11-12-96 CC• Ll
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
5. CONSENT AGENDA: ELAINE BEATTY Nov.t2.,, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
5.1. Consider Resolution No. 96-28 RE: Fire Service Amounts
BACKGROUND:
Attached is Resolution Number 96-28 regarding Fire Service Amounts for
the Elk River, Monticello, Albertville and Rogers Fire Service Areas
for 1997. The Council has already approved the Amounts
at their October 14th and 28th Meetings.
STAFF RECOMMUMMATION:
Please approve Resolution No. 96-28 A Resolution Regarding Fire
Service Amounts for The Elk River, Monticello, Albertville and Rogers
Fire Service Areas for 1997.
Thanks,
Elaine
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
RESOLUTION NO. 96-28
A RESOLUTION REGARDING FIRE SERVICE AMOUNTS FOR THE ELK
RIVER, MONTICELLO, ALBERTVILLE AND ROGERS FIRE SERVICE
AREAS FOR 1997
WHEREAS,'the City of Otsego contracts fire service with Elk River, Monticello,
Albertville and Rogers Fire Departments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Otsego yearly reviews the Fire Service Contract
amounts with Elk River, Monticello, Albertville and Rogers Fire Departments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, at its Council Meeting of October 14, 1996 set the
following 1997 per parcel, per year fire service amounts as follows:
Elk River fire service area
Monticello fire service area
Rogers fire service area
$40.00 per parcel per year
$35.00 per parcel per year
$54.00 per parcel per year
and, WHEREAS, the City Council did, at its Council Meeting of October 28, 1996
set the following 1997 per parcel, per year fire service amount as follows:
Albertville fire service area $51.00 per parcel per year
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of
Otsego that the above 1997 fire service amounts be approved.
ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 1997 by the City of Otsego Council.
ATTEST:
ELAINE BEATTY, CITY CL RK
(CITY SEAL)
CITY OF OTSEGO:
NORMAN F FRESKE, MAYOR
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
6.BOB KIRMIS - ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER Nov./Z, 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
6.1. Consider Roger Ensminger, 9055 Ohland Ave NE, Otsego, MN owner
Mary Dare, MRD Commercial Park (Cont from 10/14/96)
A. Rezone A-1 Agricultural to H-3 General Business District
B. Subdivision of Outlot A. MRD Commercial Park 2ND Add.
C. CUP to allow Minor Auto Repair in the District.
BACKGROUND:
The above item came before the Council on October 14, 1996 at 6:30PM
and was asked to be continued because Jim Ladner was on vacation and
was not able to attend this meeting. The Council voted to continue
this item until this meeting. The Planning Commission of October 2,
1996 at 8PM Heard this item. The P.C. voted unanimously to approve A.
B. and C. above. See attached P.C. Minutes for the information and
discussion and extention of 88TH ST. The Findings of Fact are also
enclosed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the P.C. Recommendation of approval of the following:
A. Rezone A-1 Agriculture to B-3 General Business District.
B. Subdivision of Outlot A, MRD Commercial Park 2ND Addition.
C. CUP to allow minor auto repair in the district.
The P. C. Recommendation came with conditions of NAC's Report and
Larry Koshak's letter be met and the Street be continued to the end of
the Ensminger lot.
Thanks,
Elaine
CITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 1996 - 8 PM
1 11 Planning Commission Meeting to order:
Chair Swenson called the Planing Commission meeting to order at 8:00 PM.
ROLL CALL:
Chair, Carl Swenson, Commissioners; Ing Roskaft, Eugene Goenner, Arleen Nagel, Jim
Kolles, Richard Nichols. Commission Member Bruce Rask arrived at 8:20 PM.
Council Representation: Larry Fournier
Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner, Larry Koshak, City Engineer, Andrew MacArthur, City
Attorney, Elaine Beatty, City Clerk /Zoning Administrator, Carol A. Olson, Secretary.
Consideration of Minutes of September 4,1996:
Ing Roskaft motioned to approve Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1996, as
written. Richard Nichols seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
3 HEARING Roger and D rlene Marx 15683 NF 70th_ Street, Otsego, MN.
Request is as follows:
1. A CUP to allow a one per forty split of Agricultural
land larger than 2-1/2 Acres.
Chair Swenson read Planning Commission Hearing procedures.
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk, stated that all publishing and posting had been done.
Mr. Kirmis read applicant's request and NAC's report dated Sept. 23, 1996, regarding the
CUP request to allow for a one per forty split. Mr. Kirmis pointed out two areas worthy
of discussion. One, is justification for the lot size. NAC feels conditions for lot size have
been met. Two, concern regarding existing silo setbacks. One of three options should be
implemented.
Option 1. The western lot line be shifted eastward to exclude the silo.
Option 2. The silo be removed.
Option 3. The western lot line is shifted westward to comply with minimum 10 ft
accessory building side yard setback requirements.
Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) recommends approval of the requested
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) subject to the ten conditions, which Mr. Kirmis read.
Chair Swenson asked applicant if he wished to comment.
Mr. Roger Marx - stated that the silo has been taken down. The mound system has been
installed and inspected by the City.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing to the public. No one wished to be heard.
Closed the hearing and brought back to Planning Commission for questions and
comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of October 2, 19% cont'd Page 2
Richard Nichols - City Engineer requires a drainage easement on the east property line. Is
Mr. Marx aware of that and is that acceptable. Mr. Marx stated that it was.
Chair Swenson reopened and closed hearing to the public afterno comments and brought
back to Planning Commission.
Ing Roskaft motioned to approve applicants request for a CUP according to
recommendations. Seconded by Arleen Nagel. All in favor. Motion carried.
This will be on the City Council Agenda of October 14, 1996.
1. Rezone A-1 Agriculture to B-3 General Business District
2. Subdivision of Outlot A, MRD Commercial Park 2nd Add.
3. CUP to allow minor auto repair in the district
Chair Swenson read applicant's request to construct a 7,500 sq. ft. minor auto repair
facility. and ublishin had been made.
City Clerk, Elaine Beatty, stated that the proper posting p g
Mr. Kirmis read NAC's report dated September 23, 1996. To accommodate this request
three (3) approvals are necessary. (Listed above) Each being dependent on preceding
approval. Based on review, the request to rezone is consistent with the city's land use plan
and justification exists to warrant approval. If City Council approves rezoning from A-1
Agriculture Rural Service to B-3, General Business
Tldesignation,
oNs 1 A thru G and 2 SA thru T
listed in
NAC report dated Sept. 23, 1996 RECOMME
be met. Note - we have not received a landscape plan which is required. Note - one
condition is "no outside storage". The engineer has some drainae concerns gty policy to bed 88th St
access. Issues of land use appropriateness remains a matter of c
determined by the city officials. If rezoning is approved, NAC recommends approval of
the preliminary and final plat and conditional use permit subject to conditions.
Mr. Koshak read letter from Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. dated September 25, 1996
listing their concerns. Concern being access, if access is allowed, conditions are
recommended. Current topography must be shown on the plan. The Storm Water
Drainage plan does not address runoff conditions. The
develoic pment
mus cannot be sufficientlprovide a y
for storm water runoff. Without a preliminary p
lat addressed. Mr. Koshak stated that these issues need to be addressed.
Chair Swenson asked the applicant if he wished to comment.
Mr. Wally Klus - representing Mr. Ensminger and Mary Dare, property owner.
Addressing the city engineer's letter, the road access
orary ad is til such time
Mr. 88th
Street is completed. We want to be on record thatwhen
Ensminger will pay his fair share.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of October 2, 1996 cont'd Page 3
We have not run a current topography. We have a topo survey of that area and we can do
that without a problem. Concerning the drainage, the final plan will have to consider that
which Mn/DOT put in to take the water into the drainage system. The applicant is
interested in water and sewer. The drawings are preliminary until the completion of the
road.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing to public for comment. There was none.
Hearing was returned to the Planning Commission.
Eugene Goenner asked Mr. Koshak if a temporary access should not be put in.
Mr. Koshak - It is unusual for an industry not to have direct access to a street. We are
looking for a positive way for the developer to commit to construction costs regarding the
road. The drainage issue has to be resolved. Also we have to have configuration worked
out for the entrance.
There was much discussion regarding the road access, continuation of 88th Street along
Hwy 101 and Co. Rd. # 42 south to Quaday. A cul -du -sac could be put in at this time with
their own funds. Drainage issues were discussed and also how it should be done. Escrow
could be required whether it be a letter of credit or bonding.
Chair Swenson opened hearing to the public for comment. There was none.
Hearing was closed and brought back to the Planning Commission.
Bruce Rask and Richard Nichols expressed concerns with the temporary access.
Mr. Koshak stated that this is on the MSA street program and there are certain conditions
as to how the road and funding for the road can be done. City policy is that local street
costs are paid for by the developer and the rest would come out of MSA money.
A cul -du -sac is not part of the approved plan for this road.
Regarding 1. To rezone A-1 Agricultural to B-3 General Business District.
Mr. Kirmis - There is adequate information regarding the first portion of the request for
rezoning of the property.
Eugene Goenner motioned to rezone MRD (Outlot A) property from
A-1 Agriculture to B-3 General Business Designation. Arleen Nagel seconded
the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
The second portion of the request, the sub -division of Outlot A, MRD Commercial Park
2nd Add. The city engineer has asked for topography information addressed as part of the
conditions upon approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of October 2, 1996 cont'd Page 4
The third portion of the request, the CUP, there are two submission requirements that
have not been met. One condition is the building elevations and the other is regarding
landscape plans. Conformance to all conditions will be required. Mr. Kirmis stated that
the Planning Commission could continue action.
We have met with the applicant at a staff meeting and he is aware of the condition of no
outside storage. My own view is that this does not include a vehicle waiting to be picked
up once work is done.
Chair Swenson opened hearing to the public. No one wished to be heard.
Closed public hearing and brought back to Planning Commission.
Eugene Goenner motioned to approve MRD Commercial part two (2)Addition with
the construction of 88th Street to the edge of the property line with recommendation
to the City Council to extend street to edge of line. Richard Nichols seconded. All
in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirmis asked for clarification. Is the motion to require construction to the southern
property line of this site and to the end of the platted area.
Chair Swenson asked staff if the motion was correct.
Mr. Kirmis - Technically, it is hard to construct a road unless you have the ROW. It could
be done to the end of the platted ROW.
Chair Swenson - does the Planning Commission wish to reconsider and amend the motion.
Richard Nichols moved to reconsider the motion. Ing Roskaft seconded. All in
favor. Motion carried.
Eugene Goenner motioned to amend motion to state specifically, "to the end of the
property". Richard Nichols seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirmis asked if the intent is to include conditions cited in NAC report.
Eugene Goenner -yes.
3. A CUP to allow minor auto repair in the district
Chair Swenson - regarding the CUP, what is the wish of the Planning Commission.
Richard Nichols motioned to approve CUP to allow minor auto repair facility within
a B-3 General Business District subject to conditions cited in NAC report.
Seconded by Ing Roskaft. All in Favor. Motion carried.
4 A Letrer from blas Realty RP Development once to Plan
This Item was at the end of the Meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of October 2,19% cont'd Page 5
Chair Swenson went over applicant's request.
City Clerk, Elaine Beatty stated that proper publishing and posting has been met.
Mr. Kirmis - this is approximately a 45 acre piece of land located north of Co. Rd. 37 and
east of O'Dean Avenue. Property is currently zoned A-2, Agricultural long range urban
service and has been deed restricted as part of the previous Lind -Bar Estates subdivision
approval In addition the applicant has requested approval of a concept plan. Based on the
review, NAC is of the opinion that development is premature at this time. The applicants
have indicated that they are proposing high end type homes in that area. While policies
tend to discourage the proposed use there are goals and policies which support the
proposed use as listed in NAC's report dated September 23, 1996. Mr. Kirmis also read
the conditions if request is approved.
Mr. Koshak went over concerns and comments regarding the urban service area, storm
water drainage, streets, and storm water impact fees listed in Hakanson Anderson report
dated September 24, 1996. Mr. Koshak recommended a sewer plan. There should be a
plan to handle environmental issues before expansion outside the urban service area.
Hilary Barry, Secretary Treasurer, Lin -Bar Development, Inc.- Didn't entirely agree with
reports. Stated that an Industrial Park was initiated by the city for the area. Five lots are
developed at this time. Stormwater drainage, holding ponds have been put in to take care
of all the water from their property. Believes it to be an ideal location for high end homes.
It is accessible and has good soils for septic systems. Mr. Barry thanked the Commission
for any consideration.
Chair Swenson opened hearing to the public. Closed the hearing and brought back to the
Planning Commission for questions or comments.
Larry Fournier - Questioned Mr. Koshak about allowing one acre lots outside the
immediate urban service area without a commitment to water and sewer.
Mr Koshak - A positive direction is needed toward a plant or collective system. By doing
work toward necessary studies needed to expand the service area. Expanding any more
outside the urban Service area is not recommended at this time.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing public. None
Hearing was closed and brought back to Planning Commission.
Eugene Goenner agreed with city planner and city engineer in considering request
premature and doesn't feel this is a unique situation.
Richard Nichols agreed sewer and water is needed before developing outside IUSA.
Bruce Rask motioned denial of the rezoning from A-2 Agricultural, Long Range
Urban Service Area to PUD. Seconded by Aleen Nagel. Ing Roskaft opposed.
Motion carried six to one.
Elaine Beatty - this will be on the City Council Agenda of October 14, 1996 at 6:30 PM..
PLANNING COMMISSION ME)ETING of October 2,1996 cont'd Page 6
HFAK t : Initiated by the City ('^tin 'l of Otseg
changes to the
Ordinance [amendment dudr eymng anim 1 fe lot regL'latio t and
Comprehensive Flan_
Mr. MacArthur - In updating, the City Council rejected the Planning Commission's
recommendation and at the last workshop meeting directed staff to draft a new ordinance
and set it for hearing. The ordinance is substantially different and was presented to City
Council at the last council meeting and approved with a few slight changes. Referring to
the correspondence of September 18 and 23, 1996, Mr. MacArthur stated that during the
course of the workshop meeting additional information was provided to City Council that
was not earlier provided to Planning Commission in the form of maps. Map A locates all
residence in the city with 500 foot setbacks, Map B with 1,000 foot setbacks, Map C with
1,500 foot setbacks. Showing the urban area left for Feedlot operation with those
setbacks. Based upon the maps and upon policy determination, it was their determination
to prohibit new feedlots within the city and prohibit expansion of existing feedlots within
the city, but would allow present operations to proceed. Based on that I did draft an
ordinance. Mr. MacArthur went over memo dated September 18, 1996, giving the basic
outline. The council was concerned with Sec. 20-15 regarding reconstruction. Legal non-
conforming allows the farm to be transferred and would not be a change in operation as
long as the legal non -conformity would keep within perimeters. Mr. MacArthur requested
that the Planning Commission make a motion to accept all material into the record, as well
as that material submitted at the prior Planning Commission hearings on the previous
versions of the feedlot ordinance. (Attached)
Mr. MacArthur read the proposed language for amendment to the Comp. Plan changes on
page 33, policy number 4, page 34, policy number 7, and page 90 adding a paragraph.
Mr. MacArthur read summary of Otsego Planning Commission Submissions for the record
and recommended that the Planning Commission make a motion to accept all submitted
material into the record, as well as that material submitted at the prior Planning
Commission hearings on the previous versions of the feedlot ordinance including the three
maps.
Bruce Rask motioned to accept all of the previously submitted material for the
record. Seconded by Arleen Nagel. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing to the public.
Greg Lefebvre
15033 70th St. NE Stated that he is the representative for this commissioner district for
Extension for Wright County and was disappointed that their
involvement was discouraged. Extension Service Reports were
submitted as Exhibits A, B, C.
Ellen Miller Concerned with Agriculture changes to the Comp. Plan regulations
Oakwood Ave hurting the small hobby farms.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of October 2, 1996 cont'd Page 7
Gerard Zachman
6194 Oakwood Concerned with manure application setbacks. He doesn't approve of
those setbacks. Concerned that the farmer is being voted out.
Concerned with water problems from development.
Mark Berning
11800 80th Street He doesn't believe the city will develop fast. Why was there a
feedlot committee when city council didn't listen to them.
We became a City for three reasons. One to get MSA funds.
Two to prevent annexation. Three to preserve Ag land.
Tun Lefebvre
Co. Rd. 37 This ordinance almost amounts to the taking of our businesses.
The dairy business is still the largest industry in Otsego currently.
The council is seeking new industry and commercial activity while
destroying another one. Believes the local government has little
authority in the permitting of feedlots.
Doug Kolles
8700 Parish Ave NE Concern with growth restrictions. Farming is a business and
expansion is needed
Mark Berning At the Jan.24th workshop, the EDA stated that the proposed
Feedlot Committee Ordinance was to go to the EDAAC. This was
not done. Submitted the Jan. 24th Workshop Minutes as Exhibit D.
Steve Goenner
7815 Nashua Ave NE Concerned with the cost.
Grover Stelft
Co. Rd. 37. Concerned with AU's in ordinance. Ag should be allowed to grow
especially with today's technology. This proposal should be
defeated.
Chair Swenson closed the public hearing and brought back to Planning Commission.
Arleen Nagel - Has a problem with not allowing expansion.
Bruce Rask - The best way to promote farming is by restricting development. Agreed to
waiting until water and sewer is in. Adopting this ordinance will not preserve farm land.
We have three land use districts but according to this we only have two.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of October 2119% cont'd Page 8
Richard Nichols - This topic has been a personal challenge to me. I've learned a lot, and
changed opinion many times. The ordinance in front of us is considerably different then
the committee came up with. Doesn't feel Otsego is a good place for new feedlots.
Agreed that the sewer and water issue needs to be settled.
Eugene Goenner what has changed now the city doesn't want to expand farms and not
preserve Ag land. I haven't seen a great change in area. Concerned that feedlot
committee's ordinance is being discarded.
Larry Fournier - Against AU limits. Concerned with expansion being limited.
Does not support the ordinance as written. Stated that the city council could not reach a
consensus on the ordinance that was before them. It was decided that the city attorney
present an ordinance.
Chair Swenson re -opened hearing to the public for comment.
Don Greninger
95th Street Concerned with taxes and inability to expand.
Gabe Davis
6689 Packard Ave Concern with either allowing the farmer expansion or development.
Need to make a choice one way or the other.
Chair Swenson closed the hearing and brought it back to the Planning Commission.
Eugene Goenner made three proposals, one would be deny the ordinance, two would be
to deny it with no recommendation to city council, three would be to table the matter.
Chair Swenson agreed with parts of the ordinance and disagreed with other parts of the
ordinance. Opposed allowing less than 20% expansion.
Ing Roskaft motioned to not approve the feedlot ordinance as amended to the
ordinance as presented. Richard Nichols seconded. Bruce Rask and Eugene
Goenner were opposed. Motion carried five to two.
Mr. Kirmis stated that technically first action should be do you want to change the policy.
Chair Swenson - a motion is needed to change Comp. Plan.
Richard Nichols motioned to deny change to the current Comp. Plan. Bruce Rask
seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Ing Roskaft was absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of October 2,19% cont'd Page 9
Bruce Rask and Eugene Goenner stated they wanted it tabled so they could review further
and council couldn't vote as to where this should be located. MRD Com. Park or E of
Hwy 101 area.
7. Any other Planning Commi5mian Ruedneog
Elaine Beatty - regarding Item 4.A the letter from Wally Klus Reality. They are proposing
a bus garage near the school. The reason this is before you is they would like to know any
thoughts you might have.
Richard Nichols motioned to table this until October 16,1996 at 5:00 P.M.
Bruce Rask seconded All in favor. Motion carried
8.moi-rn
Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Bruce Rask seconded All in favor. Motion
carried. Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 11:00 PM.
Bruce Rask, Secretary
Recorded by: Carol A. Olson
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NWMINC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: 4 October 1996
RE: Otsego - Ensminger
FILE NO: 176.02 - 96.20
Attached please find the following items related to the Ensminger minor automobile repair
facility request:
1. Findings of Fact - Rezoning Approval
2. Zoning Map Amendment
3. Findings of Fact - Conditional Use Permit Approval
The presented findings are consistent with the specific recommendations of the Planning
Commission.
Please note that street construction responsibilities are to be addressed as part of the
subdivision consideration and would be incorporated into the development agreement.
This item is scheduled for City Council consideration on 14 October.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST, LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837
ORDINANCE NO. 96 -
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.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The official zoning map of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance is hereby
amended to change the zoning classification of the following described property.
Lot 1, Block 1, MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition, City of Otsego, Wright
County, Minnesota.
Section 2. The above described property is hereby rezoned from A-1, Agricultural
Rural Service District to B-3, General Business District designation.
Section 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to make appropriate
change in the official zoning map of the City of Otsego to reflect the change in zoning
classification as set forth above.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 14th day of October 1996.
ATTEST:
in
CITY OF OTSEGO
In
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
B-3 REZONING
APPROVAL
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Mr. Roger Ensminger to rezone a 1.7 acre parcel of land located south of
88th Street and east of County Road 42 from A-1, Agriculture Rural Service to B-3,
General Business.
On 14 October 1996, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application for the B-3 Rezoning. Based on the application, the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the evidence received, the City Council
now makes the following findings of fact and decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural
Rural Service to B-3, General Business for the purpose of constructing a 7,500
square foot "minor' automobile repair facility.
2. The Legal description of the property is as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1 MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition, City of Otsego, Wright
County Minnesota
3. Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and
City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed rezoning.
The seven effects and findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and
provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The City's Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) suggests commercial use
of the subject property. In this regard, the proposed commercial zoning
designation is consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of
the area.
Commercial uses either exist or are suggested on all sides of the subject
property. Therefore, the proposed use is considered compatible with the
area.
C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained
herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
As a condition of development approval, the proposed use will be required
to comply with applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
d. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed.
The proposed use will not have an adverse impact upon the area in which
the use is proposed.
e. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of
streets serving the property.
Both 88th Street and County Road 42 have been designed to accommodate
traffic volumes typical of commercial uses. As such, traffic generated by
commercial use of the subject site is within the capabilities of streets serving
the property.
f. The proposed use's impact upon the property values of the area in
which it is proposed.
There is no evidence that the proposed use will depreciate area property
values. While there are no guarantees in regard to future values, the
proposed use is not anticipated to adversely impact area property values.
g. 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.
The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity.
4. The planning report, dated 23 September 1996 prepared by Northwest Associated
Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
1
5. On 2 October 1996, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
to consider the proposed rezoning application preceded by published and mailed
notice. Upon review of the rezoning application and evidence received, the Otsego
Planning Commission closed the public hearing and recommended that the City
Council approve the B-3 rezoning based on the aforementioned findings.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinance, the applicant's request
to rezone the property legally described herein from A-1 to B-3 is approved in its present
form.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 14th day of October 1996.
CITY OF OTSEGO
In
ATTEST:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
By:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk and Zoning Administrator
x
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Roger Ensminger for a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of
a minor automobile repair facility within a B-3, General Business District. The subject
property is located south of 88th Street and east of County Road 42.
On 14 October 1996, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application for conditional use permit. Based on the application, the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the evidence received, the City Council
now makes the following findings of fact and decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of
a "minor" automobile repair facility within a B-3, General Business Zoning District.
2. The Legal description of the property is as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1 MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition, City of Otsego,
Wright County, Minnesota.
3. Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and
City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional
use permit. The seven effects and findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and
provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The City's Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) suggests commercial use
of the subject property. The proposed minor automobile repair facility is
listed as a conditional use in the applicable B-3 zoning designation.
b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of
the area.
Commercial uses either exist or are suggested on all. sides of the subject
property, therefore, the proposed use is considered compatible with the
area.
C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained
herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
As a condition of development approval, the proposed use will be required
to comply with applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
d. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed.
Provided all applicable performance standards are satisfactorily met, the
proposed use will not adversely affect the area in which the minor
automobile repair facility is proposed.
e. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of
streets serving the property.
Both 88th Street and County Road 42 have been designed to accommodate
traffic volumes typical of commercial uses. As such, traffic generated by
commercial use of the subject site is within the capabilities of streets serving
the property.
f. The proposed use's impact upon the property values of the area in
which it is proposed.
There is no evidence that the proposed use will depreciate area property
values. While there are no guarantees in regard to future values, the
proposed use is not anticipated to adversely impact area property values.
g. 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.
The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity.
4. The planning report, dated 23 September 1996 prepared by Northwest Associated
Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
2
5. On 2 October 1996, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
to consider the proposed conditional use permit application preceded by published
and mailed notice. Upon review of the conditional use permit application and
evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission closed the public hearing and
recommended that the City Council approve the conditional use permit based on
the aforementioned findings.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinance, the applicant's request
for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a "minor" automobile repair business is approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. Final Plat approval of the MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition.
2. Building elevations are submitted which demonstrate compliance with City building
height and building material requirements.
3. A landscaping plan is submitted which illustrates the type, location and size of all
site plantings. Such plan shall be subject to City approval.
4. An additional handicap parking stall is provided so as to comply with applicable
ADA requirements.
5. The westerly access drive is constructed only at such time when a westerly public
street access is available.
6. A separation between the principal building and abutting northerly row of parking
stalls is provided to allow space for plantings and/or a sidewalk along the building's
northern boundary.
7. A "row end" curb is provided on the western side of the northerly row of parking
stalls (adjacent to site entry).
8. A continuous concrete perimeter curb is provided along all off-street parking areas.
9. All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance.
10. The site plan is modified to designate a specific off-street loading space.
11. All trash handling areas shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and
adjacent rights-of-way.
3
12. All site fencing is subject to City staff review and approval.
13. No outside storage, sales, service or rental is permitted.
14. The site plan is revised to illustrate exterior lighting locations. All lighting shall be
arranged to deflect light away from any residential use or zone and from public
streets.
15. All recommendations of the City Engineer are satisfactorily met in regard to grading
and drainage issues.
16. The City Engineer and/or Building Official provide comment and recommendation
in regard to sewage treatment issues.
17. Any mechanical equipment erected on the roof of the principal structure is screened
so as not to be visible.
18. The applicant specify methods used to control noise resulting from the proposed
use.
19. A security is posted in an amount deemed appropriate by the City Zoning
Administrator to ensure compliance with the terms of project approval.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 14th day of October 1996.
ATTEST:
in
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
4
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
6.BOB KIRMIS - ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER Nov.iZ., 1996 -
6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB,CC
6.2. Consider Lin -Bar Development, Inc. 5475 Parnell Ave NE. Rogers
PID #118-500-284300: (Cont from 10/14/96 and 10/28/96 Agenda)
A. Planned Unit Development. (Concept Plan)
BACKGROUND:
At the Council Meeting of October 28, 1996 the Council voted to
continue this matter until this meeting and the City Engineer and the
Engineer for Lin -Bar were to meet and come with a recommendation that
both parties agreed on. The meeting was held at 2PM on November 7,
1996 and information was gathered, an agreement was formed, but,
unfortunately, not enough time was available to get the recommendation
to the Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
We ask that this item be continued to the November 25th Council
Meeting to allow enough time for the City Engineer and the LIN -BAR
Engineer to get their recommendation in writing and into the Council
Packets.
Thanks,
Elaine
CITY OF OTSEGO
E-EQUFST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE
7. ANDY MAC ARTHUR, CITY ATTY Nov. 12, 1996 -
6:30PM
T M V M T%TT TT, T -+n
.1 1 M1"1 PREPARED BY: EB, CC
7.1. Consider Letter of Nov 6, 1996 Re: Jones Intercable Franchise
BACKGROUND:
See attached information from Jones Intercable and letter from Andy
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As indicated in Andy's Letter, direct the staff to respond
back to the Council regarding the performance of Jones Intercable and
present revenues realized from the franchise.
Th?xs� ks ,
�
-7
Elaine
Elaine
Tilliam S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
Megan M. McDonald
November 6, 1996
RADZWILL & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
City Council Members
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Correspondence From Jones Intercable Franchise
Dear City Council Members:
Please find enclosed with this correspondence a memo drafted by
Megan McDonald of this office relative to the process being
initiated by Jones Intercable relative to their franchise with the
City.
I would recommend that staff be directed to respond with
correspondence to Jones Intercable as set forth in the memo, and
that city staff be directed to report back to the Council regarding
the performance of Jones Intercable and present revenues realized
from the franchise.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to
contact me.
VQr1� +�
A ew J a Art r
RADZWILL & COURI
Encl.
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Andy
FROM: Megan
DATE: November 6; 1996
RE: Jones Intercable Correspondence
I. summary
Through its October 9, 1996, letter Jones Intercable is
protecting its right to a formal review process. It is the
intention of Jones, however, to proceed informally if possible.
The City must decide whether to proceed informally or formally
regarding the renewal of the Jones franchise.
If the City denies Jones' request for a formal process, the
City and Jones will proceed informally and the City cannot deny the
franchise renewal. Rather, the City is restricted to negotiating
various points, and has lost its strong bargaining position.
Once Jones has protected its formal review rights, the City
must make some action to initiate a "needs assessment" within six
months unless a "stand still" agreement is executed. A needs
assessment is a form of a public proceeding which the City
initiates to identify future cable -related community needs and
interests and reviews the past performance of the cable operator.
A stand still agreement is merely an agreement that the City will
proceed informally but reserves its right to enter into the formal
review process at a later date.
II. Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984
A. Introduction
1
Chapter 626 of the Cable Act controls the renewal of franchise
cable agreements. Jones needed to invoke its right to formal
proceedings during the six month period which begins with the 36th
month before the franchise expiration. The Otsego franchise
agreement expires September 14, 1999, and thus their letter was 36
months prior to the expiration.
B. Formal Review
The City may proceed either formally or informally. The two
processes may occur simultaneously. The formal renewal process
grants cities an opportunity to fully evaluate the present and
future needs of cable customers and to determine whether the
present cable operator has complied with the conditions of the
franchise agreement. This process allows cities the opportunity to
evaluate proposals from the present operator and also permits
negotiations of various improvements which may be incorporated into
a new or amended franchise agreement.
In a formal renewal proceeding the City may only deny renewal
for four specific reasons: (1) the operator has not substantially
complied with the material terms of the existing franchise
agreement and applicable law (2) the quality of the operator's
service, including signal quality, response to consumer complaints
and billing practices has not been reasonable in light of community
needs (3) the operator does not have the financial, legal and
technical ability to provide the services, facilities and equipment
as set forth in the operator's proposal; and (4) the operator's
proposal is not reasonable to meet the future cable -related
04,
community needs and interests taking into account the cost of
meeting such needs and interests. The present operator must have
an opportunity to correct past violations of the present franchise
agreement if the city intends to deny renewal for poor performance
or poor service in violation of the current agreement.
C. Informal Review
If the operator (Jones) requests formal review process and the
city denies formal process, then the city would not be able to deny
renewal of the present franchise agreement. The City would then be
in the informal process, which would be simply negotiating with the
current operator (Jones). The City looses a lot of leverage in
pursuing this option. There are other guidelines to follow if the
operator does not invoke its right to proceed formally, which based
on the October 9th letter, are not applicable to the Jones / Otsego
situation.
The informal process can continue simultaneously with the
formal. When the City is holding hearings and meeting the
timeframe for a formal review process, it could still meet and
negotiate under the informal process. Unless a "stand still"
agreement is reached (in which the City states its intention to
proceed informally while reserving its right to enter into formal
review at a later time) a City should be careful to fully comply
with procedural requirements of the formal process even if it
appears that the informal negotiations are going well.
III. Requirements of formal review
3
A. Needs Assessment
When the City agrees to the formal review process, the City
must perform certain acts so as to preserve its rights for non-
renewal. Prior to the 30th month before the expiration of the
franchise agreement (March, 1997) the city must hold public
Proceedings to identify future cable -related community needs and
interests, and to review the past performance of the cable
operator. The City may hire an independent engineer or technical
consultant to review the franchise and to determine compliance by
the cable operator. The City may conduct a survey to identify
community satisfaction with the operator. The City should review
complaint logs and ask to see the complaint logs of the cable
operator. The city may want to do a franchise compliance audit to
see if the city has been getting its required franchise fee based
on the gross profits as may be permitted in the current franchise
agreement. In assessing future needs, the city should look at
public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access and other
internal network utilization of the cable system.
B. Request for proposal
After the needs assessment and performance review have been
performed, the city may prepare a request for proposal for response
by the existing cable operator. The proposal may address the needs
and interests identified by the city from its surveys. The city
cannot require specific programming but may state its preferences
or interests. A city can also provide that certain capital costs
for support of PEG access facilities are provided. The proposal
4
may also set forth the requirements for a system upgrade. The
proposal should include a statement of the priorities and criteria
which the city believes to be important. The City can request that
the operator include all its objections to the proposed franchise
along with any alternative language the operator proposes.
C. Public Hearing
After the studies are completed there must be a public hearing
on the past performance of the operator and the future needs of the
community.
D. Agreement
Within four months after the completion of the needs
assessment and performance reviews, the city must determine whether
to renew the agreement or to preliminarily deny the franchise
agreement. In order to meet this time line the City must establish
requirements for proposals from the operator and deadlines for any
submission by the operator.
The City should promptly review the cable operator's proposal
and identify any issues where negotiations may be required.
Flexibility should be built into the agreement to accommodate any
changes which may occur in service or law. The City should reserve
the right to regulate to the fullest extent possible by law, as it
exists at any time throughout the franchise agreement. There may
also be a provision to provide that when service capabilities
increase, these changes can be incorporated into the service.
If the City decides to renew the franchise, there is a list of
5
items which must be included in the renewal, which may be included
in the renewal, and which are prohibited from inclusion in the
renewal.
The City should reserve the right to regulate the rates at a
later date and expressly provide that it may be permitted to
regulate to the greatest extent possible by law at anytime
throughout the agreement. The City should maintain its police
power to regulate the operator instead of just relying on
enforceable promises in a franchise agreement. The City should
also provide enforcement mechanisms for the agreement.
E. Administrative Hearing
If the city decides that one of the four criteria for denial
of renewal are applicable, it must hold an administrative hearing.
Denial of a proposal for renewal must be in writing and state the
basis for the denial. It is very important that the city document
well in advance of the time of the renewal process the violations
which it believes have occurred and notify the operator of these
inadequacies so that the operator has a chance to correct them.
If the city denies renewal of the cable operator the operator has
120 days from the receipt of the notice of the non -renewal to
appeal this decision to a state or federal court.
IV. Recommendation
It is recommended that the City respond to Jones with a letter
which states that the City is triggering its rights to a formal
review, but that the City would like to proceed informally to see
if an agreement can be negotiated. The letter should state that
the City reserves its right to re-enter the formal process on
written notice from either party at any point in the informal
negotiations. The letter should conclude with an acceptance and
acknowledgement provision.
The City must respond in some manner before March 1, 1997.
7
City of Otsego
Engineer's Agenda Items
City Council Meeting
October 28, 1996
8.1 ISLAND VIEW STREET PAVING PROJECT 95-2
We are requesting that the Council consider our recommendation to approve
partial payment #3 in the amount of $44,932.09 to Midwest Asphalt
Corporation.
We have not recommended payment of any of the seeding items listed in
Schedule B, 52 through 55. The retainage has been reduced to 2% or
$9,049.68. The seeding is scheduled to cost approximately $5,800, therefore,
between the retainage and seeding, the withheld amount is 514,849.68. We
also have a year of warranty on workmanship and materials.
8.2 RECONSTRUCTION OF 85TH STREET (NASHUA AVENUE TO PAGE AVENUE)
FEASIBILITY REPORT
We are submitting the revised report to the Council. Courses of action that may
be considered by the Council:
• Accept the report and order and set date for public hearing.
• Set workshop date to take up where last workshop left off and review
revisions directed by Council in the report.
• Delay consideration of project until after first of the year.
We are continuing our field work on 85th Street and the trunk storm sewer that
go along with reconstruction of 85th Street.
As directed by Council, no engineering or surveying work is being done on the
lateral storm drainage system.
8.3 UPDATE IN CULVERT REPLACEMENT
The 36 inch culvert replacement is completed on 70th Street east of
CSAH 19. The pipe conveys Otsego Creek from School and Mud Lake in
Albertville into the City of Otsego. This project was a cooperative work
between Otsego and Albertville each paying a equal share of the
agenda11.12
replacement. Dennis Fehn Construction did the work. Our inspector
reviewed the project and set grades for the contractor.
• Odean Avenue (south of 83rd Street approximately 750 ft)
This work required the closing of through traffic of Odean Avenue for
several days. A failed 24" concrete culvert was removed and a 36"
concrete pipe installation. The old pipe had separated at most every
joint. The culvert appeared to have been repaired by the County some
time ago. The replacement was necessary and the larger size
replacement reflects the results of our storm water drainage study. The
street should be open by Thursday and the open cut area paved before
the Council meeting. The final costs are not available at this time.
84. ANY OTHER ENGINEERING BUSINESS
agendall.12
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
November 4, 1996
Shirley Eidem
Midwest Asphalt
PO Box 5477
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: City of Otsego Public Improvement Project No. 95-2
Island View Estates and Arrowhead Estates
Roadway Reconstruction Project
Dear Shirley:
Item 8.1
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3-46+- 0520
Please find enclosed three copies of Pay Estimate #3 for the above referenced project.
Please sign and return all three copies to our office for further processing.
Please note that seeding will not be paid at this time. The seeding occurred later than
the allowable growing season and prior to the allowable dormant seeding period per
Mn/DOT Specifications. Wood fiber blanket will be paid under this Pay Estimate as
will Change Order No. 1.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kevin P. Kielb, PE
ME
Enclosure
cc: Lawrence G. Koshak, PE
OT331 .se
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
PAY ESTIMATE NO. 3
Midwest Asphalt Corporation
PO Box 5477
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Public Improvement Projects No. 95-1 and 95-2
City of Otsego; Mississippi Shores 95-1 and Island View Estates 95-2
Bid Amount: $539,478.52
Award Date: May 21, 1996
Completion Date: October 20, 1996
Bid Schedule "A":
Estimated Unit
atom nocrrintinn Quantity Price
Contract Used to
Cost Date
Lngineer
Extension
-7- _Mobilization 1 LS $3,000.00 LS $3,000.00 1 LS $3,000.00
2. Bituminous patching mixture 75 Ton 65.00 Ton 4,875.00 17.5_7 Ton 1,142.05
3. Type 41A Wearing course mixture 7,550 Ton 18.60 Ton_ 140,430.00 6,425.53 Ton 119,514.8_6
4 Bituminous material for tack coat 5,650 Gal 1.20 Gal 6,780.00 1,850 Gal 2,220.00
IUTAL HIU 6UHL-UULL "A":
Bid Schedule "B":
i*nm nnef-rinfinn
Estimated Unit
Oijnntity Price
4)1oo1v0z).uu
Contract Used to
Cost Date
4) izu,oIo.0 i
Extension
.-- Mobilization - - - -
----
1
1
LS
$6, 000.00
LS_
$6 000.00
,
1.0
LS__
$6,000.00
_ _
2._ Clearing and grubbing
1
LS_
2,800.00
LS
2,800.00
1.00
LS
2,800.00
3. Remove concrete driveway pavement _
2.5
SY
4.00
SY
100.00
25
SY
10_0.60
4. Remove bituminous pavement
1,130
SY
1.00
SY
1;130.00
1,158
SY
1,158.00
5. Remove concrete headwall
1
EA
150.00
EA
150.00
0
EA
0.00
6. Sawing concrete pavement (full depth)
26
LF
4.00
LF
104.00
25
LF_
100.00
7. Sawing bituminous pavement full depth)
635
LF
2.00
LF
1,270.00
633
LF
1,266.00
8. Salvage iron pipe culvert
50
LF
5.00
LF
250.00
65
1 LF
325.00
tstimateaunit
contract
usea to
Item Description
QuantityPrice
Cost
Date
Extension
Salvage 12" CMP
140
JILF
1
$5.00
LF
$700.001
147
LF
$735.00
E9.
10.
Salvage 15" CMP
294
LF
5.00
LF
1,470.061
227.5
LF
1,137.50
OT331P3.V�..4
dge 1
11
12.
13.
14.
15.
valva a and reinstall wood fence
Salvage and reinstall timber
Salvage and reinstall yard light
Common excavation
Sub rade excavation _ -
_ 26
40
1_
12,700
4,533
LF
LF
EA
CY
CY
10.00
25.00
1,700.00
2.96
_ -2.96
70. 00
--------
- 4.35
0.90
75
_ 5.34
19.20
18.35
5.75
1.20
60.00
19.40
LF
LF
EA
CY
CY
EA
-
260.00
1,000.00
- 1,7_00.00
37,592.00
13,417.68
3,640.00
0
0
1
12,700
1,038.3
50
--
LF-
LF
_EA_
CY
CY
EA
--
Ton
SY_
-- 0.00
0.00
1,700.00
37,592.00
3,073.37
3,500.00
- ---- ---
_- 1,832.92
335.7_0
16 . _
17.
Gravel entrance reconstruction
Furnish and install sign panel trucks use lower gear)
EA
---
Ton
------ -- ------------52-
Granular borrow -- -_-_
7,700
Ton
SY_
RS
Ton
Ton
33,495.00
5,908.50
7,770.00
63,652.80
52,032.00
421.36
373_
18.
19.
20.
'21.
22_
23.2"
24.
25.
26.
Geotextile Fabric Type V stabilization)
Sub g radepre ap ration i
Ag reegate base, Class 5 -
Type 41A Wearing course mixture
Type 31 B Base course mixture_
Bituminous wearing course (driveway)
Bituminous material for tack coat
Relocate mailbox
15" RC i e culvert, Class V
6,565
103.6
11,920
2,710
3,650
1,750
71
326
SY_
RS
Ton
Ton
Ton
Gal
EA
LF
103.6
10,76_2.6_9
2,748.74
RS
Ton
Ton
7,770.00
57,472.76
-_52,775.81
62,164.66
7,120.23
Ton_
SY
Gal
EA
LF
66,977.50
6,727.50
2,100.00
4,260.00
6,324.40
3,387.72
1,238.3
400
71
336
Ton_
SY
Gal
EA
LF
480._00
4,260.0_0
6,518.40
27. _
28.27"
29.
30. ___
31.
32.
33
34.
36 -
37.
�38.
!39.
140.
18" RC pipe culvert, Class 111
RCi ep culvert, Class III
30" RC pipe culvert, Class III
_15" CM pipe culvert --_ --
15" RC�pe apron -
18" RC pipe apron
27" RC pipe apron
30" RC pipe apron
Con
15"M pi�pr
Salvage and reinstall 15" CMP
Extend culvert _
Random rip rap CL 3w/geotextile fabric
Furnish and install sign panel (stops
Furnish and install sin panel left turn
44
32
40
432
16
2
2
_4
18
-501
12
55.5
1
1
LF
LF
LF
LF _
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
CY
EA
EA
22.65
34.6_0
38.4_0
14.40
375.00
450.00
550.00
600.00
130.00
_ 12.00
240.00
60.00
145.00
140.00
If !^__
LF_
LF
LF
LF_
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
CY_
EA
EA
996.60
1,107.20
1,536.00
6,220.80
6,000.00
900.00
1,100.00
2,400.00
36
32
40
33_4
16
LF
815.40
LF
LF_
LF _
E_A_
1,107.20
1,536.00
_4,809.60
6,000.00
900.00
2
2
2
EA
EA
EA
1,100.00
1,2_00.00
2,340.00
6,012.00
2,880.00
3,330.0_0
145.00
140a00
16
EA
2,080.00
465.5
14
55.5
LF
EA
CY
5,586.00
3,3_60.00
3,330.00
1
1^EA
1^^A 41
EA_
_
145.00
140.00
1ZbU111dtUU V" of %..,V"Li a%,t v - av
O1lantity Price Cost Date Extension
i iCi i i
41.
42. _Furnish
vcat.i iNuvi i
Furnish and install sign panel ((ght turn)
and_install sign panel hill /w percent grade -8%
-
1
1
EA
EA
$140.00
140.00
EA
EA
EA
$140.00
140.00
1
EA
EA
EA_
$140.00
140.00
140.00
1
1
43.
Furnish and install sign panel trucks use lower gear)
1
EA
140.00
140.00
-
44.
Furnish and install sig�j_panel (speed limitplaque)
- 1
EA
60.00
EA_
60.00
2
EA_
_ 120.00
45.
Furnish and instal ln anel dead end
1
EA_
140.00
EA
140.00
1
EA
140.00
46.
Furnish and install sign panel (no outlet)
- 1
EA
140.00
EA
140.00
- 0
EA_
0.00
OT331P3.WK4 I age 2
47.
Salyag and reinstall sign
-Bale,
20
EA
46.00
5.40
EA
EA
920.00
540.00
20
19
EA
EA
920.00
102.60
check (per bale)
100
EA
49.
Silt fence, pre -assembled
2,300
EA
1.90
EA
4,370.00
120
0
EA
EA
2f8FG0
0.00
51.
Temporary rock construction entrance
3
EA
188.00
EA!
564.00
53.
Seedirjq
12.6
Acre
98.00
Acre
1,234.80
0
Acre
obb
�§�ed Mixture 800
650
LB
2.15
L
1,397.50
0.00
55.
. Disk anchoring
12.6
Acre
32.40
Acre
408.24
0
Acre
0.00
56.-
Wood fiber blanket, t pe regular
6,125.SY
1. 1 0..Sy
6,737.50
6396.17
SY
7,035.79
58.1 -Commercial
fertilizer, 20-10-10
3.25
fon
320.00
Ton
t
TbTALBID SCHEDULE "B^
Change Order No.1
SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED TO. -D -A -LE
TOTAL SCHEDULE "A":
TOTAL SCHEDULE "B":
TOTAL OFWORK:
Less Retainage CZ%>:
Less Pay Estimate No. 1
Less Pay Estimate No. 2
AMOUNT DUE CONTRACTOR:
OT331P3.�_'+ uge3
$384.393.52
$24,037.58
$302.569.43
$24,037.58
$320.607.01
$125.878.91
326,607.01!
(S.O49.68)
(258'107.81)
(140,394.34)
APPROVALS:
CONTRACTOR; Certification by Contractor; I certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to date.
Midwest Asphalt Corporation
Signed
Title
Date
ENGINEER:
HA NSON A DERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Signed v.
Title eel �� Date
OWNER:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Signed
Title
Date
OT33;P3Nv,\4 . age 4
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS STREET
RECONSTRUCTION OF
85TH STREET
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
Revised: October 30, 1996
Prepared by:
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Telephone: (612) 427-5860
I hereby certify that this Plan, Specification, or Report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under State
of Minn of Statutes 32.6.02 to 326.16.
nce G. Koshak, PE
� c
evin P. Kielb, PE
OT332.rpt
a6 /911q 96
Reg. No. Da e
Reg. No. Date
1 L
- is : �.. .. , a � -� ... �'�•. ��'� i •. : r 'f1( '
CLAIM TOTAL
II TO WHOM PAID FOR WHAT PURPOSE DF.TE NUM3EP, _ CLAIM
I4
i s
6
1
BAUERL.Y BROS C� Pf. ES
GRAVEL HAULED
11/06/96
S�i74
19,790.42
8ES4S)IPOS..5�,r ' NQVEMBER< RECYCL ING_
11/06%96
•I'975
67 . SO
a 9�
,,,.
10 ::•V r 1•��1.. r ...OFFICEJ
S
�v. .O
i/L•
�V1. .�.
„ BUSINESS RECORDS CORP
ELECTION CODING—EATTERY REPLACE
11/06/96
1977
676.�C
,= EREZE INDUSTRIES
LEATHER GLOVES
11/06i96
1978
30.00
13
,. THQM
��
St�PPLIES HALLOWEEN PARTY
� LOPES �':
12/06/96
11!06/96
1980
29.00
=75..50
,s s,�?., .. �� ,.
.. �r• .�..:: F. � .
,198..1. ,
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
NOTICE,ORDINANCE,HEARING,NEWSLETTER
11/06/96
1983
1,138.82
17
GLENS TRUCK CENTER INC FILTERS 11/06/96 1985 47.02
1.
�29I LONG ,& SONS OCTOBER CLEANING - 11/06/96 1989 715.68
,a MINNEGASCO GAS SERVICE 11/06/96 1990 146.28
Num 1 nCKIV n T VRHVL1l.J I[Nk- - JIVVW rLVW i-lun 1 aii v i 1
ORTHERN AIRGAS OXYGEN & ACETYLENE 11/06/96 1994 26.06
jMANN BROTHERS INC. FINES MIX 11/06/96 1995 43.86
11-iRl]G I J 1 VRCJ VHWIV L111V1V i�� � � � �' -'�
UNLIMITED ELECTRIC —INC REPAIR OUTSIDE LIGHT—CITY HALL 11/06/96 2000 136.00
U.S.-,WEST COMMUNICATIONS PHONE SERVICE 11/06/96 2001 433.25
52 IVIHL rVr( mVNin
S
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 475,158.
35 x`,. '' ;s 2D`�K :,.� „3 aa. „K.a'�, i. ,k ,. "•s ,w. , "qq",i'�- ^v-. - .•z. '3ay..
x
i
YWY, 37
1 �
(�t.�i.rl,.:_; J�YLc'�'�`�" �'� •� 1.IS
,J
Of- CTT',' OF r,T,-r--t
CLAIM
TOTAL
FOR WHAT
PURPOSE
DAT[ NUMBER CLAIM
MILE.^,rz,E-- ^ScESSOR
TPAINING
"ICTC-:CE-P. AT
7:
.-Y'l-4pep 0 02/96
MW
9z,
-423.1E
5/96� 74 Il
-9