment facility) or new discharger is proposed. That decision does not specifically address expansion of existing facilities. In this case, the Cities applied for and were granted a permit to discharge 3,600 pounds of phosphorus into North Fork of the Crow River ( "North Fork" ), which eventually drains into the Mississippi River and ultimately ends up in Lake Pepin. This volume is 2,200 pounds greater than the phosphorus discharged by the Cities (Annandale and Maple Lake) existing wastewater- treatment facilities. Id. at 1. A section of the North Fork, located 17.9 miles downstream from the discharge point, is classified as "impaired" under section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act due to insufficient dissolved- oxygen levels. Id. Lake Pepin is also listed as "impaired" under Section 303 (d) due to excessive nutrient levels. Id. Once a water is identified and ranked under Section 303 (d) of the federal Clean Water Act, the state environmental agency (in this case, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA ") ) is required to establish "total maximum daily Toads" ( "TMDLs ") which set a limit on the maximum amount of the pollutant permitted in a waterway. Id. These TMDLs are estimated to be completed in 2009 for Lake Pepin and 2012 for the North Fork. Id. at 2. Prior to issuing this permit, the MPCA held public hearings and addressed the public comments. Id at 2. The MPCA interpreted the federal regulations to provide that "if a new source contributes to the impairment of Section 303(d) waters, but the aggregate impairment of those waters is reduced by improvements elsewhere, a NPDES permit may be issued for the new source." Id. Therefore, even 1 i though the MPCA concluded that the 2,200 phosphorus discharged would have an impact on the nutrient level pollution, this impact would be offset by a new wastewater- treatment plant in Litchfield, which will reduce the phosphorus discharge into North Fork by approximately 53,500 pounds per year. Id. With respect to the dissolved oxygen, the MPCA concluded that because, "the dissolved oxygen is most severely affect 1.8 miles downstream... [and] the discharge would not contribute to the impairment..." the dissolved oxygen will not be affected by the permit issuance. Id. In its review of this case, the Court of Appeals determined that based upon what they determined to be the plain and unambiguous language of the Clean Water Act: 1. the dissolved oxygen impairment is not affected by the issuance of the permit and therefore does not prevent issuance of the NPDES permit; 2. offsets are not permitted under the Clean Water Act; 3. the nutrient level impairment would be affected (in accordance with the MPCA findings) by issuance of the permit; 4. because of the nature of the "impaired water" additional phosphorus pollutants are not permitted (unless or until the water is no longer classified as "impaired ");and! 5. therefore the issuance of the NPDES permit was overturned. See generally id. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals relied on the language from the Clean Water Act, case law from other jurisdictions, as well as legislative history. The statutory language relied on states: No permit may be issued: ... Jtlo a new source or a new discharger, if the discharge from its construction or operation will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. The owner or operator of a new source or new discharger proposing to discharge into a water segment which does not meet applicable water quality standards or is not expected to meet those standards even after the application of the effluent limitations required by [Section 301(b) ] of [the] CWA, (1) There are sufficient remaining pollutant Toad allocations to allow for the discharge; and (2) The existing dischargers into that segment are subject to compliance schedules designed to bring the segment into compliance with applicable water quality standards. Id. at 3 -4 (quoting 40 C.F.R. 122.4(i)). Based upon this language, the court stated that, two basic propositions can be derived. Id. at 4. One of this is that a "new source cannot discharge if it will contribute to the violation of water - quality standards" and the other is that "when a new discharge is proposed and a TMDL has been established, the proponent must demonstrate that the discharge complies with the TMDL." Id. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals does not shed any light on how it interprets "new source" in this case. This case is based upon issuance of a permit for a new plant, which is obviously a "new source." However, given the Court of Appeal's decision to base its interpretation on the plain language of the statute, it is likely that the statutory language "new source or new discharger, if the discharge from its construction or operation...operator of a new source or new discharger' would lend itself to an interpretation that any time a new permit is required from an already existing operation, be it for an expansion or new construction, the permit will be reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth in this case. Although this appears to be a very limiting case, the Court of Appeals did conclude that a TMDL need not be established prior to issuance of a NPDES permit. Id. at 4. This is beneficial to cities in that, for navigable waters which do not yet have TMDLs established, permits may still be acquired, provided they do not measurably impact "impaired waters." With respect to the decision regarding the impact on "impairedwaters," the Court of Appeals pointed out that it relied on the MPCAs own findings that the discharge would "impact" the impaired waters. In its analysis, the Court of Appeals relied on a 10 Circuit case from Arkansas to highlight the fact that if the findings were different in future cases and the presiding administrative law judge were to find that the "proposed discharge would not measurably affect the • Page 2 quality of water in the river" the Court of Appeals would uphold the issuance of an NPDES permit. Id at 7. In doing so, the Court of Appeals specifically pointed out that "[ h]ere the [M]PCA determined that the Cities' proposed source has a measurable impact on the... impairment factors for the North Fork and the Lake Pepin watershed." Id. The Court of Appeals went on to state that, "[e]ven though we conclude that 40 C.F.R. 122.4(i) does not allow a permit to be issued here, our decision does not preclude permits to be issued in the future. The [ M]PCA implicitly suggests that every proposed discharge source would contribute to impairment of Section 303(d) waters, but neither the record nor existing precedent support such a broad conclusion." Id. Therefore, because the Court of Appeals based its decision on MPCA findings that there is a measurable impact ion impaired waters, the Court of Appeals concluded that a permit could not be issued. However, if the MPCA finds, in future cases, that there is not ameasurable impact on the impaired waters, the Court of Appeals will uphold issuance of a permit. These cases will be fact dependent. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected the MPCA's argument that offsetting is permitted under the statute. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals reviewed the decision, de novo (error of law standard which gives no deference to the MPCA) and relied upon the plain language of the statute as well as legislative history. Id. at 5. The Court of Appeals initially determined that the plain language of the statute precluded offsetting. Id. After determining this, the Court of Appeals also noted that the option of offsetting was presented to the EPA within the past five years and was rejected as unworkable and unauthorized under the relevant statute. Id. The Court of Appeals then stated that, even if it were to find the statutory language ambiguous, the EPA statement "demonstrates that the regulation is not intended to incorporate a system of offsets" and is therefore not permitted under the legislative intent. Id. The dissent argues that the Court of Appeals should review this decision based upon the 'reasonable interpretation' standard (the general standard for review of an agency decision) and therefore give deference to the MPCA's interpretation of the statute. Id. at 8. The dissent argues that, as the controlling agency, the MPCA is presumed to have the expertise necessary to decide technical matters within the scope of it's authority. Id. This is a strong argument, given the general rule that the courts adhere to any reasonable interpretation of a statute by agencies. Conclusion: Although this case does appear to have a very broad reaching impact, it is a fact dependent case and the decision does leave room for appeal. The major impacts of this case are that the MPCA is no longer permitted to use offsetting to allow for new permits and that the definition of 'impact' with respect to impaired waters may be very broad. With respect to the offsetting issue, the dissent makes a valid point that a 'reasonable interpretation' standard may be appropriate. The standard of review is an appeal able issue for cities and therefore, this case may get appealed on this ground. Additionally, given that the MPCAs scientific findings and legal interpretation of 'impact' may be related to the previous offsetting policy, there is a possibility that future interpretations with respect to 'impact' may not be as limiting as the one in this case. Another potential issue to appeal would be the finding itself that there was impact on the "impaired water." This would require review of the science and legal analysis used by the MPCA in reaching its conclusion. However, the Court's reliance on the 10 Circuit, which overruled a finding of impact on an "impaired water" would lend support to the fact that the issue of whether an area was impacted or not is also an appeal able issue. It is important to note that this case does not change the standard which was already in existence that prevents issuing permits when the permits will impact "impaired waters." Unfortunately, it does appear to place a significant limit on issuing permits, at least with respect to phosphorus discharge, for waters that ultimately drain into the Pepin Lake watershed. Alison K. Marwitz Couri, MacArthur & Ruppe • • Page 3 Page 1 of 9 Y eSt iW. 2005 WL 1869496 Page 1 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Respondents City of Annandale and City of Maple Lake applied for a permit for a new wastewater - treatment plant, the discharge from which would Court of Appeals of Minnesota. flow into waters with impaired status under the In the Matter of the CITIES OF ANNANDALE Clean Water Act. The Minnesota Pollution Control and Maple Lake NPDES /SDS Permit Agency granted the permit. Relator Minnesota Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, Center for Environmental Advocacy challenges the and Request for Contested permit, asserting that the new source of discharge Case Hearing. would contribute to the impairment of waters with No. A04 -2033. impaired status, in violation of federal regulations. We reverse. Aug. 9, 2005. FACTS Syllabus by the Court For its wastewater treatment, the City of *1 Under 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) (2004), a National Annandale currently utilizes a pond system with Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) spray irrigation that does not discharge phosphorus permit may not be issued for a new source when its directly into a body of water. The City of Maple discharge will cause or contribute to the impairment Lake currently utilizes a mechanical plant for its of waters with impaired status under the Clean wastewater treatment. This wastewater plant Water Act. discharges into Mud Lake, which later flows into the North Fork of the Crow River (the North Fork). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Approximately 1,400 pounds of phosphorus are discharged from this plant each year. Janette K. Brimmer, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, St. Paul, MN, for relator Respondents City of Annandale and City of Maple Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Lake (the Cities) jointly submitted . plans for a new wastewater.- treatment plant in late 2002. The Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Stephanie Morgan, proposed plant will discharge 3,600 pounds of Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for phosphorus into the North Fork each year, 2,200 respondent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. pounds greater than the phosphorous discharged by the Cities' existing wastewater - treatment facilities. Edward J. Laubach, Jr., Christopher W. Harmoning The North,: Fork flows into the Mississippi River , Heather I. Olson; Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & and contributes to the Lake Pepin watershed. Bennett, P.A., St. Cloud, MN, for respondents Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act provides that, when a designated body of water does Considered and decided by PETERSON, Presiding not meet water quality standards due to an excessive Judge; SCHUMACHER, Judge; and WRIGHT, level of a pollutant or lax controls over thermal Judge. discharges, a state environmental agency shall identify it as an impaired water and establish a OPINION priority ranking for the body of water. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A), (B) (2000). Once a body of water is WRIGHT, Judge. identified and ranked under Section 303(d), the state environmental agency shall establish a "total © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:// print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dent =atp &format= HTML!E &dataid =B0055 800000... 8/10/2005 Page 2 of 9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 2 0 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) /, r maximum daily load," (TMDL), setting the wastewater - treatment plant in Litchfield that will maximum amount of the pollutant permitted in that reduce the phosphorus discharge into the North water. Id, (C) (2000). One section of the North Fork by approximately 53,500 pounds per year. J7 Fork, 17.9 miles downstream from the discharge point of the Cities' proposed plant, is identified as Regarding the impact of the phosphorus discharge eu impaired under Section 303(d) because of on dissolved oxygen in the North Fork, the PCA insufficient dissolved - oxygen levels. Lake Pepin observed that the impaired section of the North also is listed as impaired under Section 303(d) Fork is 17.9 miles downstream from the discharge / because of excessive nutrient levels. The Minnesota point for the Cities' proposed plant. Relying on an Pollution Control Agency (PCA) has not completed internal study, the PCA found that dissolved oxygen ' _ TMDLs for these waters. The PCA estimates that is most severely affected 1.8 miles downstream TMDLs will not be set before 2012 for the North from the discharge point. The PCA then concluded Fork and 2009 for Lake Pepin. that the discharge would not contribute to the impairment of the North Fork. *2 Pursuant to the plans for the plant, on July 25, 2003, the Cities submitted an application for a On September 30, 2004, the PCA then adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System proposed draft and issued the NPDES permit. This (NPDES) permit to the PCA for the proposed appeal followed. wastewater - treatment plant. The PCA gave due notice of the application and, with its request for ISSUE public comment, submitted a proposed draft of the Does a discharge of phosphorus from a new source NPDES permit. The draft NPDES permit placed contribute to the impairment of Section 303(d) several limits on the plant's discharge, including a waters, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) (2004), maximum level for phosphorus and a minimum when that discharge contains an increase in level for dissolved oxygen. phosphorus that is offset by reductions from other sources? Relator Minnesota Center for Environmental • Advocacy (MCEA) submitted comments on July 21 ANALYSIS and August 18, 2004. The MCEA claimed that Appellate review of an agency decision ordinarily additional phosphorus from the plant would is governed by the Minnesota Administrative contribute to the low dissolved- oxygen levels on the Procedure Act, which provides in relevant part: North Fork and excessive nutrients in Lake Pepin. In a judicial review ... the court may affirm the Asserting that federal regulations do not allow a decision of the agency or remand the case for new source to cause or contribute to the impairment further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify of Section 303(d) waters, the MCEA argued against the decision if the substantial rights of the issuance of the NPDES permit. petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative fmding, inferences, conclusion, or Following a public hearing, the PCA addressed the decisions are: ... (d) [a]ffected by other error of comments of the MCEA and recommended law[.] approval of the NPDES permit in its order dated *3 Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (2004); Minn. Ctr. for September 28, 2004. The PCA interpreted the Envtl. Advocacy v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, federal regulations to provide that, if a new source 644 N.W.2d 457, 463 -64 (Minn.2002). The contributes to the impairment of Section 303(d) decision of an agency is presumed to be correct, and waters, but the aggregate impairment of those we ordinarily accord deference to an agency in its waters is reduced by improvements elsewhere, a field of expertise. Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, NPDES permit may be issued for the new source. 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn.1977). The PCA concluded that the 2,200 -pound increase in the phosphorus discharge from the Cities' The MCEA challenges the PCA's interpretation of proposed plant would be offset by a new 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) (2004) and argues that, under © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: // print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format = HTMLE &dataid= B0055 8/10/2005 Page 3 of 9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 3 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) this regulation, the Cities are not entitled to receive standard of review should control a state a permit. The MCEA asserts that, when a new agency's interpretation of state statutes and source will contribute to the impairment of Section federal regulations. But the preponderance 303(d) waters, the discharge cannot be offset by of recent authority provides that a state reductions from other sources. Because the agency's interpretation of a state statute is interpretation of a federal regulation is a question of reviewed de novo. See, e.g., In re Denial law, we need not defer to a state agency's of Eller Media Co's. Applications for interpretation, and we thus review de novo. [FN1] Outdoor Adver. Device Permits, 664 MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc. v. N.W.2d at 7; Metro. Sports Facilities Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 352 F.3d 872, 876 (4th Comm'n v. County of Hennepin, 561 Cir.2003); Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., 666 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Minn.1997); In re N.W.2d 339, 346 (Minn.2003); see also In re Petition to Adopt S.T., 512 N . W.2d 894, Denial of Eller Media Co.'s Applications for 897 (Minn.1994); Kloss v. E & H Outdoor Adver. Device Permits, 664 N.W.2d 1, 7 Earthmovers, 472 N.W.2d 109, 112 (Minn.2003) (stating that courts retain authority to (Minn.1991). review de novo errors of law arising when agency decision is based on statutory construction). See When a federal regulation is unambiguous, it shall generally 1 Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative be given effect according to its plain language Law Treatise § 6.11 (4th ed.2002) (observing that, without considering the intent of the agency or other when separate agencies promulgate and enforce extrinsic evidence. Tozzi v. U.S. Dep't of Health & regulations, deference to the enforcing agency Human Servs., 271 F.3d 301, 311 (D.C.Cir.2001). improperly allows inconsistent interpretation of When the meaning is in doubt, the primary regulations). consideration is the intent of the promulgating agency, which controls unless such intent is plainly FN 1. The dissent argues that a state agency inconsistent with the language of the regulation. is entitled to reasonable deference in its Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, interpretation of a federal regulation. None 911 (1997). In the absence of controlling of the authorities cited in favor of this interpretation by an agency, the meaning of a proposition, however, considers the regulation is determined in accordance with canons interpretation of a federal regulation by a of statutory construction. Burns v. Barnhart, 312 state agency. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. F.3d 113, 125 (3d Cir.2002); White Bear Lake Care Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 467 Ctr., Inc. v. Minn. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 319 U.S. 837, 840, 842- 44, 104 S.Ct. 2780 -82 N.W.2d 7, 8 (Minn.1982). (1984) (federal agency interpretation of federal statute); George A. Hormel & Co. Section 122.4(i) provides in relevant part: v. Asper, 428 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn.1988) No permit may be issued: ... [t]o a new source or (state agency interpretation of a state a new discharger, if the discharge from its statute); Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, construction or operation will cause or contribute 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 -25 (Minn.1977) to the violation of water quality standards. The (same). The Fourth Circuit has held that a owner or operator of a new source or new state agency is not entitled to deference in discharger proposing to discharge into a water its interpretation of a federal regulation. segment which does not meet applicable water MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., quality standards or is not expected to meet those Inc., 352 F.3d at 876. And the Minnesota standards even after the application of the effluent Supreme Court has recently treated the limitations required by [Section 301(b) ] of [the] interpretation of a federal regulation as a CWA,[ '[FN2]] and for which the State or question of law. Denelsbeck, 666 N.W.2d interstate a enc s performed a pollutants load at 346. a ocatton for the pollutant to be ' v ust The dissent also implies that the same demonstrate, e ore e close of the public © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. htto / /print.westlaw.com/delivery.html ?dest =atp& format = HTMLE &dataid= B0055800000... 8/10/2005 Page 4 of 9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 4 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) comment period, that: dissolved oxygen. As here, a TMDL had not yet been established for the river. Id. at 255. The FN2. This portion of the Clean Water Act agency determined that the proposed discharge imposes timetables for the implementation would not contribute to insufficient of best - technology practices for the dissolved - oxygen levels in the river. Id. at 253 -54. removal of pollutants from discharge Applying a state regulation that incorporates 40 sources. It does not establish quantitative C.F.R. § I22.4(i), the Crutchfield court concurred limits on water quality. 33 U.S.C. § with the determination that the discharge will not 1311(b) (2000). "cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards" and upheld the issuance of a permit. Id. *4 (1) There are sufficient remaining pollutant at 255. load allocations to allow for the discharge; and (2) The existing dischargers into that segment are In reaching its decision, the Crutchfield court subject to compliance schedules designed to bring addressed the same argument advanced here, that a the segment into compliance with applicable permit could not issue in the absence of a TMDL water quality standards. for the river. Because the latter portion of the 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i). Two basic propositions may regulation governs only new sources that "discharge be derived from the regulation. One is that a new into a water segment which does not meet source cannot discharge if it will contribute to the applicable water quality standards ... and for which violation of water - quality standards. The other is the [State] has performed a pollutants loa that, when a new discharge is proposed and a allocation," the Crutchfield court held that this TMDL has been established, the proponent must requirement did not attach until a TMDL wa demonstrate that the discharge complies with the established. Id. at 255 (emphasis added). Thus, as TMDL. we conclude here, in the absence of a TMDL, a permit may issue to a new source that does not MCEA argues initially that the regulation requires otherwise cause or contribute to an impairment of a TMDL to be established before a permit may waters with impaired status. issue. This position is contrary to the plain language of the regulation. When a TMDL has not been MCEA counters that the meaning of the phrase established, a new source is not required to "water quality standards," as recited in the first demonstrate compliance with the TMDL. Rather, sentence of the regulation, must be determined in the opening sentence of 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) accordance with a TMDL. But in first determining provides that a permit may be issued provided that whether waters receive a Section 303(d) listing, the new source does not "cause or contribute to the water - quality standards other than a TMDL are violation of water quality standards." The remainder necessarily employed. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c) of section 122.4(i) addresses the criteria for issuing (2000) (referring to procedure for adopting and . a permit when a TMDL has been established. revising water - quality standards). We are without Because the PCA has not yet established TMDLs legal authority to conclude that the EPA intended for the affected waters, this portion of section the phrases "water quality standards" and 122.4(i) is not applicable. "pollutants load allocation" to be synonymous, absent explicit definitions to that effect or the use of Our construction of 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) comports an identical phrase to convey both concepts. with the only published authority to discuss the Accordingly, a TMDL is not required in order to effect of the regulation in the absence of a TMDL. determine whether a new discharge source will In Crutchfield v. State Water Control Bd., 612 cause or contribute to the violation of water - quality S.E.2d 249, 251 (Va.Ct.App.2005), a county standards under 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i). applied for a permit for its proposed wastewater - treatment plant, which would discharge into a river *5 Here, the PCA found that discharge from the with a Section 303(d) listing for insufficient Cities' proposed plant would not affect © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /print.westlaw .coin /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format= HTMLE &dataid= B0055800000... 8/10/2005 Page 5 of 9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 5 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) dissolved - oxygen levels on the impaired portion of EPA's brief does not reference any the North Fork. [FN3] We conclude that the PCA preexisting ruling or practice with respect was not barred as a matter of law from issuing a to 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i), we conclude that 1 permit because of the impact of the Cities' proposed the brief does not meaningfully inform our plant on dissolved - oxygen levels in the North Fork. interpretation of the regulation here. FN3. Because we reverse on other We note that a system of offsets akin to the grounds, we do not address the argument rationale offered by the PCA was proposed by th by MCEA that the PCA's findings on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) five years dissolved- oxygen levels in the North Fork ago when it last considered revisions to 40 C.F.R. § were not supported by substantial evidence. 122.4(i). Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation & to the NPDES MCEA next challenges the conclusion of the PCA Program, 65 Fed.Reg. 43,586, 43,639 (proposed that phosphorus in the proposed discharge will not July 13, 2000). But this proposal was essentially cause or contribute to the excessive nutrient rejected as unworkable. Id at 43,640. The EPA impairment of Lake Pepin. The PCA found that the noted: proposed plant will increase the annual phosphorus EPA also concluded that the additional discharge into the North Fork from 1,400 to 3,600 environmental benefits from the offset pounds. Because it does not break down into requirement, in many cases, would have been smaller components, phosphorus persists in a minimal at best.... The offset requirement would watershed to a greater degree than other pollutants. have been a requirement over and above the Thu jhe PCA concedes that t ' h s horns will requirements under current NPDES permitting ec the L e pin watershed. But the PCA regulations at [§ 122.4(i) ] .... For those assertriliat, because of a reduced phosphorus dischargers who would have been subject to the discharge from other sources, the proposed plant offset requirement, consistent implementation of will not contribute to higher phosphorus levels. [these regulations] following existing EPA [FN4] This reduced discharge from other sources, guidance would result in permits, if issued, however, does not rectify the violation of containing limits and conditions for the pollutants water - quality standards. of concern that derive from and comply with applicable water quality standards.... EPA FN4. In support of this interpretation of 40 believes that progress toward the attainment of C.F.R. § 122.4(i), the PCA relies on an water quality standards prior to a TMDL would interpretation of the regulation that the be achieved through consistent implementation of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA's existing regulatory authorities. submitted in a brief to federal district Id. at 43,641. Were we to assume that the language court. See Sierra Club v. Chord, 1999 in 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) is ambiguous, this statement WL 33494861 (E.D.La. Oct. 1, 1999). by the EPA, which was not proffered by the agency Where an agency's representations in the during litigation, demonstrates that the regulation is course of litigation are not based on its not intended to mcorporate_ a system of offsets. previous decisions or administrative [FN51 Nor is there any indication that _a practice, and thereby lack a sound basis, discretionary system of offsets is aut1iQrize.d. the representations cannot be used to determine the meaning of a regulation FNS. The dissent correctly observes that because they may constitute a the proposed system of offsets would have rationalization after the fact. Bowen v. required all new sources to obtain offsets Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, from other sources. But the EPA did not 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 473 -74 (1988); Nat'l mention or endorse the discretionary Wildlife Fed'n v. Browner, 127 F.3d 1126, application of a system of offsets. Rather, 1129 -30 (D.C.Cir.1997). Because the the EPA focused on the execution of © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: // print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format = HTMLE &dataid = 80055800000... 8/10/2005 Page 6 of 9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 6 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) TMDLs and the reduction of pollutants Tenth Circuit disallowed the permit. Id. at 97 -98, from each individual source. See Revisions 112 S.Ct. at 1052. The Tenth Circuit relied to the Water Quality Planning and exclusively on Section 402(h) of the Clean Water Management Regulation & to the NPDES Act, which provides that when a municipal Program, 65 Fed.Reg. at 43,641 -42. discharge source violates the terms of an NPDES permit, the EPA or a state environmental agency A plain reading of the phrase "cause or contribute may seek to restrict or prohibit discharge from that to the violation of water quality standards" indicates source. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(h) (2000). Determining that, so long as some level of discharge may be that the proposed discharge would violate causally attributed to the impairment of Section Oklahoma's anti - degradation laws, the Tenth Circuit 303(d) waters, a permit shall not be issued. Here, held that the Clean Water Act necessarily barred the record demonstrates that notwit iinP the issuance of the permit. Oklahoma v. Envtl. Prot. reduction in os horus resultin of r Agency, 908 F.2d 595, 633 -34 (10th Cir.1990). sources, the waters at issue remain impaired. And the amount of phosphorus isc arge into the North The United States Supreme Court reversed the Fork from the proposed wastewater - treatment decision of the Tenth Circuit and reinstated the plant, which is more than double the current permit. Even though the water quality of the river phosphorus level of 1,400 pounds per year, will was in violation of state anti - degradation standards, contribute to impaired nutrient levels in Lake Pepin. the Arkansas court did not observe any legal We, therefore. conclude that the._PQA erred as a impediments to the issuance of a permit: rrtalaer of raWhen it ksued_ a j ermit for the_citiesL Although the Act contains several provisions proposed_Dl^ directing compliance with state water quality standards, the parties have pointed to nothing that *6 In doing so, we reject the PCA's argument that, mandates a complete ban on discharges into a if 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) is interpreted to disallow waterway that is in violation of those [state] issuance of the Cities' permit, the result would be standards.... Thus, rather than establishing the the "complete ban" that the United States Supreme categorical ban announced by the Court of Court cautioned against in Arkansas v. Oklahoma, Appeals - -which might frustrate the construction 503 U.S. 91, 112 S.Ct. 1046 (1992). See generally of new plants that would improve existing Dianne K. Conway, TMDL Litigation: So Now conditions - -the Clean Water Act vests in the F What ?, 17 Va. Envtl. L.J. 83, 117 -18 (1997). The and the States broad authority to develop Arkansas case involved the availability of an long -range, area -wide pro ams to allevia NPDES permit for a municipal discharge source in a unina e existmg po ution. the state of Arkansas. 503 U.S. at 95, 112 S.Ct. at Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 108, 112 S.Ct. at 1058 1057. The proposed discharge would flow into a (citations omitted). The Arkansas court upheld the river designated as a scenic waterway by the state of determination of the ALJ that the proposed Oklahoma. Id. at 95 & n.2, 112 S.Ct. at 1051 & n.2. discharge would not measurably affect the n„ality Under the scenic - waterway designation, Oklahoma's of water in the river. Id at 111 -12, 112 S.Ct. at anti- degradation laws barred any source that would 1059 -60. contribute to the violation of water - quality standards in the river. Id. The Tenth Circuit *7 Arkansas is distinguishable in several respects determined that, at the time the permit was from the instant case. The ALJ in Arkansas proposed, the water quality of the river also was in determined that the proposed source had no violation of Oklahoma's anti - degradation standards. me ab5F`4 impact on the scenic waterway. Here, Id. at 108, 112 S.Ct. at 1058. the PCA determined that the Cities' proposed source has a measurable impact on the Section 303(d) Even though an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) impairment factors for the North Fork and the Lake concluded that the proposed discharge would have Pepin watershed. Arkansas also did not consider no measurable effect on the scenic waterway, the Section 303(d) or its attendant regulations for the -)-- © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: // print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format = HTMLE &dataid = 80055800000... 8/10/2005 Page7of9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 7 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) issuance of permits, such as 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i). But I disagree with the majority's conclusion that Instead, Arkansas addressed Section 402(h), which the PCA erred by interpreting 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) governs sanctions against certain existing permit as authorizing it to issue the permit. I believe that holders. when reviewed with the deference properly accorded agency actions on review by this court, the Even though we conclude that 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) PCA's interpretation of the regulation and its does not allow a permit to be issued here, ALLE decision to ;grant the permit were reasonable and decision does not preclude permits to be issued in consistent with the purposes and principles of the the future. TE PCA implicitly suggests that every CWA. I would therefore affirm the PCA's decision. proposed discharge source would contribute to the impairment of Section 303(d) waters, but neither The majority rejects the PCA's interpretation of the record nor existing precedent supports such a section 122.4(i), which provides that no permit will broad conclusion. See Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 95 -96, issue if a new discharger will "cause or contribute to 112 S.Ct. at 1051 (observing that proposed the violation of water quality standards." The PCA discharge would not affect downstream interpreted this provision as authorizing an water - quality standards); Crutchfield, 612 S.E.2d at additional annual phosphorus discharge of 2,200 255 (authorizing permit when proposed discharge pounds to the Lake Pepin watershed where agency had no measurable impact on impaired waters). We findings showed that this discharge will be offset by are mindful of the difficult wastewater- an annual reduction in phosphorus discharge in management issues arising from the Cities' current excess of 50,000 pounds to the same watershed size and anticipated growth. The Cities' joint effort from a new Litchfield wastewater plant. to resolve these issues is laudable. But neithe difficulty of the issues nor the commendable effort *8 The majority first declines to give deference to authorizes . olution that cl- .. • - • - • - . the PCA's interpretation of the regulation on the anguage of the regulations governing impaired grounds that a state agency's construction of federal waterways. law presents a legal question, which this court reviews de novo. Although it is axiomatic that this DECISION court is free to exercise its independent judgment Because the discharge from the Cities' proposed when reviewing questions of law, I believe that plant would contribute to the impairment of Section reviewing the PCA's interpretation de novo 303(d) waters, the PCA erred by issuing a permit in disregards the "fundamental concept that decisions violation of 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) (2004). of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by Reversed. courts to the agencies' expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge (dissenting). education, and experience." Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn.1977). The I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that agency decision -maker is presumed to have the 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(i) (2005) does not bar the expertise necessary to decide technical matters Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) from within the scope of the agency's authority, In re issuing a permit in the period between the initial Special Instruction & Servs. for Pautz, 295 N.W.2d listing of a water body as impaired under section 635, 637 (Minn.1980), and judicial deference, 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the rooted in the separation of powers doctrine, is implementation of a Total Maximum Daily Load. I extended to an agency decision -maker in the also agree that the PCA was not barred as a matter interpretation of statutes that the agency is charged of law from issuing a permit due to the impact of with administering and enforcing. Krumm v. R.A. the proposed plant on dissolved oxygen levels in the Nadeau Co., 276 N.W.2d 641, 644 (Minn.1979); In North Fork of the Crow River. re Max Schwartzman & Sons, Inc., 670 N.W.2d 746, 754 (Minn.App.2003). © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:// print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format =HTMLE &dataid= B0 055800000 ... 8/10/2005 Page 8 of 9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 8 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) The PCA is charged by state and federal law with agency itself has articulated no position on the administering the CWA and its attendant question." 488 U.S. at 212, 109 S.Ct. at 473 -74. In regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a)(1); Minn.Stat. § Browner, the court in fact rejected as 115.03, subd. 1(a), (e) (2004). And I cannot agree "unpersuasive" the "contention that the court should with the majority's implication that an agency's not defer to EPA's interpretation of [a] regulation interpretation of a federal regulation it administers because it is no more than a convenient litigating is entitled to less deference than its interpretation of position," observing that the "mere fact that an a state regulation it administers. Therefore, in agency offers its interpretation in the course of recognition of the "need for exercising judicial litigation does not automatically preclude deference restraint and for restricting judicial functions to a to the agency." 127 F.3d at 1129 (quotation narrow area of responsibility, lest [we] substitute omitted). The court stated that although "agency [our] judgment for that of the agency," Reserve litigating positions are not entitled to deference Mining Co., 256 N.W.2d at 824, I would review the when they are merely appellate counsel's post hoc PCA's interpretation of the regulation under a rationalizations for agency action, advanced for the reasonableness standard. See In re Univ. of Minn., first time in the reviewing court ... deference to an 566 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Minn.App.1997) (stating that interpretation offered in the course of litigation is "when an agency reasonably interprets a statute, it is still proper as long as it reflects 'the agency's fair the role of the legislature or the supreme court, and and considered judgment on the matter.' " Id not the role of this court, to overrule that (quoting Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 interpretation "). S.Ct. 905, 912 (1997). The majority also declines to defer to the PCA's The EPA brief upon which the PCA relies here interpretation of the regulation because it is based describes the offset system as an agency "practice," upon an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, as the majority observes, the EPA itself interpretation submitted in a brief to federal district proposed a rule requiring offsets when it last court. Because the "cause or contribute" language at considered revisions to section 122.4(i) in 2000. issue here is reasonably susceptible to different Because the record demonstrates that the EPA's interpretations - -as evidenced by the meritorious litigation position reflected an administrative opposing constructions advanced by both practice, and was not a post hoc rationalization parties - -the EPA's interpretation would typically be advanced for the first time on appeal, I do not entitled to "considerable deference." St. Otto's believe that Bowen and Browner preclude the . Home v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Servs., 437 PCA's reliance upon the EPA's brief in interpreting N.W.2d 35, 40 (Minn.1989). The majority states section 122.4(i). that "[w]here an agency's representations in the course of litigation are not based on its previous Finally, the majority discounts the PCA's decisions or administrative practice, and thereby interpretation of the regulation because in 2000, the lack a sound basis, the representations cannot be EPA considered and rejected a proposed "system of used to determine the meaning of a regulation, offsets akin to the rationale offered by the PCA." because they may constitute a rationalization after For two reasons, I do not believe the EPA's earlier the fact," relying upon Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. action compels the conclusion that the PCA may not Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 473 -74 interpret the regulation as permitting offsets here. (1988), and Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Browner, 127 First, the 2000 proposal would have required new F.3d 1126, 1129 -30 (D.C.Cir .1997). dischargers nationwide to offset new - pollutant loading by "securing reductions in the loading of *9 But Bowen does not categorically reject agency the same pollutant from an existing source(s) litigating positions as interpretive guides; it only located on the same waterbody." Revisions to the states that courts should not defer to those positions Water Quality Planning Regulation & NPDES where they "are wholly unsupported by regulations, Program, 65 Fed.Reg. 43586, 43639 (E.P.A. July rulings, or administrative practice ... [or] where the 13, 2000). The EPA rejected the proposal as 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S,. Govt. Works. http:// print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format = HTMLE &dataid= B0055800000... 8/10/2005 Page 9 of 9 2005 WL 1869496 Page 9 - -- N.W.2d - -- (Cite as: 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.)) practically "unworkable" both because of the likely impossibility of always finding a source in a given waterbody "from which an offset might be obtained" and because a national- scale, "one size fits all" approach to regulation would "undercut State primacy in determining what actions are necessary to attain water quality standards." Id. at 43639 -40. These problems are not present here. The offset source has already been identified and permitted, and the PCA is acting in the state's interest to improve water quality, not in compliance with a federal mandate. I do not believe the EPA's earlier rejection of the offsets requirement is dispositive as to the PCA's interpretation of the regulation. Second, I do not believe that the EPA's choice not to mandate an offset system bars the PCA from considering the effect of the Litchfield offset in determining whether to grant the permit at issue. *10 The majority contends that a "plain reading of the phrase 'cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards' indicates that, so long as some level of discharge may be causally attributed to the impairment of Section 303(d) waters, a permit shall not be issued." Because I feel this • approach will effectively preclude issuance of a permit prior to completion of a TMDL, I believe it frustrates the purposes of the CWA and prevents the PCA from exercising its authority to take necessary action to ameliorate water quality in the meantime. See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 107, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1057 (1992) (rejecting, as supported by "nothing in the Act," interpreting CWA "to prohibit any discharge of effluent that would reach waters already in violation of existing water quality standards "). I would give deference to the PCA's interpretation of the regulation and affirm its decision to issue the permit. 2005 WL 1869496 (Minn.App.) END OF DOCUMENT © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: // print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format =HTMLE &dataid= B0055800000... 8/10/2005 Page l of 7 w Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 1 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.) (Cite as: 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.)) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS *1 In these combined appeals by writ of certiorari, UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED relators Barbara Aurentz, et al. (neighbors) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. challenge the Wright County Planning 480A.08(3). Commission's (commission). decision to issue a conditional use permit (CUP) for a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). Relators City of Court of Appeals of Minnesota. Annandale and City of Maple Lake (cities), the In the Matter of the CITIES OF ANNANDALE CUP applicants, challenge the commission's and MAPLE LAKE's Petition for a placement of a condition on the CUP. We affirm. Conditional Use Permit for a Sewage Treatment Plant on Property located in DECISION Albion Township, Wright County. The CUP application in this case proposed a Nos. A04 -520, A04 -531. wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) for the cities of Annandale and Maple Lake to be located Jan. 4, 2005. on a site in Wright County several miles to the south and east of the two cities. The proposed Wright County Planning Commission. building site is an agricultural zone in the county land -use plan. Sewage treatment plants are a Peder A. Larson, Peder Larson & Associates, PLC, conditional use in the agricultural zone, therefore a Edina, MN, for relators Barbara Aurentz, et al. CUP was required. The cities' proposed plan for the facility included discharging the treated wastewater Edward J. Laubach, Jr., Christoper W. Harmoning, directly at the site of the plant, after which it would Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., St. flow through a creek, a stream, and several ditches Cloud, MN, for respondents City of Annandale and in the downstream watershed before entering the City of Maple Lake. north fork of the Crow River. Jay T. Squires, Isaac Kaufman, Ratwik, Roszak & The proposal was considered at several of the Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondents commission's public hearings. At the first meeting, Wright County and Wright County Planning approximately 12 neighboring landowners made Commission. comments on the proposal. There were several comments about potential property devaluation and Considered and decided by HARTEN, Presiding general odor and aesthetic concerns. Other Judge; SCHUMACHER, Judge; and PARKER, commenting neighbors focused on downstream Judge. flooding and other potential negative effects from the volume of wastewater that would be discharged UNPUBLISHED OPINION at the site. Later, after a site visit, some of the commissioners were also concerned about potential PARKER, Judge. [FN *] flooding, drainage, and water stagnation problems from the discharge of treated effluent. The FN* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court commission considered the proposal at a total of of Appeals, serving by appointment four meetings. At the January 24, 2004, meeting, D 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:// print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format= HTMLE &dataid= B0055800000... 8/10/2005 Page 2 of 7 I Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 2 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.) (Cite as: 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.)) the commission voted to approve the CUP with the Minn.Stat. § 394.301, subd. 1 (2002)). [FN2] condition that the cities pump the treated effluent directly into the Crow River, rather than discharge it FN2. The Wright County Zoning into the creek and downstream watershed. [FN I] Ordinance section on conditional use permits states: FN I . This condition would require the 505.1 Criteria for Granting Conditional construction and operation of a pipe and Use Permit pump station to pump the effluent In granting a conditional use permit, the underground directly to the river. [commission] shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, We first review the neighbors' challenge to the morals, and general welfare of occupants issuance of the CUP. Decisions of a county to grant of surrounding lands. Among other things, or deny a CUP are quasi-judicial and are reviewed the County Planning Commission shall by writ of certiorari. Interstate Power Co., Inc. v. make the following findings where Nobles County Bd. of Comm'rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, applicable. 574 (Minn.2000). Our review of the commission's (1) That the Conditional Use will not be decision is "deferential ... as counties have wide injurious to the use and enjoyment of other latitude in making decisions about [conditional] use property in the immediate vicinity for the permits." Schwardt v. County of Watonwan, 656 purposes already permitted, nor N.W.2d 383, 386 (Minn.2003). A party challenging substantially diminish and impair property the grant of a CUP must meet a higher burden of values within the immediate vicinity; proof than a landowner challenging the denial of a (2) That the establishment of the CUP. Sunrise Lake Assn, Inc. v. Chisago County Conditional Use will not impede the Bd. of Comm'rs, 633 N.W.2d 59, 61 normal and orderly development and (Minn.App.2001) (citing Bd. of Supervisors v. improvement of surrounding vacant Carver County Bd. of Comm'rs, 302 Minn. 493, property for uses predominant in the area; 499, 225 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1975)). To show that (3) That adequate utilities, - access roads, the commission's decision was unreasonable, a party drainage and other necessary facilities challenging the grant of a CUP must establish that have been or are being provided; the proposal did not meet one of the standards set (4) That adequate measures have been or out in the county zoning ordinance and that the will be taken to provide sufficient grant of the CUP was an abuse of discretion. off-street parking and loading space to Schwardt, 656 N.W.2d at 387. serve the proposed use; (5) The use is not in conflict with the *2 We will uphold the commission's decision Policies Plan of the County; and, unless it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. (6) That adequate measures have been Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349, 352 taken or will be taken to prevent or control (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and 1997). "Reasonableness is measured by examining vibration, so that none of these will whether the standards in the ordinance have been constitute a nuisance, and to control satisfied." City of Barnum v. Carlton County, 386 lighted signs and other lights in such a N.W.2d 770, 775 (Minn.App.1986) (citing White manner that no disturbance to neighboring Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear properties will result. Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn.1982)). The law allowed the commission to approve the cities' The neighbors assert that the commission failed to conditional use permit provided the cities' proposal make adequate findings that the proposal met satisfied the standards set out in the county zoning certain criteria described in Wright County Zoning ordinance. See Schwardt, 656 N.W.2d at 387 (citing Ordinance (WCZO) § 505.1 and that the findings O 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:/ /print.westlaw.com/delivery.html ?dest =atp& format= HTMLE &dataid= B0055800000... 8/10/2005 Page 3 of 7 Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 3 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.) (Cite as: 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.)) were unsupported by the evidence, making them ). And the language of the ordinance itself does not unreasonable and arbitrary. We disagree and uphold support a requirement that the project proponents the issuance of the CUP. present expert evidence or clear and convincing evidence that each of the listed criteria will be The neighbors object in part to the form and satisfied. Rather, the ordinance states that the content of the findings, stating that the findings are commission shall consider each of the criteria in its not a sufficient legal basis for the commission's decision - making process. We find that the decision. First, we note that the commission's commission complied with this requirement because findings specifically addressed all of the factors that our independent review of the record demonstrates the WCZO requires to be considered, and stated that the commission considered all of the relevant affirmatively the commission's conclusion that the criteria at their meetings. Nor does the language of project, with the pipe condition imposed, would not the ordinance itself say anything about the parties' violate any of the applicable criteria. Second, the relative burdens of proof or that the proponent of commission made additional specific findings that the CUP application is required to present expert addressed various items of evidence presented to analysis on each criterion. [FN3] See also the board during its consideration of the proposal SuperAmerica Group v. City of Little Canada, 539 and presented more specifically the commission's N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn.App.1995) (stating that a reasons for finding that the criteria in the ordinance zoning ordinance should be construed according to were met. This constitutes a sufficient legal basis the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms and in for the decision because it demonstrates that the favor of the property owner), review denied (Minn. commission considered and applied all of the Jan. 5, 1996). applicable and relevant criteria in the WCZO in making its decision. FN3. The neighbors cite a previous unpublished decision from this court, In The fact that the findings mirror the language of the the Matter of Buffalo Bituminous's Petition ordinance is not fatal to the commission's decision. for a Conditional Use Permit, 1996 WL See Schwardt, 656 N.W.2d at 389 (stating that a 363389 (Minn.App.1996) as support for county board's use of a checklist was "a sufficient their argument that the evidence relied expression of the board's conclusion that the upon by the commission was insufficient. conditions for approval have been met," and noting Apart from the fact that this opinion is of that a board or commission "should not have to find no precedential value, see Dynamic Air, negatively that alleged failures to meet [ordinance] Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796, 800 requirements are without merit. "). (Minn.App.1993) (holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive We read the neighbors' principal assertion, that the value "[alt best" and not precedential) and commission must make "affirmative findings," as Minn.Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(c) (2000) contending that the project proponents are required (providing unpublished decisions of the to prove, by a certain standard of proof, that their Minnesota Court of Appeals have no proposal met each of the criteria in the ordinance. precedential value), we do not find the We do not believe the language of the ordinance or neighbors' reliance on that opinion our caselaw supports this contention. Rather, persuasive. Nowhere in that opinion did several of our previous cases establish that "where a we hold that a particular type or quantum [conditional use] permit is sought, the burden is on of evidence on property values or other the person opposed to the grant to establish facts factors in the ordinance is required to 1 compelling its denial." Luger v. City of Burnsville, sustain a CUP issuance under the Wright 295 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Minn .1980) (citing County Zoning Ordinance. 1 Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee, 303 Minn. 79, 226 N.W.2d 306 (1975) *3 We also find that there was a sufficient factual © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:// print.westlaw.com/delivery.html? dest =atp& format= HTMLE &dataid = 80055800000... 8/10/2005 Page 4 of 7 Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 4 2005 WL 14915 ( Minn.App.) (Cite as: 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.)) basis for the CUP issuance. The Minnesota discretion in weighing evidence. "); Barton Supreme Court has recently suggested that it is Contracting Co. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712, possible there could be a case where "the evidence 718 (Minn.1978) (when assessing conflicting [submitted to a county board] is ... so significant evidence in quasi-judicial cases, an appellate court and one -sided as to render the approval arbitrary." does not weigh the evidence, but reviews the record Schwardt, 656 N .W.2d at 389. The court also "to determine whether there was legal evidence to suggested that such instances are rare and of a type support the zoning authority's decision. "). where the "evidence [submitted in opposition to a CUP] so conclusively establishes] that [grant of the Our standard of review does not permit us to CUP] would [violate an ordinance standard] that the substitute our judgment for that of the commission approval amount[s] to an abuse of discretion." Id. at by judging that a particular item of evidence was 388 (finding that a county board was not required to more credible than another. We believe the deny a CUP application for a feedlot and did not commission was entitled to credit the evidence abuse its discretion even though individuals presented by the project proponents and the MPCA opposing the project submitted letters from three findings and was not required to rely conclusively doctors about the individuals' health symptoms on any of the contrary information presented by the related to exposure to hogs and "general reports" neighbors or other opponents to the project. about ill health effects from living near feedlots). *4 The neighbors specifically object to the findings We do not believe this is a case of the type that the proposal will not be injurious to the use and described in Schwardt. The record reflects that the enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, will not commission received and considered all relevant substantially diminish property values, and will not evidence in opposition to and in support of the impede the orderly development and improvement CUP; evidence relating to noise, odor, visual of surrounding properties. But the record reveals a impact, property values, and downstream impacts, sufficient factual basis for the commission's and did not improperly disregard "overwhelming" findings. We do not believe, as the neighbors assert, evidence that the CUP would have negative effects that the commission's partial reliance on the in violation of the ordinance criteria. MPCA's findings from the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) process was The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly impermissible. The comments and responses in the stated: EAW were relevant to several of the ordinance "[W]ith respect to the decisions of municipal and criteria, and the neighbors have not cited any other governmental bodies having the duty of authority to support their argument that the EAW making decisions involving judgment and findings were improperly considered. We believe discretion that it is not the province of the court the MPCA findings present relevant information to substitute its judgment for that of the body regarding the lack of odor and noise problems making such a decision, but merely to determine presented by other similar facilities, and the whether that body was within its jurisdiction, was commission was entitled to rely on that information. not mistaken as to the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and We particularly note that the record reflects that no to determine whether the evidence could other information was presented to the reasonably support or justify the determination." commissioners that even remotely or conclusively Buss v. Johnson, 624 N.W.2d 781, 785 established that such facilities create undue levels of (Minn.App.2001) (quoting Village of Edina v. noise or odor. Additionally, the record reflects that Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 93, 119 N.W.2d 809, 815 the commissioners heard and considered (1962)); see also Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n information regarding the visual aspects of the v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 117, 124 proposal, including consideration of photo slides (Minn.2003) ( "[L]ocal decisionmakers have showing the typical appearance of such plants. The © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: // print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp &format =HTMLE &dataid =B0055 800000... 8/10/2005 Page 5 of 7 Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 5 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.) (Cite as: 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.)) transcript of the commission hearings establishes *5 A zoning authority has discretion to deny an that the commissioners were indeed properly application for a CUP only for reasons relating to concerned with and considered the visual impact of the public's health, safety, or general welfare or the facility on neighboring properties, and imposed because the proposed development is incompatible berm and landscaping requirements on the permit in with a county's land -use plan. SuperAmerica, 539 order to address these issues. On this record, we N.W.2d at 267. When a municipal body states its cannot say that the commission's findings on impact reasons for denying a permit, we review the legal of the facility on other properties nearby were sufficiency of the reasons given and the factual unreasonable. basis for those reasons. Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 727 The neighbors also challenge the commission's (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Mar. 23, findings on the proposal's impact on property 1988). The county zoning ordinance grants the values. The commission found that there was "no commission the power to place conditions on the credible evidence in the record" that the proposal permit that the commission deems necessary to would decrease property values. The record reflects protect the public health, safety, or morals. See that the commission heard testimony from WCZO § 505.2. This language is consistent with neighbors that included general assertions that their state statutory law, which provides that a county property would be devalued as a result of the planning commission, "[i]n connection with proposal. The commission also received into the ordering the issuance of a conditional use permit ... record a letter from a realty company to one of the may impose such additional restrictions or neighboring landowners that stated property values conditions as it deems necessary to protect the would decrease if a sewage treatment plant were public interest...." Minn.Stat. § 394.301, subd. 2 built. The cities' engineer also made a general (2002). assertion at one of the meetings that such facilities do not impact property values. We note that none of The commission imposed the condition that the the opinions proffered were based on information cities pump the treated effluent through an specific to the area or to the properties in general, engineered pipe directly to the north fork of the or concrete data showing an actual decline in Crow River. The commission's findings clearly state property values around comparable plants. More that the commission believed this condition was importantly, the neighbors have not cited any legal necessary because "the increased flow into the authority to support their assertion that the cities watershed may significantly impact area residents were required to furnish expert testimony on and farmers," because the cities had "not adequately property values. addressed the potential problems with winter flows in a nearly stagnant system," and because the Finally, both the cities and neighbors challenged addition of 1.18 million gallons per day (the the condition that the cities develop a means of capacity daily discharge for the WWTF) will pumping the treated effluent through a pipe leading "exacerbate flooding downstream," and the directly to the Crow River. The cities assert that applicants had not "adequately addressed the issues there was no legitimate basis for the commission's of ice blockages or dams forming during winter decision to impose the pipe condition and that the months." We believe the record evidence more than condition was merely a response to general citizen adequately supports these conclusions and that the opposition. The cities also argue that the fact that commission had the power to impose the condition the MPCA and DNR did not require such a piping because it was founded in the commission's concern condition establishes the unreasonableness of the for the public health, safety, or morals, or public commission's decision. The cities also assert that interest, as authorized by the ordinance and the condition would be so costly that its imposition statutory language. is tantamount to a denial of the permit. The cities assert that the condition was merely the © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: // print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format= HTMLE &dataid =B 005 5 800000... 8/10/2005 Page 6 of 7 Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 6 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.) (Cite as: 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.)) result of the neighbors' unfounded fears and that the factual basis for the commission's concems about cities' expert study established that there would be problems created by the water discharge and the no problems from the additional volume of water piping condition, in addition to the neighbors' discharged into the watershed. The cities correctly testimony about flooding and water backup in the note that generalized or nonspecific citizen downstream channels. These items include a letter opposition can be an insufficient basis for a from Steven Klein, professional engineer with Barr particular zoning or land -use decision. See Scott Engineering, which reviewed the downstream flow County Lumber, 417 N.W.2d at 728 (finding city study prepared by the cities' engineering firm and could not prefer landowners' opinions, without noted that several important issues were left "something more concrete," over experts' unaddressed by the cities' downstream flow study, conclusions); Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n particularly issues related to erosion, sediment v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 accumulation downstream, blockage and flooding in (Minn.1984) (holding that a permit denial must be the drainageway due to ice formation in the winter based on something more concrete than months, and impact on the neighboring lands due to "non- specific" testimony and neighborhood a constant stream of water in the drainageway. opposition.) But we believe this case is Second, the county notes a memorandum from its distinguishable for the following reasons. zoning engineer that observed that the area in question was already subject to flooding and that *6 The facts of this case are similar to those in any additional quantity of water or discharge SuperAmerica. In that case, we determined that introduced into the area would not be "desirable." expert testimony put forth by the project proponent, We believe this evidence, combined with the which stated there would be no increase in traffic neighbors' testimony, adequately supports the problems at the site, did not mandate issuance of a commission's determination that discharging the permit for a gas station convenience store when the treated water at the site of the facility would deciding body relied on the experts' negatively impact the downstream channels such acknowledgement of an existing traffic congestion that a direct pipe to the river was necessary. problem and "neighbors' concrete, current observations" about the "existing, daily traffic The cities assert that the imposition of the problems" at the site. SuperAmerica, 539 N.W.2d at condition was especially unnecessary and arbitrary 268. Here, the record reflects that many of the in light of the additional project cost that would be neighbors' comments were based on their personal imposed by the piping requirement. But we note experience with previous flooding in the area and, that the cities have not cited any authority that holds particularly, problems with the amount of water that project' cost is a decisive factor or even any flow and drainage problems in the channel the cities factor a commission must consider when deciding proposed to use for discharging the treated on conditional use permit applications and imposing wastewater. This type of concrete, specific conditions that the commission finds "necessary to observation of flooding and drainage problems is protect the public interest." similar to the information we found reliable in SuperAmerica. See also Corwine v. Crow Wing *7 Finally, we address the parties' motions to County, 309 Minn. 345, 361, 244 N.W .2d 482, 491 correct and supplement the record. The neighbors (1976) (stating that status as an area resident is filed a motion to supplement the record with a letter sufficient "to establish competency and personal dated January 27, 2004, from the cities' legal knowledge" of relevant, alleged facts), overruled in counsel. And the cities assert that several items part on other grounds by Northwestern College v. transmitted from the county planning agency to this City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn.1979). court are not part of the record, particularly two letters from the neighbors' attorney addressing the We also note several items or pieces of information legality of discharging water from the plant into an presented to the commission that establish a rational alleged "private" ditch, and letters and photos the © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: // print. westlaw .com /delivery.html ?dest =atp& format= HTMLE &dataid- 80055800000... 8/10/2005 Page7of7 Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 7 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.) (Cite as: 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.)) neighbors submitted to refute the cities' assertion comments portion of the commission's hearing. that certain drainage routes for the plant were not Additionally; the commission made a distinct effort "heavily vegetated." We conclude that the items at to remind members of the public of the close of the 50, 53, 54, and 55 in the tabbed record transmittal public comments portion of the proceedings and are part of the record because the county presented that items would not be received after the neighbors sufficient evidence that the commissioners received were reminded of the closure. And finally, we note these materials and considered them in deciding the that the commission provided an opportunity for the CUP issuance. We deny the cities' motion to strike cities' engineering firm to respond to comments those items from the record. The documents at 51 made in the Klein Engineering letter. On this and 52 are not part of the record, however, and we record, we cannot say that the cities' due process grant the cities' motion with regard to those items. rights were violated or that consideration of the Furthermore, we deny the neighbors' motion to Klein letter was improper. supplement the record with a letter dated January 27, 2004, because the letter was in the nature of a *8 Affirmed; motion granted in part. settlement offer. 2005 WL 14915 (Minn.App.) The cities also objected briefly to the commission's consideration of the letter from Klein Engineering END OF DOCUMENT that was submitted by counsel for the neighbors after the "close" of the public hearing on September 25, 2003. Although at that meeting the commissioners passed a motion closing the public hearing, the neighbors and counsel for the neighbors submitted additional written materials after the meeting. The commission subsequently voted to include the comments in the record and • allowed the cities another opportunity to respond to the Klein Engineering report submitted by the neighbors' counsel after the close of the public hearing. The county zoning administrator also reiterated that the record was closed. We do not believe acceptance of the Klein letter was error in a proceeding of this sort. Municipal land -use proceedings "do not generally invoke 'the full panoply of procedures required in regular judicial proceedings[;)' the applicable rights of due process are 'reasonable notice of hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.' " Gun Lake Ass'n v. County of Aitkin, 612 N.W.2d 177, 183 (Minn.App.2000) (quoting Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn.1978)), review denied (Minn. Sept. 13, 2000). We note in particular that the cities have not cited any legal authority in the Wright County Zoning Ordinance or otherwise that prohibits consideration of written materials after close of the public © 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http:/ /print.westlaw.com/delivery.html ?dent =atp& format =HTMLE &dataid= B0055800000... 8/10/2005