Loading...
09-23-96 CC�") -1 t , , - 4 j " -�— hE��%bJr�N do�w�S k2 ✓�n�� T S eYLCecL Y\. a- Y - e c, w �t� �z)6 c) le- 2r `pY--br�'L `1 � zwtemlc L) r a X vate(, /S -a, o� sZ n h 0- t ? 4>Le_ o- vi L S -t e- d tA-W%.CLnLen O -f\ mCL ? ` a u V �' o �- Ste►^ '�� �, �� ► G � O �� C 2 v' e v- ►'" 1 �'1 �1'v'r m 2 `� V� c�� `i' VL J► S cl C e rtcessa-tet )Dc%-rk:h ? -T- �dE o C y (1 0. n `t'iti e o c e loo w -t- ` k t U C) S l� C P_ SS "- �S �ere-- L-Jc,-, CA -ted i�� s in viSP .�- Yecc d��►� rk S o -n n c/ o s �e n n �l \0s`{-�r5 �� G n arm c� ��h vL e_ Y", .J S w ��� '�Q_ CL -),-,,n CjL it�yLLC �z < 0 5 -2 i' t �- ' `' � T NC- 4),n KJT <-- C? I I c �tAo J CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE 4.A. Special Presentation September 23, 1996 ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 4A.1. Levenson & Grote Judy Hudson DC BACKGROUND The City Clerk requested this to be placed on the City Council Agenda under Special Presentation. The City Council denied their request for rezoning at the July 8, 1996 City Council Meeting. Mr. Levenson and the Grote's wrote a letter dated July 15, 1996 (attached) to the Planning Commission expressing their disappointment in the denial. Andrew MacArthur responded to them via letter dated July 26, 1996 (attached). Mr. Levenson and the Grote's sent a letter to the City Council dated August 26, 1996 (attached) asking the City Council to reconsider their original request for re -zoning and sub- division and to meet on site with City Officials in order to view and discuss the request and clarify questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Elaine Beatty will be in attendance at the City Council Meeting for any further discussion or recommendations. TO: CITY OF OTSEGO, CITY COUNCIL 08/26/96 PLEASE ACCEPT THIS LETTER AS A REQUEST TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION MADE ON OUR REZONING APPLICATION. WE BELIEVE THAT DECISIONS MADE AT THE PLANNING LEVEL WERE BASED PRIMARILY ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE NOT REQUESTING IN OUR APPLICATION. OUR INTENT IN THIS REQUEST IS TO UTILIZE THIS AREA AS LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL, NOT SMALLER "CITY SIZED " LOTS. BY DIVIDING THE EXISTING 2 LOTS, WE ARE ONLY INCREASING THE TOTAL TO 4, WITH EXISTING HOMES ON 2 OF THEM. WE ARE LOOKING TO DIVIDE EXISTING PARCELS INTO LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE ( PER THE ZONING REGULATION) OF 1 AC., WITH THE ACTUAL LOT SIZES TO BE MORE IN THE RANGE OF 1.8 TO 2.4 AC. (APPROX.) . THESE RESULTING LOTS WOULD CERTAINLY BE LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. A NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT VERY NEAR TO THE SOUTH WEST, IN FRANKFORT TWP. IS OF THE SAME NATURE AS WE ARE REQUESTING. THE SURROUNDING AREA IN OTSEGO IS OF A RESIDENTIAL NATURE NOW. THERE ARE LOTS RANGING AS SMALL AS 1 AC. IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. WE ARE NOT WISHING TO DIVIDE TO A LOT SIZE THAT WOULD REQUIRE SERVICING BY A PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM. THE EXTENSION OF QUAM AVE. AND THE ACTUAL USE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD SEEM TO MAKE THIS DIVISION A SIMPLE DECISION. WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE WOULD BE A BURDEN TO EXISTING OR FUTURE CITY SERVICES. IN CLOSING, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO RECONSIDER OUR ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR RE -ZONING AND SUB -DIVISION. WE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ON SITE WITH THE NECESSARY CITY OFFICIALS IN ORDER TO VIEW AND DISCUSS THE REQUEST AND CLARIFY QUESTIONS ANYONE MAY HAVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SINCERELY, 2, //�J PAUL LEVENSON JER$,Y & LYNN GROTE William S. Radzwill indrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couti Megan M. McDonald July 26, 1996 Jerome & Lynn Grote 16155 NE 62ND Elk River, MN 55330 RADZW I,L & COURT Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) RE: Denial of Property Rezoning Dear Mr. & Mrs. Grote: IE OWE ,�(� 2 91996 �VI I have been forwarded a copy of your correspondence to the Planning Commission dated July 15, 1996. The proper remedy for denial of a request for rezoning is by appeal to the District Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. 462.361. The City Zoning Ordinance prohibits submission of a similar application for amendment for at least one year after the initial submission. However, there can be reconsideration of a matter if the Council approves reconsideration by a 4/5 vote. (See attached) . If you have any questions Administrator, Elaine Beatty. Very t ly yours, A rew J. cArth r RADZWILL COURI Encl. cc:,City of Otsego Bob Kirmis Paul Levenson please contact the City Zoning 20-3-2: PROCEDURE: * A. Requests for rezoning (text or map) shall be filed with the City on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided by City Council resolution. Such application shall also be accompanied by five (5) large scale copies and thirteen (13) reduced scale (not less than 11" x 1711) copies of detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development, or use. If, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, reduced scale drawings (11" x 1711) are determined to be illegible, the submission of larger scale materials shall be required. The scale of such materials shall be the minimum necessary to ensure legibility. The request for amendment shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting occurring fifteen (15) working days from the date of submission of the application. The request shall be considered officially submitted when all the informational requirements are complied with. B. Proof of Ownership or Authorization: The applicant shall supply proof of title of the property for which the rezoning is requested, consisting of an abstract of title or registered property abstract currently certified together with any unrecorded documents whereby the petitioners acquire a legal ownership or equitable ownership interest and as applicable supply documented authorization from the owner(s) of the property in question to proceed with the requested rezoning. C. Upon receipt of said application, the City shall set a public hearing following proper hearing notification as applicable. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and recommendations to the City Council. Notice Amended 13 Dec. 1993, Ord. No. 93-15 and 10 Oct. 1994, Ord. No. 94-13 48 , SECTION 3 ADMINISTRATION - AMENDMENTS (TEXT AND MAP) Section 20-3-1: Amendments to Zoning Ordinance 20-3-2: Procedure 20-3-3: Amendments - Initiation 20-3-1: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE: The regulations, restrictions and boundaries set forth in this Chapter may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed or repealed; provided, however, that no such action may be taken until after a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties with interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least ten (10) days` notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Any action taken pursuant to this Section shall also be in compliance and accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 20-3-2: PROCEDURE: * A. Requests for rezoning (text or map) shall be filed with the City on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided by City Council resolution. Such application shall also be accompanied by five (5) large scale copies and thirteen (13) reduced scale (not less than 11" x 1711) copies of detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development, or use. If, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, reduced scale drawings (11" x 1711) are determined to be illegible, the submission of larger scale materials shall be required. The scale of such materials shall be the minimum necessary to ensure legibility. The request for amendment shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting occurring fifteen (15) working days from the date of submission of the application. The request shall be considered officially submitted when all the informational requirements are complied with. B. Proof of Ownership or Authorization: The applicant shall supply proof of title of the property for which the rezoning is requested, consisting of an abstract of title or registered property abstract currently certified together with any unrecorded documents whereby the petitioners acquire a legal ownership or equitable ownership interest and as applicable supply documented authorization from the owner(s) of the property in question to proceed with the requested rezoning. C. Upon receipt of said application, the City shall set a public hearing following proper hearing notification as applicable. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and recommendations to the City Council. Notice Amended 13 Dec. 1993, Ord. No. 93-15 and 10 Oct. 1994, Ord. No. 94-13 48 of said hearing shall consist of a legal property description and description of the request, and shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to hearing. As required by State Statute, written notice of said hearing shall be mailed to surrounding property owners at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Requests affecting and located within platted areas of the City shall be noticed to all property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the property in question. Requests affecting and located within non -platted areas of the City shall be noticed to all property owners within five hundred' (500) feet of the property in question. A copy of the notice and a list of the property owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested and made a part of the records of the proceeding. D. Failure of a property owner to receive said notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this Section provided a bona fide attempt has been made to comply with the notice requirements of this Section. E. The Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff persons to prepare technical reports where applicable, and provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the action to the City Council. F. The City Council and the Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Their judgement shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 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. 49 G. The City Council, the Planning Commission, and the City staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant or to retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant, said information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this Chapter. Failure on the part of the applicant to supply all necessary supportive information may be grounds for denial of the request. H. The applicant or a designated representative thereof shall appear before the Planning Commi.43sion*in order to answer questions concerning the proposed request. I. The Planning Commission shall recommend approval or denial of the request. J. The City Council shall not act upon an amendment until they have received a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission or until sixty (60) days after the first regular Planning Commission meeting at which the request was considered. K. Upon completion of the report and recommendation the Planning Commission, the request shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council. Such reports and recommendations shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the City Council meeting. L. Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the City staff, the City Council shall have the option to set and hold a public hearing if deemed necessary. M. If, upon receiving said reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council finds that specific inconsistencies exist in the review process and thus the final recommendation of the City Council will differ from that of the Planning Commission, the City Council may before taking final action, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The City Council shall provide the Planning Commission with a written statement detailing the specific reasons for referral. This procedure shall be followed only one time on a singular action. N. Approval of a proposed amendment shall require passage by a four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council. O. The amendment shall not become effective until such time as the City Council approves an ordinance reflecting said amendment and after said ordinance is published in the official newspaper. P. Whenever an application for an amendment has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application and proposal for an amendment affecting the same property or 50 Ordinance change shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the date of its denial except as follows: 1. Applications are withdrawn prior to the City Council taking action on the matter. 2. If the City Council determines that the circumstances surrounding a previous application have changed significantly. 3. If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by a four -fifth's (4/5's) vote of the entire City Council. 20-3-3: AMENDMENTS - INITIATION: The City Council or Planning Commission may, upon their own motion, initiate a request to amend the text or the district boundaries of this Chapter. The procedural requirements of Sections 20-3-2.A and 20-3-2.B of this Section shall not apply to such proposed amendments except to the extent required by State Statute. Any person owning real estate or having documented interest therein, within the City may initiate a request to amend the district and map boundaries or text of this Chapter, so as to affect the said real estate. 51 JULY 15,1996 TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANING COMMISSION, CITY OF OTSEGO THIS LETTER IS IN REGARD TO OUR REQUEST THAT WAS HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, 7/19/96. OUR REQUEST WAS TO ALLOW RE -ZONING OF OUR PROPERTIES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOMES IN THE AREA. WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR EXTREME DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE RESPONSE WE RECEIVED TO THIS REQUEST. THIS LAND IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL UNDER OTSEGO'S CURRENT ZONING. ANY REVIEW OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD SHOW THAT THIS IS FAR FROM THE ACTUAL USE OF THIS AREA. THERE ARE HOMES ON LOTS SIZED FROM 1 AC. TO 5.5 AC. THE CONSENSUS OF MOST PEOPLE IS THAT IT SHOULD BE LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL. THE ADDITION OF THE NEW QUAM AVENUE EXTENSION THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT BY MN/DOT, AVAILS THIS AREA TO RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. THE AREA CERTAINLY HOLDS NO AGRICULTURAL VALUE AS IS. WE HAVE REQUESTED TO BE ZONED R-3, SO WE COULD CONTINUE TO UTILIZE THIS LAND IN A MANNER THAT WE BELIEVE IT IS BEST SUITED FOR MANY PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE TALKED TO SEEM TO THINK THAT A REQUEST OF THIS NATURE WOULD BE A "NO BRAINER" OR ARE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT IT ISN'T ALREADY ZONED IN A MANNER THAT WOULD ALLOW LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT IS OUR DESIRE TO DEVELOP THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS AS LARGE RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO HAVE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED "CITY SIZED LOTS". WE ENJOY THE FREEDOM AND ROOM THAT LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AFFORD US. DURING DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MOST OF THE TALK REVOLVED AROUND CITY SEWER. THE LOT SIZES THAT WE INTEND ON HAVING WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT ALTHOUGH OUR REQUEST MAKES SENSE, IT IS PREMATURE DUE TO THE LACK OF CITY SEWER AVAILABILITY. IF WE WERE MAKING A REQUEST FOR SMALLER CITY SIZED LOTS, THIS WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE. WE ARE NOT MAKING A REQUEST FOR LOT SIZES THAT CANNOT SUPPORT PRIVATE SEWER SYSTEMS. WE FEEL THAT THE PLANING COMMISSIONS RECONB ENDATION AGAINST THIS REQUEST IS OUT OF LINE, AS WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE CITY SEWER, NOR COULD THE CITY PROVIDE IT IF IT WAS REQUESTED. WE CAN SEE NO REASON WHY, BY THE ADDITION OF TWO BUILDING LOTS, THAT THE URBAN SERVICE AREA NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED, MUCH LESS A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE DISTRICT CREATED, SINCE THERE IS ACTUALLY NO MORE THAN A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A SEWER SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE. IF ANYTHING IS PREMATURE, IT WOULD BE A DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED ON A SEWER SYSTEM THAT IS NOT IN EXISTENCE, AND IS ONLY AN IDEA AT THIS POINT IN TIME. FROM A COMMON SENSE STANDPOINT, WE CANNOT SEE ANY GOOD REASON WHY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED AGAINST THIS REQUEST. ON THE POSITIVE SIDE OF OUR REQUEST, DEVELOPING THIS LAND AS NEW LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL IS A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. THE ASCETICS OF THE LAND WOULD BE IMPROVED, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO THE RESIDENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL PAST IT ON A DAILY BASIS. THE ABILITY TO HAVE HOMES ON LOTS THAT ARE OVER 1 AC. IN SIZE (THESE LOTS BEING CLOSER TO 2 AC. IN SIZE) LENDS SOME VALUE TO THE CONCEPT OF HAVING A SOMEWHAT "RURAL SETTING" IN THE COMMUNITY AND WOULD BLEND NICELY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN FRANKFORT TWP. THAT IS MERELY A STONES THROWAWAY. ONE MORE ALWAYS IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THE ADDITIONAL VALUE OF THE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES TO THE TAX ROLLS OF THE COMMUNITY. IN LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH NEIGHBORS, IN TALKS WITH BUILDERS AND REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS IN THE AREA, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH ONE NEGATIVE ASPECT TO THIS REQUEST. IN CLOSING, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO ANYTHING, AND EVERYTHING WITHIN THEIR POWER TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM AS IT STANDS, AND TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST FOR RE- ZONING BE APPROVED AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED. IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THEM OR MEET ON SITE IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN ORDER TO VIEW THE PROPERTY AND PUT THIS REQUEST IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. WE ANXIOUSLY AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE. SINCERELY, PAUL LEVENSON /j, L� JEROME & LYNN GROTE DOCUMENT HAS BEENCOPtED & DISTRIBUTED T . MAYOR PC COUNCIL `� EDAAC CLERK PKS & REC PLANNER BLDG IPSP _ ATTORNEY OTHER/ �, ENGINEER _... DATE -�� CITY OF OTSECO REQUEST FOR COUNCEL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 5. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK Sept. 23, 1996 - 6:30PM iTh;M NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB, CC 5.1. Consider Chris Bulow - Excavation Permit for Driveway RACRGi QVff D Chris Bulow asked to build a driveway back off of #39 to his lot on the Mississippi River. I understood he was not excavating. We found out that he was excavating soil and adding granular material. This requires an excavation permit. The fee for this is $75.00 and we needed plans. He drew up the plans and showed where the material was being excavated and how the driveway was to be built and where. We charged him double fee ($150.00) for getting a permit late and the inspections we had done. Larry Koshak and Jerry Olson have both reviewed the project and agree that it is in compliance and recommend approval of the Excavation permit. STAFF RECObOdENDATION: Approval of the Excavation Permit as ger Professional Staff recommendation. Thanks, Elaine CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE 5. Consent Agenda September 23, 1996 ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 5.2. Vacation of part of ODean Ave Judy Hudson DC BACKGROUND This is from the result of the street construction project of Odean Avenue at the intersection of CSAH 37. The City Attorney has everything prepared for this Hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION For the City Council to set the Hearing Date for vacation of Odean Avenue at the intersection of CSAH 37 for October 14, 1996 at 8 PM. (City Council Meeting). CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE 6. Planning September 23, 1996 ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 11 6.1. CUP Move in Home Judy Hudson DC BACKGROUND Mr. and Mrs. Scott Moehlmann have requested a CUP to move in a house on their lot at 9060 95th Street. The Planning Commission held a Hearing on September 4, 1996 and approved their request subject to all thirteen conditions listed in the attached Findings of Fact. The condition the Planning Commission changed was #3 regarding the driveway access changing from CSAH 39 to Jalger Avenue. They changed to reflect access relocation shall occur only if the following conditions can be satisfied: a. The cost of the driveway relocation is borne entirely by Wright County. b. A determination is made by the Building Inspector that the driveway relocation will not adversely affect the location of the site's drainfields. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To accept the Planning Commission's Recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a relocated single family residence to 9060 95th Street NE, of Section 15, Range 24, 118-800-152201 subject to the conditions listed in the Findings of Facts. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Bob Kirmis 11 September 1996 Otsego - Moehimann CUP 176.02 - 96.17 Attached please find Findings of Fact applicable to the Moehlmann conditional use permit request. Please note that the findings reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation. This item is scheduled for City Council consideration on 23 September. PC: Elaine Beatty Jerry Olson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Wayne Fingleson 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Scott and Gary Moehlmann for a conditional use permit to allow a relocated single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record within the City. On 23 September 1996, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application for the 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 The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a relocated single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record. 2. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service. 3. The placement of a relocated single family residence is a conditionally permitted use the City. 4. The Legal description of the property is as follows: The northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 121, Range 24, W. Wright County Minn. Beginning at the southwest corner of the north half of said northwest quarter thence north along the west line of said Section 255.1 feet thence east at right angles 275.67 feet for a point of beginning thence continuing east along the same line 140 feet thence south parallel with the west line to the center line of County Highway 39; thence northwest along center line 224 feet to a point; thence north in a straight line to the point of beginning except that part now being used for County Highway No. 39. 5. Section 20-4-21 of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. 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 proposed use of the subject property will be compatible with adjacent properties. As such, the use is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. The enforcement of building code requirements shall ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. In consideration of the residence's condition, design type, and applicable building code requirements, the proposed use will be compatible with present and future land uses in the area. C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). The proposed use will conform to all applicable performance standards. d. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed. The proposed use will not tend to or have an adverse effect upon the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use's impact upon the property values of the area in which it is proposed. The proposed use will not tend to depreciate area property values. f. Traffic generated by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of County Road 39 which serves the property. Such access location does, however, conflict with a comprehensive plan policy which discourages single family lot access to high volume streets. 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. 2. 6. The planning report dated 22 August 1996, prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. 7. On 4 September 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 relocate a single family residence to an existing lot of record is approved in its present form and subject to the following stipulations. 1. The structure is fully converted from a two family to a single family unit. To ensure such conversion, the dwelling shall be wired for one electric meter and provided one water meter. In no case shall the structure be occupied by more than one family. 2. The relocated structure is shifted so as to comply with the applicable 35 foot setback from Jalger Avenue. 3. The existing driveway access to County Road 39 is obliterated and a new access be provided from Jalger Avenue. Such access relocation shall occur only if the following conditons can be satisfied: a. The cost of the driveway relocation is borne entirely by Wright County. b. A determination is made by the Building Inspector that the driveway relocation will not adversely affect the location of the site's drainfields. 4. The relocated residence comply with all applicable requirements of the State Building Code. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Building Official. 5. The relocated structure is ready for occupancy within six months from the date of location on the site. 6. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Building Official and/or the City Engineer in regard to well and sewage treatment issues. c 7. The relocated structure comply with applicable A-1 District height requirements. 8. The applicant provide proof to the City that the house move is performed by a licensed mover in accordance with applicable State requirements. 9. The applicant notify the City of the route and exact timing of the move. 10. The site's existing structure is removed from the subject property prior to occupancy of the relocated building. 11. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer in regard to easement establishment. 12. A performance security is posted in an amount determined appropriate by the Zoning Administrator. The security should be reflective of anticipated improvement costs (foundation work, etc.). 13. Findings are made by the Heritage Preservation Commission that the home to be demolished is of no historical significance. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this _ day of , 1996. ATTEST: Bv: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 4. CITY OF OTSEGO IN Norman F. Freske, Mayor v �2 M 4 w o67 Zj ,dY 7855 WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue Northeast Otsego, Minnesota 55330 Wright County Public Works Building 1901 Highway 25 North Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 Telephone (612)682-7383 Facsimile (612) 682-7313 September 17, 1996 Subject: Otsego - Moehlmann Building Relocation CVP CSAH 39/Jalger Avenue Dear Elaine: D, SEP 1 9 1996 YNE A. FINGALSON, P.E. Highway F.n ginm.. 682-7388 VIRGIL G. HAWKINS, P.E. Assistant Highway Engineer 682-7387 RICHARD E. MARQUETTE Right of Way Agent 682-7386 This letter is a follow-up to my phone conversation with Bob Kirmis of NAC regarding above -referenced conditional use permit. I appreciate the city's comprehensive plan policy which discourages single family lot access to high volume streets. This is, of course, consistent with Wright County's Transportation Plan. As I discussed with Mr. Kirmis, the Wright County Highway Department would be willing to remove the existing driveway access to County State Aid Highway No. 39, if that would help expedite this matter. We would not, however, construct the new access from Jalger Avenue. I trust this information is helpful to you. Please keep me posted of the timetable for this issue. Sincerely, tWayeFingals gineer PC: Bob Kirmis, NAC Steve Meyer, Maintenance Superintendent Virgil Hawkins, Assistant Engineer Richard Marquette, Engineering Assistant js Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE 6. Planning September 23, 1996 ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 6.2• CUP Move in Home Judy Hudson DC BACKGROUND Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Jackson have requested a CUP to move in a house on their lot at 14036 67th Circle. The Planning Commission held a Hearing on September 4, 1996 and approved their request subject to all ten conditions listed in the attached Findings of Fact. The Planning Commission also requested the applicant provide documentation to the City of the location of the ordinary high water mark which would be done by the DNR. This information has not been received as of 9-19-96 but will be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Another concern of the Planning Commission was the condition of the foundation. This, of course, will be the Building Official's responsibility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To accept the Planning Commission's Recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a relocated single family residence to Lot 1, Block 1, Praught's Addition subject to the conditions listed in the Findings of Facts. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING 9 DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Bob Kirmis 11 September 1996 Otsego - Jackson CUP 176.02 - 96.18 Attached please find Findings of Fact applicable to the Jackson conditional use permit request. Please note that the findings reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation. This item is scheduled for City Council consideration on 23 September. PC: Elaine Beatty Jerry Olson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 M CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Douglas and Debra Jackson for a conditional use permit to allow a relocated single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record within the City. On 23 September 1996, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application for the 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 applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a relocated single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record. 2. The subject property is zoned R-3, Residential -Immediate Urban Service Area. 3. The placement of a relocated single family residence is a conditionally permitted use the City. 4. The Legal description of the property is as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Praughts Addition, City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota 5. 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. 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 proposed use of the subject property will be compatible with adjacent properties. As such, the use is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan the property's R-3 zoning designation. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. The enforcement of building code requirements shall ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. In consideration of the residence's condition, design type, and applicable building code requirements, the proposed use will be compatible with present and future land uses in the area. C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). The proposed use will conform to all applicable performance standards. d. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed. The proposed use will not tend to or have an adverse effect upon the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use's impact upon the property values of the area in which it is proposed. The proposed use will not tend to depreciate area property values. f. Traffic generated by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of 67th Street which serves the property. 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. 6. The planning report dated 21 August 1996, prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein. 7. On 4 September 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 2 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 relocate a single family residence to an existing lot of record is approved in its present form and subject to the following stipulations. 1. The relocated residence comply with all applicable requirements of the State Building Code. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Building Official. 2. The relocated structure meet all setback requirements, including the 100 foot shoreland setback requirement to Mud Lake. 3. The relocated structure is ready for occupancy within six months from the date of location on the site. 4. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer in regard to the drainage and utility easement. 5. The applicants comply with the recommendations of the City Building Official and/or the City Engineer in regard to well and sewage treatment issues. 6. The applicant provide proof to the City that the house move is performed by a licensed mover in accordance with applicable State requirements. 7. The applicant notify the City of the route and exact timing of the move. 8. The site's existing structure is removed from the subject property prior to occupancy of the relocated building. 9. A performance security is posted in an amount determined appropriate by the Zoning Administrator. The security should be reflective of anticipated improvement costs (foundation work, etc.). 10. Access to the new home be provided only from N.E. 67th Circle. Direct lot access from County Road 37 shall be prohibited. 4A ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this _ day of , 1996. ATTEST: 91 Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 4• CITY OF OTSEGO M Norman F. Freske, Mayor U, William S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couti Megan M. McDonald September 18, 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: Revised Feedlot Ordinance- Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Dear Council Members: Enclosed, as directed, please find a proposed Feedlot Ordinance that hopefully meets with the approval of the City Council, and is in concurrence with the consensus reached at the recent workshop meetings regarding this matter. The new ordinance prohibits the establishment of any new feedlot within the City. I have defined a feedlot as an operation that contains more than ten (10) animal units so as to allow small operations and hobby farms. The draft ordinance also prohibits the expansion of any operation less than ten (10) animal units to animal feedlot size. The draft ordinance also prohibits the expansion of any existing animal feedlot. Existing facilities are allowed to continue as legal non -conformities. I have put in the ordinance specific criteria for what is to be considered an "alteration" of use under Section 20-15 of the present zoning ordinance related to the unique nature of a farming operation. In other words, because of the seasonal and cyclical nature of farming, there are going to be fluctuations in the number of animal units at a facility. As far as enforcement is concerned, I believe the City would have a difficult time enforcing small increases in the number of animal units. Letter to Otsego City Council September 18, 1996 Page 2 Therefore, the draft ordinance sets forth guidelines for interpretation of the term "alteration" as used in Section 20-15 of the Zoning Ordinance, which are specific to the Section on Feedlot Regulations. The intent of this provision is to allow existing facilities to continue operating in their "traditional" manner and to only trigger an alteration in use at such time that construction is proposed or done for additional facilities to house animals, or construction of a lagoon related to expansion of animal units. It allows expansion of the number of animal units as long as they can be housed in existing structures and are in conformance with City regulations regarding the care and treatment of animals, and other City ordinances. The ordinance also provides an absolute cumulative cap on the increase of animal units at one hundred and twenty (120) percent of the number existing at the time of adoption of the ordinance. I have also provided a provision that allows a lawfully established animal feedlot to reconstruct to the same level of operation even if more than fifty ( 50 ) percent of the value of the building is destroyed. This specifically exempts it from 20-15-3, J which requires other non -conformities to conform if more than fifty (50) percent of the building is destroyed. The ordinance provides that all animal feedlots be in compliance with all applicable MPGA rules and regulations, and that they take responsible measures to minimize odors. All animal feedlots may continue operating at their present location as long as they are in compliance with this Section and any other applicable City ordinances. The manure/ stockpile application setbacks have been retained as they apply to existing facilities. The section on facility closures has been retained, although the portion regarding security has been deleted since there will be no application process in which the City could collect the security. The section on abandonment as been retained. The other sections of the proposed ordinance mostly have to do with necessary changes in language throughout the ordinance to provide consistency with the changes proposed. I would note the following changes: 1. A special section of the Definition section of the Zoning Ordinance has once again been established but many of the terms have been deleted. Only those necessary to the new ordinance have been retained. Letter to Otsego City Council September 18, 1996 Page 3 2. The definition of farm has been changed to include language indicating the new ordinance regarding animal feedlots. 3. The definition of farming has also been changed to include reference to the new ordinance language on animal feedlots. 4. Section 20-51-5,D, 1,2, and 3 have been deleted which allowed feedlots as a conditional use in the A-1 District has been deleted. You will also find enclosed with this letter a proposed resolution amending certain portions of the City Comprehensive Plan to more specifically set forth a distinction between the current agricultural operations within the City and what the City seeks to prohibit; large, concentrated, industrial farming. This proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is also set for hearing on October 2 before the Planning Commission. As the City Council is aware, the issues presented to the City of Otsego are being fought out throughout the state. While the poor choice of words used by the Court of Appeals in the Valadco case has somewhat obscured the issue of the authority of local units of government versus the state authority over feedlots, I believe that the ordinance presented herein is defendable for some of the following reasons: 1. Otsego is a municipality with zoning authority apart from the County. It is not uncommon for a County ordinance to prohibit feedlot operations from half a mile upward from a municipal border. 2. The Preamble to the MPCA Rules specifically indicates that land use decisions are left to local units of government. 3. Recent District Court decisions have rejected the idea that MPGA rules preclude local zoning authority over the location of feedlots. See Charles Neitzel et al. v. County of Redwood et. al., 521 NW2d 73 (Minn. App. 1994), and that control of pollution from feedlots is fully covered by State law. See Blue Earth County Pork Producers, Inc. v. Blue Earth County (May, 1995), currently on appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. 4. The rapid growth in the area and the number of residents within the City limits at this time would argue strongly that. the area is not "rural" at this time and quite clearly will rapidly lose any "rural" character within the very near future. It came to my attention last week that the Planning Commission had included in their agenda for this week possible discussion of the ordinance prior to Council review. As I believe that this would cause an inappropriate and confusing record, that meeting was cancelled at my request. r Letter to Otsego City Council September 18, 1996 Page 4 The intent of this ordinance was to effectuate the perceived intent of the Council at the last meeting to prohibit new feedlots and feedlot expansions, but to allow existing operations to continue, with some flexibility. We have been given a very short time frame to attempt to effectuate this. This ordinance will probably not cover every conceivable scenario, but it. -is our attempt to effectuate the perceived intent of the Council. I will be available to discuss this matter further at the City Council meeting on Monday night. Ver my yours, rew ac ur RADZAIt & COURI Encls. cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson Feedlot Committee Planning Commission DRAFT 3- 9/18/96 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDRESSING ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF OTSEGO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-2-2.F of the Otsego City Code ("Definitions") is hereby amended to delete the following definition: Feedlot, Commercial: The place of confined feeding of livestock or other animals for food, fur, pleasure or resale purposes in yards, lots, pens building or other areas not normally used for pasture or crops and in which substantial amounts of manure or related other wastes may originate by reason of feeding such animals. Section 2. Section 20-2-2.F of the Otsego City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Feedlot Related: 1. Animal Feedlot Permit: A permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) when the potential pollution hazard will not be corrected within ten (10) months of the date of permit issuance or when manure is not used as domestic fertilizer. This permit shall contain such conditions and requirements as the agency deems necessary in order to insure compliance with applicable state rules. 1. Animal Unit (AU): A unit of measure used to compare differences in the production of animal manures that employs as a standard the amount of manure produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer or heifer. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following equivalents shall apply: Animal One mature dairy cow One slaughter steer or heifer One horse One swine over One duck One sheep One swine under One turkey One chicken 55 pounds 55 pounds AU Per Animal 1.40 1.00 1.00 .40 .20 .10 .05 .018 .01 For animals not listed above, the number of animal units shall be def ined as the average weight of the animal divided by one thousand (1,000) pounds. 3. Domestic Fertilizer: A. Animal manure that is put on or injected into the soil to improve the quality or quantity of plant growth; or B. Animal manure that is used as compost, soil conditioners or specialized plant beds. 4. Earthen Basin: A dike or excavated structure , often lined with clay or synthetic liner, in which manure is stored. The basin is emptied at least once each year. It is designed by a professional engineer or Natural Resources Conservation Service/Soil and Water Conservation District (NRCS)/(SWCD) technician. 2. Feedlot, Animal: A lot or building or combination of lots and buildings intended for the confined feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals and specifically designed as a confinement area in which manure may accumulate, or where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. For purposes of these parts, open lots used for feeding and rearing of poultry (poultry ranges) and barns, dairy farms, swine facilities, beef lots and barns, horse stalls, mink ranches and zoos, shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures shall not be considered animal feedlots under these parts, nor shall any area as above described which contains ten (10) animal units or less. 3. Feedlot, New Animal: An animal feedlot constructed and operated at a site where no animal feedlot existed previously or where a pre-existing animal feedlot has been abandoned or unused for a period of five (5) years or more. 4. Feedlot Operator: An individual, a corporation, a group of individuals, a partnership, joint venture, owner or any other business entity having charge or control of one or more livestock feedlots, poultry lots or other animal lots. 5. Interim Permit: A permit issued by the MPCA which expires no later than ten (10) months from the date of issuance. 4. Lagoon: A manure treatment structure, typically earthen. Lagoons can be aerobic, anaerobic, or facultive depending on their design. An anaerobic lagoon is different from an earthen storage basin in that the lagoon is managed for manure treatment. Anaerobic lagoons are only partially emptied each year whereas earthen storage basins are emptied once or twice a year. 5. Manure, Animal: The fecal and urinary excretions of livestock and poultry. Manure can include bedding material and water used for livestock. Types of manure have descriptive names such as liquid, slurry and solid. Manure that has a content of more than ninety-six (96) percent moisture is liquid. Manure with a moisture content between ninety (90) and ninety-six (96) percent is referred to as slurry. A moisture content of less than eighty-four (84) percent is considered solid. 6. Pastures: Areas where grass or other growing plants are used for grazing and where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetation cover is maintained during the growing season except in the immediate vicinity of temporary supplemental feeding or water devices. Section 3. Section 20-2-2, F, of the Otsego City Code ("Farm definition") is hereby amended to read as follows: Farm: An unplatted tract of land having one quarter -quarter section containing approximately ten (10) acres or more, or two or more abutting parcels under the same ownership having an area of ten (10) acres, measured from the centerline of abutting roads, usually with a house and barn and other buildings, and on which crops are raised as well as livestock in numbers which do not constitute an animal feedlot, unless the operation is allowed to keep a larger number of animals pursuant to rights as specified in Section 20-15 of this Chapter. Section 4. Section 20-2-2, F, of the Otsego City Code ("Farming" definition) is amended to read as follows: Farming: The process of operating a farm for the growing and harvesting of crops which shall include those necessary buildings, related to operating the farm, and the limited keeping of animals which does not constitute an animal feedlot, unless the operation is allowed to keep a larger number of animals pursuant to rights as specified in Section 20-15 of this Chapter. Section 5. Section 20-26-3 of the Otsego City Code ("Farms") is hereby amended to read as follows: ANIMAL FEEDLOTS: Animal Feedlots are prohibited, except for operations which are allowed to continue operating pursuant to rights as specified in Section- 20-15 of this Chapter. Section 6. Section 20-27-4.0 of the Otsego City Code ("Farm Animal Regulations") is hereby amended to read as follows: C. Manure application and stockpiling activities shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 20-38-8 of this Chapter. Section 7. Section 20-27-4.E of the Otsego City Code ("Farm Animal Regulations") is hereby amended to read as follows: E. All regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) relating to the keeping of farm animals shall be adhered to and animal feedlots shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 20-38 of this Chapter. Section 8. Section 20-27-5, D of the Otsego City Code ("Animal Regulations") is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Manure and other waste materials shall be removed and distributed so as to eliminate unsightly odors, insect, and rodent problems or any condition which operates as a public or private nuisance. The storage of manure and other waste materials shall be in compliance with Section 20-38 of this Chapter. Section 9. Section 38 of the Otsego City Code ("Feedlot Regulations") is hereby amended to read as follows: FEEDLOT REGULATIONS SECTION: 20-38-1 Purpose 20-38-2 Allowed Feedlots 20-38-3 Prohibited Feedlots 20-38-4 Construction of Section 20-15 "Alterations" 20-38-5 Destruction Of Existing Animal Feedlots 20-38-6 Existing Feedlots: Compliance With MPCA Requirements 20-38-7 Odors 20-38-8 Feedlot Setbacks 20-38-9 Manure Stockpile/Application Setbacks 20-38-10 Facility Closure 20-38-11 Abandonment 20-38-1: PURPOSE: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to prohibit the establishment of new animal feedlots within the City of Otsego and to regulate existing feedlot operations within the City of Otsego in a manner conducive to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Otsego. These controls are needed due to the recent incorporation from township status to City status and the unique location of the municipality in relation to the Metropolitan Area. These regulations are also necessary to promote the planning process within the City and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City as well as to: A. Establish conditions under which existing animal feedlots within the City can continue to operate. B. Prohibit the establishment of new animal feedlots within the City. C. To prohibit the expansion of existing animal feedlots to levels not conducive with the present character of the City. D. To provide regulations which can be applied in a fair and equitable nature, but that take into account the inherent fluid nature of an ongoing farm operations and the difficulty of applying strict numbers as criteria for control of an ongoing operation. D. Promote best farm management practices. E. Protect valuable groundwater and surface water resources. F. Protect human and animal health. G. Implement specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. H. Promote compatibility of uses. I. Promote continuance of agricultural uses at their present scale, while protecting the residents from nuisances caused by large, non- traditional, and intense agricultural uses which are better located away from a municipality. J. Coordinate and assist state agencies in the administration of state-wide statutes and regulations governing livestock operations. 20-38-2: ALLOWED FEEDLOTS: Those feedlots presently existing within the City may continue operations at the present level as legal nonconforming uses as set forth in Section 20-15 of this Chapter, and as long as they do not constitute a potential pollution hazard. Such feedlots may only continue on the condition that they obtain approval from MPCA, if necessary. 20-38-3: PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS: No new animal feedlots shall be established within the City. No existing animal feedlot is allowed to expand beyond its level of operation at the date of passage of this ordinance, subject to 20-38-4 of this Section. No operation or facility established with ten (10) animal units or less may expand to more than that number. 20-38-4: CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 20-15: It is understood that by its nature the raising of animals and farming creates a situation where there are seasonal, natural, fluctuations in the number of animals within a facility. Due to these peculiar situations, and only for purposes of this Section, the phrase "alteration" contained in Section 20-15 of this ordinance shall only be construed as an alteration of a legally established pre-existing use in the following circumstances: 1. In a case where a new structure is constructed or is proposed for construction for the purpose of housing additional animals. 2. In a case where a lagoon or earthen basin associated with an increase in animal units is constructed or proposed for construction. 3. In a case where an existing animal feedlot is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an MPGA permit or Interim Permit. 4. In the case where additional animal units place the facility in violation of current City Ordinances regarding the care of animals. 5. Any increase of the total number of animal units in an animal feedlot which raises the cumulative total of animal units above one hundred twenty (120) percent of the number present at the date of adoption of this ordinance. 6. Ongoing violations of other City ordinances. 20-38-5: DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING ANIMAL FEEDLOTS: Notwithstanding 20-15-3, J of this Chapter, any animal feedlot lawfully existing as a non -conforming use and any structures or buildings lawfully existing and which are used for the purpose of containing animals associated with the non -conforming animal feedlot use which are destroyed or partially destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its fair market value may be restored and the same use resumed (if such use was lawfully existing as a non -conforming use prior to such damage and destruction) or any conforming use established, provided that such reconstruction be completed within twelve months after the date of such damage or destruction. 20-38-6: COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REQUIREMENTS: All existing animal feedlots operating on the date of this ordinance shall continue operating only in strict compliance with all applicable MPCA rules and regulations. 20-38-7: ODORS: Existing feedlot operations shall take responsible measures to minimize odors which have the effect of creating an adverse impact on the environment and quality of life for the residents of the City. 20-38-8: FEEDLOT SETBACKS: Lawfully established feedlots existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance may be continued in the location existing on such date. 20-38-9: MANURE STOCKPILE/APPLICATION SETBACKS: The following manure stockpile and application setbacks are required for all new and existing feedlots: CATEGORY MANURE APPLICATION Surface/ Incorporated Irrigation or Injected Public lake, 300 feet river, or stream Public streets 25 feet - (as measured surface from the outer 300 feet - boundary of the irrigation right-of-way) STOCKPILES 100 feet -lake 300 feet 50 feet- river/stream 10 feet 25 feet Platted 300 feet- 300 feet 300 feet Subdivisions surface 1,000 feet - irrigation Municipal wells 200 feet 200 feet 300 feet Private wells 200 feet 200 feet 200 feet Public or 300 feet 100 feet 300 feet private ditch Residence other 300 feet- 300 feet 300 feet than landowner surface or operator 1,000 feet - irrigation 20-38-10: FACILITY CLOSURE: A. Responsible Parties: The landowner, owner and operator of an existing animal feedlot shall be responsible for the ongoing management of manure and the final closure of the facility including the cleaning of buildings and the emptying and proper disposal of manure from all manure holding facilities. B. Closure: If an existing feedlot operation ceases operation, the owner and/or operator shall be responsible for the following: 1. All wastes from the feedlot operation and its waste control system shall be removed and disposed of on land or in some other legally permissible manner as soon as practical, but no more than six (6) months, and in a manner conducive to the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Closure of the operation may be postponed for a period of twelve (12) months if the property is posted for sale. 3. Notification to the City that the feedlot operation has been discontinued, and that the property is in compliance with this Section of the ordinance. 4. If the property is for sale, notification shall be given to all potential buyers of the status of the feedlot use of the property as a legal nonconformity which must comply with all presently applicable zoning ordinances if the legal nonconformity is discontinued for a period of six (6) months, as well as the other provisions of Section 20-15 of this Chapter. 20-38-11: ABANDONMENT: Owners and operators of feedlots, either at the time of abandonment or after, shall have joint and several liability for clean up, closure or remediation of abandoned feedlot sites. Section 10. Section 20-51-2.A of the Otsego City Code (11A-1 District Permitted Uses") is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Farms, farmsteads, farming and agricultural related buildings and structures subject to Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, but not including animal feedlots or other commercial operations. Section 11. Section 20-51-5.D, 1,2, and 3 of the Otsego City Code (11A-1 District Conditional Uses- Commercial Feedlots"), is hereby deleted: Section 12. Section 20-52-2.A of the Otsego City Code (11A-2 District Permitted Uses") is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Farms, farmsteads, farming and agricultural related buildings and structures subject to Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, but not including animal feedlots or other commercial operations. Section 13. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of ,1996. CITY OF OTSEGO By: Norman F. Freske, Mayor By: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTSEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED TO CITY AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND TO THE RURAL USES PORTION OF THE CITY LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Otsego desires to establish certain changes in the existing Comprehensive Plan to address the issue of large, concentrated agricultural operations, which cannot be properly accommodated within a municipality; and WHEREAS, such operations have the potential to operate as a nuisance within the community, are not compatible with residential uses, and are not appropriate within a municipality which will be undergoing substantial residential, commercial, and industrial expansion in the near future; and WHEREAS, the present Comprehensive Plan does not adequately draw a distinction between the presently existing agricultural operations within the City and those more intense operations, such as large scale animal feedlots. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, AS FOLLOWS: That the following amendments are hereby made to the existing Otsego Comprehensive Plan: 1. Page 33, Policies, Agricultural, No. 4, is hereby amended to read as follows: "The keeping of the present levels of farm animals shall be confined to the rural designated areas of the community or farming operations already established. There shall be no new animal feedlots established within the City. Presently existing animal feedlots which were legally established may continue operating at their present level, but any further expansion of these operations shall be prohibited. It is not in the best interest of the City to allow large, concentrated, and intensive animal facilities within the municipal limits, especially in light of the present rate of urbanization." 2. Page 34, Policies, Agricultural, No. 7, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Unless there is a threat to public health or safety, the present level of agricultural activity shall not be limited or curtailed due to the impacts upon non-agricultural uses which have or are proposing to encroach into rural areas. However, those types of high intensity agricultural uses, not presently undertaken within the City, which have the potential for significant adverse affect on adjoining non-agricultural uses, shall be discouraged within the municipal boundaries." 3. Page 90, Land Use Plan, Rural Uses, is hereby amended to add the following paragraph: "Another issue of City concern relates ' to the proposed establishment of new higher intensity agricultural uses, specifically, high intensity animal feedlots located within the community. Concern is also raised by the possible expansion of existing animal feedlots to a more intensive level of activity. At the present rate of City growth, and with the present number of residences and their concentration throughout the City, including the areas now designated as rural, further establishment of new animal feedlots of any size shall be discouraged. Further, expansion of existing animal feedlots shall be prohibited in order to insure that such uses do not have an adverse affect on adjoining non-agricultural uses within the City, do not adversely affect the general health, safety and welfare, do not adversely affect property values within the City, and do not adversely affect the City's planning process." ADOPTED this IN FAVOR: OPPOSED: day of October, 1996. CITY OF OTSEGO Norman F. Freske, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk A SECTION 15 NON -CONFORMING LOTS, BUILDINGS, STRUCTO S AND USES Section 20-15-1: Purpose 20-15-2: Non -Conforming Lots of Record 20-15-3: General Provisions 20-15-1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the regulation of legal non -conforming lots, buildings, structures, and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which legal non -conforming lots, buildings, structures, and uses will be operated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that non -conforming lots, buildings, structures, and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. 20-15-2: NON -CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD: A. Vacant Lots. 1. For the purposes of orderly development, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on non -conforming lots of record at the effective date of this Chapter, provided that the lot fronts on an improved public right-of-way and provided that the frontage, depth and area measurements are at least seventy-five (75) percent of the minimum requirements of the district where the use is permitted. 2. The preceding subsection 1 is not intended to permit a reduction in setbacks or required yards. 3. In the event that the measurements of such lot's area and width do not comply with subsection 1 above, then approval for the construction of a single family dwelling may be requested as a conditional use permit; subject as regulated by Section 4 of this Chapter. B. Developed Lots. An existing conforming single family use on a lot of substandard size may be expanded or enlarged if such expansion or enlargement meets all other provisions of this Chapter. 73 20-15-3: GENERAL PROVISIONS:, A. Except as provided below, any non -conforming structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter shall not be enlarged or reconstructed, but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. B. Any proposed structure which will, under this Chapter, become non -conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective'date of this Chapter, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Chapter, is not abandoned for a period of more than one hundred twenty (120) days, and continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structures and use shall thereafter be a legally non -conforming structure or use. C. Except as herein provided, normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non- conforming structure or use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the non -conforming use or structure. D. Except as herein provided, alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non -conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units, or size or volume of the building. A dwelling may not, however, be demolished and a new dwelling constructed unless the new dwelling is in full compliance with this Chapter. E. A legal non -conforming, single family dwelling unit may be expanded to improve livability as a conditional use, as regulated by Section 4 of this Chapter, provided that the non- conformity is not increased. F. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Official, providing the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than fifty (50) percent of fair market value of such structure. Said value shall be determined by the City. G. No non -conforming building, structure or use shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was constructed or was conducted at the time of this Chapter adoption unless such movement shall bring the non-conformance into substantially closer compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. 74 H. When any lawful non -conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non -conforming use. I. A lawful non -conforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to lessen the non -conformity of use. once a non -conforming structure or parcel of land has been changed, it shall not thereafter be so altered to increase the non- conformity. J. If at any time, a non -conforming building, structure or use shall be destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its fair market value, said value to be determined by the City, then without further action by the Council, the building and the land on which such building was located or maintained shall, from and after the date of said destruction, be subject to all the regulations specified by said zoning regulations for the district in which such land and buildings are located. Any building which is damaged to an extent of less than fifty (50) percent of its value may be restored to its former extent, if it is reconstructed within twelve (12) months after the date of said damage. Estimate of the extent of damage or destruction shall be made by the Building official. In such cases involving single family dwellings on substandard lots, the provisions of Section 20-15-2.A of this Chapter shall be applicable. K. Whenever a legal non -conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for a period of six (6) months, any future use of said structure or lands shall be made to conform with the provisions of this Chapter. L. Any legal non -conforming use of land not involving a structure, and any legal non -conforming use involving a building or structure with a market valuation upon the effective date of this Chapter of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or less, may be continued until 1 July 1997, whereupon such non -conforming use shall cease. M. Non -conforming buildings, structures, and/or uses, which based upon documented study and evidence, pose a danger and/or threat to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, shall: 1. Be legally declared a nuisance by the City. - 2. Upon being identified by the City and upon the owner being notified in writing by the City, the owner shall provide to the City a documented time schedule and program with rationale to support the proposed amortization of the building, structure, or use investments which will result in the termination or correction of the non -conformity. 75 a. The termination/correction time schedule shall be based upon, but not limited to, factors such as the initial investment and the degree of threat or danger being posed. b. The acceptability of the time schedule shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator with right of appeal. C. In no case shall a time schedule exceed five (5) years. 76 William S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couri Megan M. McDonald September 10, 1996 Mr. Lee W. Hanson Attorney at Law Hall & Byers, P.A. First Bank Place 1010 West St. Germaine Suite 600 St. Cloud, MN 56301 RADZW I,L & CO URI Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) RE: City of Otsego- Wastewater Treatment Study Dear Mr. Hanson: SEP 12 19% The City Council of Otsego has asked me to respond to your correspondence dated August 30, 1996 related to the City's ongoing study of sewer treatment -needs. Whether or not the present document before the Council now constitutes a full fledged Facility Plan is open to debate. Nonetheless, even if it were interpreted as such, the City has no obligation to include analysis of your clients existing system within a facility plan. Minn. Rule 7077.0272, Subpt. 2, A states as follows: "A complete description and evaluation of the existing wastewater treatment system and problems that need correction. This evaluation must consider the age, condition, design capacity, and treatment capabilities of each treatment unit, the systems ability to meet current or proposed permit requirements, and- the location, frequency, and quantity of any bypasses. For existing individual sewage treatment systems, a survey must also be prepared which identifies whether or not each individual sewage treatment system in the project service area conforms to the requirements under chapter 7080." Individual sewage treatment systems are defined as, "Individual sewage treatment system means a waste water treatment system, or part of the system, serving one or more structures with wastewater flows, which uses soil treatment and disposal." Minn. Rules Letter to Attorney Hanson September 10, 1996 Page 2 7077.0105, Subp. 16a. Subpart 2 refers, in the treatment system. Obviously, existing facility. singular, to an existing waste water in the case of Otsego, the City has no The system operated by your client is a separate, private system with an NPDES permit for discharge into the Mississippi River, not a system which uses soil treatment and disposal. I see no reasonable interpretation of the rule you cite that would require the City to evaluate your system as a part of a facility plan for submission to MPGA, especially in light of the fact that MPGA should already have all of the relevant information regarding your client's system at their disposal through the permitting process. The City intends to follow all proper legal procedures in the process of serving the citizen's needs for waste water treatment. I strongly disagree with the implication in your correspondence that your clients have just recently become aware of the City's ongoing plans for a wastewater treatment plant. This fact has been well publicized and has been addressed at numerous public meetings by the City Council. Mr. Odell, an employee of the Darkenwalds, also sits on the City's EDAAC and has been informed regarding this matter all throughout the process. In fact, Mr. Odell participated in the drafting of a letter to the City Council regarding criticisms by the EDAAC of the Bonestroo report. It is very disingenuous to appear at this point in the proceedings and attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the process while professing ignorance of what has gone before. You and your clients previously approached the City about the possibility of franchising, prior to the Council fully committing to their present course of action. This was approximately two years ago. At that time the Council wisely determined that they would need far more information before they could make a reasoned decision about the possibility of franchising. The matter then became an issue of money, someone had to pay for the initial reports. This issue was never resolved and the requested reports were never prepared. Without such a report the City could not make an intelligent decision as to whether or not it was in the best interests of the City as a whole to support a limited area franchise which could conceivably have an adverse affect on a more comprehensive solution to the City's wastewater treatment problems. Other issues that the City Council had to consider are the Letter to Attorney Hanson" September 10, 1996 Page 3 attendant expense of creating agreements which do not presently exist within the State of Minnesota, as evidenced by your previous submission to the City of agreements from the State of Indiana, the issue of what type of expansion of your facility would be required to serve a reasonable franchise area, the issue of potential City liability upon the granting of a franchise, the terms and conditions of the franchise, and the issue of necessary security to insure continued delivery of services as well as proper repair, maintenance, and closure of the facility. All of these questions remained unanswered and the City has received no further input from you until this date. Without such information, the City proceeded upon the logical course of seeking the best way of providing the entire City with needed infrastructure. At this point it is the intent of the City to proceed along this track and attempt to provide needed City services in the most cost effective and logical manner for the benefit of all citizens of Otsego. Very truly yours, Zr:e: w J. t r RADZWILL COURI cc: City of Otsego Ted K. Field, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson Dave Licht/Bob Kirmis, NAC 09-20-1996 11:55RM FROM Radzwill & Court Law Offi TO WUUam S. tndr w J. =ur Aftchael C. url Megan M. M I nald 'I' Septa"er 20, 11996 i i I city.(Council Members City ;of Otsego RADZMU L & CO UJU Anorne.)►r at Law 705 Canthal Avenue East PO Baur 369 St. Midwel, MN 53376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAV c/o Blaine Beatty, City Clerk 88991Nashua Avenue NE 4418823 P.02 Elk. River, M 55330 RE: Barb Kolb Request For Extension of Temporary Dwelling Permit Dear ,Council Members: i have been asked to review certain materials regarding the applicant's request for extension of time for a temporary dwelling permit. These permits are only for a ninety day priod and are not reneiable by the terms of the ordinance. I sent her a letter at the request of the City outlining her options, to either request a variance or appeal to the Council as the board of Adjustment. The date of issuance of the permit is r cleat cin its face, it is unclear to me when exactly the permit was received. By the. terms of the permit, the dwelling was to be removed by September 21.,The building inspector indicates that no substantial worklhas been done on the house which was damaged. The applicant hasreceived-the insurance proceeds for reconstruction. The cipplicant has long involved stories about why the work was not accoiplished which are generally irrelevant to the City. However, there are children involved in this matter and it is unclear when the 'pplicant became aware of what the permits term was and what would be necessary to gain an extension. I I hale, indicated to the applicant that based upon my conversations with�her that:I would recommend to the Council that they grant her a limited extension of the permit subject to terms and conditions 09-20-1996 11:56AM FROM Radzwill & Couri Law Offi TO 4418823 P.03 Letter 'to City Council- Kolb September 20,'1996 Page 2 acce table to",the Building Inspector. However, I further indicated that this matter would have to be decided by the council. Very{ fly yoi=s, RAbZjaMr& COQRI . cc: Barbara Kolb Jerry Olsen, Building Inspector ob Kirmi's, NAC TOTAL P.03 l William S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couri Megan M. McDonald September 16, 1996 Ms. Barbara Kolb 15046 92nd Street Otsego, MN 55330 RADZWILL & CO URI Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Bas 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) RE: Temporary Dwelling Permit Dear Ms. Kolb: C 2 0 W [2 D SEP 17 XM Pursuant to Findings of Fact and Decision issued by the City of Otsego on June 21, 1996 you were granted a temporary dwelling unit permit for the period of ninety days. This temporary permit was issued so as to enable you to live in a mobile home while your home was being rebuilt due to fire damage. On September 5, 1996 you were notified by Jerry Olson, the City of Otsego Building official, that your temporary dwelling unit permit would be revoked, as no repair work has begun on your fire damaged home within the sixty day period allowed by the Otsego City Ordinance. In my opinion you have two options pursuant to Otsego Zoning Ordinances. First, you could petition for a variance. Please note, however, that one of the criteria for granting a variance is that "The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant." Otsego Zoning Ordinance 20-5-2-(B)(2)(c). Based upon the file material given to me for review, it appears that your present hardship is the result of your own actions, as you have apparently interfered with the ability of contractors to complete your home within the time required by your temporary dwelling permit. Next, you could appeal to the City Council as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals seeking an interpretation of the legislative intent of the temporary dwelling permit rules. Otsego Zoning r Letter to Barbara Kolb September 16, 1996 Page two Ordinance 20-6-3 (A). The problem is, however, that you had an appropriate period of time to remedy your situation. The reason that the situation was not remedied was again, within your control. In my opinion, the ordinance language is clear and unambiguous. On September 23, 1996 the Otsego City Council will have its regularly scheduled meeting. If you wish to be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting on September 23, 1996, you must call the City Clerk and make such a request. If you seek Council action, you must be prepared to make an official application for council action prior to the meeting, or no action will take place. Attached please find relevant Otsego Zoning Ordinances for your review. If no action is taken on your part in response to this letter, your temporary dwelling permit will automatically expire on September 21, 1996. The continued presence of a mobile home at 15046 92nd Street will be in violation of Otsego ordinances, and may be prosecuted by the City as a misdemeanor, or the City may apply to the District Court for injunctive relief. Sinc y w J. c th RADZWILL COIIRI cc: Larry Kohsak Jerry Olson Bob Kermis September 17, 1996 To The City Council Members: I am requesting an extenuation on the permit to keep the Mobil Home until my house is repaired for the folio ing reasons . fDqk G�/G 1,7 1 Undo Hardship 1 . Everyone knows that children need a stable place to live , losing their home is hard enough to deal with . Constant moving, is not emotional stability. At the motel we were staying at after the fire we had 3 day's notice that our room had been reserved by someone else for the weekend. No family member has the room to house four extra people, this is why I wanted the Mobile Home in the first place so that I would not be having to find a place to live, then go back to the Motel and then having to find a place to live because yet another weekend finds our room reserved by someone else. This is something that happens all the time when someone stays at a hotel or motel for any length of time. 2. My children are in school they need stability so they will be able to do their school work at their best abilities. 3. I have been injured in three car accidents , I have several injuries some of which are spinal stenosis, nerve root compression, nerve root damage, spinal cord compression, heirniated disc., annular tears in disc bone spurs on my brain stem. I should not be doing any type of work such as what is needed to be done in moving , I can not take the chance to further increase my injuries or pain. I have already fallen trying to do the demolition as my pupils become unevenly dilated with to much lifting and I become uncoordinated. Besides having to possibly move allot while in the Mobile Home my children will have to do most of the work. 4. It would cost the Insurance Company more money if I do not stay here. The cost of the rooms we need would be over $1,350.00 a month then their is the cost of food and the gas that is not covered. The Insurance Company will have every right to deny those extra charges. 5. I only have so much money in temporary living expenses ,after that money is spent I am then responsible for what ever costs are needed I have to maintain my monthly house payments and gas and electric so piping will not bust from the cold when the weather changes. I can not afford to pay any extra money because I reached the policy limits, it's against the law to write bad checks but this is what I will have to do as the needs will still be there but no coverage from the Insurance Company. Was Work Done Before 60 Days 1 . Debrie removal was started the end of July to the 1 st. of August. 2 . Demolition was started August 17 . By August 30, doors, paneling, sheet rock, carpet had been removed. As of today's date the upstairs has been gutted , the carpet remains . The siding is almost removed as well . I have had placed a 20 yard roll -off dumpster on my property as well . ( exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K ) . Am I Responsibly For The Delays 1 . I state no , and the work that has been done is threw my direction. 2 . There were two kids who were sent to my house to do the debrie removal and demolition, one 18, the other 19. The first day the two kids that came out my contents that had been thrown outside were gone threw and thrown in the roll -off . I went threw the house and showed these two what I wanted and didn't want , we also discussed the obvious things that had to be thrown. After they left that day my girls and I went in the house and nothing was done, nothing had been taken out . 3. The next day only one should up the 18 year old , who stated he could not do the work by himself after caring out a bookshelf, I could not understand this as there were things that still could have been done. 4 . Before he left I told him I would write on a paper what I wanted saved and what I did not and would leave this in the house on Monday . I was unable to do this as I was told the contents for cleaning was not done and I had been waiting for these items to be taken. There were various statements made by these two that led me to believe the contents cleaning portion was done , and they had no rapping paper to rap anything. I needed to talk to the Public Adjuster I had retained before I could write my list as something's were to be taken for cleaning and others not, they could not be just all placed in the garage . I was unable to get a hold of him , I therefore could not write my list but I had stated and had shown what was to be done and there was enough obvious other work that could have been done my list was not actually needed. 5. Monday came I did not expect anyone until mid-morning as this was the time that was stated on the day only one came . At 9:00 - 10:00 I went over to the house no one was there I waited until around 1:00 -2:00 and realized no one was coming out . I later called the Public Adjuster asked him if he had heard anything he stated no . I asked him if he would call the construction company to see what happened , he said he would . since he did not get back to me in a few day's I had to call him , he stated they had come out but no one was up. I stated I was up at 6:30 in the bath at 8:00 I went outside at 9:00 - 10:00 and there was no one here . He stated they were here at 8:00 the time I was in the bath that is why I did not hear them. I then asked him if he would call them and have them come back he stated he would . I waited a few day's no one called me or came out. I felt I could wait no longer and even though I had been told all has to threw the Public Adjuster he's the boss I called the construction company myself to arrange for someone to come out . I was told that two would be there at 8:00 in the morning of which they were. 6. The first day not much was done , their actual working time was around 3 1/2 hours for various reasons . It matters not what those reasons are, only 3 1/2 hours of work was done and maybe 5 things were taken out. I finally stated that I would do the cleaning that I needed to do this as it was my house and it would be the last time I could clean the house . I felt this was safer than stating your going to slow. 7. The next day the heavy items were started to be removed at 10:00 after they got here at 8:00 , they finished this at around 1:30 . I assumed that the smaller items would then be delt with, they were not. They were to still remove the rest of the contents I had packed in boxes , throw out the bags of contents that were bagged . After they left I went over to the house and again these items were not taken out . 8. They straitened my garage , yes this needed to be done as items were placed in there unorganized. This was not going to have anything to do with my house being repaired , it was not for sure those items I would be able to use, as most of them smelled of smoke really bad . I just wanted them, to have some control of my contents . The garage could have been done after the house was done 9. I called the construction company and asked them if they have older more mature workers , I was told yes then asked why . I basically told him I felt there were more delays in how the work was going and I had to do something about it, He said he would talk to them. I said I still could not have them return as I would be embarrassed with them knowing I had called and basically issued a complaint. When no different workers came out in two days I realized I had not actually verified different workers were coming out , no time was given for one, I again called the company . We again discussed the kids who had come out, I stated I felt I could do the work faster even with my injuries . I asked if I could do the work myself I was told I could do it myself or have anyone I wanted , but maybe I shouldn't because of my injuries. I said no I'll do the work I'm here something has to be done I need to see a start somewhere. 11. As I stated it matters not what the causes of the delays were in working with these kids, the delays happened . In a three day period that two people came out I believe more should have been done than the heavy items removed and a few boxes. 12. It is being said that I fired Master Craft , I did not. I asked if I could do the work because it was two days and no one had come out I felt I had a responsibility to do what I could for the house to be finished as soon as possible. I never stated I, my girls, nor the person I hired was going to do the area that was burned that none of us has the knowledge to do this or the equipment. 13. I do not think anyone completely understands my frustrations in seeing each day go by and nothing is done . The fire was May 24, no one came out to do anything until the Building Inspector came to my residents and told me complaints had been called in because of the contents that had been thrown outside . There was no bid done on the house by the Insurance Company until late July and no copy was sent to my Public Adjuster until August 13, it was not even typed until August 12. The Public Adjuster sent our bid to the Insurance Company either June 12 or July 12. I heard of no response until I asked the Adjuster personally towards the end of August. 14. What Construction company would even start demolition on any house until they know exactly what is going to be accepted for repairs or not . And because there is so much difference in the two bids , there would have been demo done that was not covered , the Insurance Company not agreeing to pay for the demo nor the repair. 15. I do not know if I had the right to call the construction company before they first came out here the end of July , I do know I was told all has to go threw the Public Adjuster , he is the boss. I do know nothing would be done now if I had not made the calls that I did. It is my claim that is why I took control, I was the one who was going to have to live whatever the concenquiences or repercussions for the delays . 16. I do not want to move back into my house in the winter time , this is something I was concerned about in July, and was one of my questions I faxed to the Insurance Company and the Public Adjuster. 17. The bid that was done by the Insurance Company contains many errors, these are not another contractors personal opinion they are facts. Windows were missing, windows were changed in design, things I had at the time of the fire were visible but not listed. The Insurance Company stated this is the bid they are accepting and sent a check. I requested to have in writing that these obvious things will be acknowledged and covered, this was refused. I requested that the bid is to be corrected , this was refused. I called the construction company myself and arranged to have him come out to correct the errors and missing items . He came out we went over the items made an agreement. The new bid that was written did not contain all that had been discussed and agreed upon. I then called the Insurance Adjuster who was handling the claim told him that I needed to have in writing that these items would be covered , why a check was written when they had the knowledge there were missing items, that I had only been told things found after repairs had been started could be sent in a supplement bid yet there were missing windows etc. now , that by what I had been told those items visible at the time of the fire would not be covered. I was told that a letter would be written that stated those items would be acknowledged now and insinuated they would be covered. The letter that I was sent does not state this it states what I had been previously told, and that the Insurance company would only consider them. I had every reason to refuse to cash that check , I still do not see the need for what happened it would have been so simple to honor my request I would have a clear understanding of what was going to happen I would be able to proceed as I needed to . I can not help the fact I do not understand claims , or supplement claims . I can only ask for clarification for what I need , I do not see the point this was refused me. 18. When my Public Adjuster knew there were actual things missing in the bid that were there at the time of the fire, a request could have been made for the Insurance Company to have their company correct their bid and that submitted to the Insurance Company rather than the company we used. I found all to hard to understand so I led the me Attorney's general's office and spoke with someone there who do not cash the check , go ahead and have someone start the repairs and insist that bid the Insurance Company accepted is corrected and a proper check is written . That I have every right to state the bid is boigis, Contractors can have a difference of opinions on certain things but not on visible errors on things that were there such as windows missing and attached humidifiers etc. 19. Because I stated I would not cash that check the delays have been placed onto me. 20. I was told by J. Bensen that they would be able to repair the house in less than 90 days , I will hopefully be able to have this in writing when I appear at the council meeting Monday night. 21. I would like to be on my lot to observe my house being repaired . 22. There're seams to be some confusion as to when I received my permit , and a copy of the city ordinance. The first I was aware that I was to reapply before 30 day's from when the permit expires was September 6, when the Building Inspector came to my residents and hand delivered it to me . They were under the impression I had received a copy in the mail I believe, I had not. It is a well known fact that letters are lost in the mail no matter how important they are . I would not have waited until now to address the issue of renewing the permit . I would not place unnecessary stress on myself as stress increases ones pain. I would not place the well-being of my own children in jepperity . I would have as stated in my letter to the Building inspector and Elaine B. had in writing what I needed to send to the Insurance Company and my Public Adjuster what I needed to insist the various things needed to be done are in fact done to start the repairs on my home. 23. I am going to state I do have both long term and short term memory loss that is why I have to write everything down , I can with certainty state I had not received any copy of the permit nor the ordinance . At the same time I state I have paid my house payments 4 months in advance and have no memory of doing so, etc. 24. That I was told I have until Thursday at 11:00 to turn in my necessary paper work, that Andrew city hall's council and the Building Inspector are both going to recommend that the permit extenuation is granted, I thank you both for this. And that if I do turn in my paper work by the stated time I will be allowed to keep the Mobile Home until that night at least ,who ever granted this I thank you and if for some reason the permit is not granted . I request adequate time coordinating with my circumstances to remove my belongings . Thank you <7:y: Barbara J. Kolb ( " 6 A"� q- I g -01 (' CARMELA A. CARSON NOTARY PUB �`� ' MY Comm. Exp anJ . 31, 2000 l ti f n L, i OTSEGO, MINNESOTA ZONING/SUBDIVISION REQUEST TEMPORARY DWELLING UNIT PERMIT (EMERGENCY) APPROVAL ..MN�N���M�M��Mw�/M���Mw�� June 21,1996 Ownem Barbara J Kalb 15046 NE 92ND SF Elk River, MN 55330 PROPERTY: PID #f 118-041-003210 Legal Description: Lot 21, Block 3, Mississippi Shores 5TH Add, City of Otsego, County of Wright, State of Minnesota APPLICANT: Same as above REQUEST/ACTION: $equest is for: *Request is for a Temporary Use Permit to allow a Temporary Dwelling Unit (Mobile Home in an emergency situation (Owners dome Burned). Permit is for 90 days, or when the Cert. of Occupancy is issued for rebuilt home, if that should occur sooner, within 3 - weeks of that C.O. DATE: Approved Above ese City of OL•eao Zoning Administrator on June 21.1996. CONDITION SUARY: Conditions of approval have been met (see attached Findings and info.) d2ted 6/21196 APPLICANTS NOTE: Any request involving a Conditional Use Permit or Variance must be exercised witbin twelve months from the date orapprovaT, or the approval will lapse. if a time extension is necessary, It is the applicant's responsibility to file ror such extension at least 30 days prior to the lapse of approval. �Elainc Beatty, City Clerk/ ing Administrator CITY OF OTSEGO: 8899 Nashua Avenue NE esota. 55330 )fficial/City Assessor/City Planner/File City of Otsego Engineer's Agenda Items City Council Meeting September 23, 1996 8.1 CONSIDER ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 85TH STREET PROJECT • Find accompanying this packet is a copy of the Feasibility Report. At this point, we would recommend review of the report before setting a date for the public hearing. • We would like at some time either at a regular meeting or at a workshop to go over in more detail with you the project and answer any questions you may have after your individual review of the report. • The only action needed is to accept the report and you could delay that if you wish until we have had time to discuss the report in more detail. 8.2 DISCUSSION OF 62ND STREET & TH101 CUL-DE-SAC PAVING BY MN/DOT • In a telephone conversation with David Miller, Project Engineer, he stated that the original plan for TH 101 showed paving all of the cul-de-sacs that were to be created by the elimination of access on 62nd (east and west), 65th (west), and 72nd (west). If the councils wish, all or any of the cul- de-sac could be paved. In particular, 62nd Street cul-de-sac could be completed without cost to the City. The direction I gave to Mn/DOT was not to pave the cul-de-sacs because these paved cul-de-sacs would be on gravel roads and not necessarily compatible. Few of the residences living on the streets will use the cul- de-sac. It's only primary use is for maintenance, school bus, and delivery/ pickup vehicle turn -around. • Mn/DOT will need redirection if you decide to change the position that I had given them. agenda9.23 8.3 CONSIDER APPROVING A PARTIAL PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 95-1 AND 95-2, MISSISSIPPI SHORES AND ISLAND VIEW ESTATES • Find enclosed a copy of Partial Payment #2 in the amount of $140,394.34. We recommend approval. We are retaining 5% of the total plus we have not paid for any work not completed. • Also find enclosed the final cost projection for the above mentioned projects. 8.4 CONSIDER REPLY TO ALBERTVILLE ON THE EAW FOR PROPOSED MINNEAPOLIS FACTORY SHOPPE • Find enclosed a draft letter addressing the issues we felt needed to be expanded upon for this projected project. • The primary interest is the Storm Water planning keeping the Otsego Creek Authority in mind. • If you feel there are other issue please direct us to them. Otherwise the comments are due September 26, 1996, and we intend to send the letter as is to Albertville staff with your approval. 8.5 ANY OTHER ENGINEERING BUSINESS agenda9.23 PAY ESTIMATE NO. 2 July 29, 1996 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: Completion Date: Bid Schedule "A": Estimated Unit Item Description Quantity Price Item 8,3 Owner Contract Used to (:nSt flats Gv+crani..., 1. Mobilization 1 LS 2. Bituminous patching mixture 75 Ton 3. Type 41A Wearing course mixture 7,550 Ton TBituminous 1T ��aieri11 �al�for tack coat 5,650 Gal $3,000.00 LS 65.00 Ton 18.60 Ton 1.20 Gal $3,000.00 4,875.00 140,430.00 6,780.00 1 LS 17.57 Ton 6,425.53 Ton 1,850 Gal $3,000.00 1,142.05 119,514.86 2,220.00 Bid Schedule "B": Item Description 4 1aa,uu5.uu $125,876.91 Estimated Unit Contract Used to Quantitv Prire (`net n.,+„ r7.,�___:__ Mobilization 2. Clearing and grubbing 3. Remove concrete driveway pavement, 4. Remove bituminous pavement 5. Remove concrete headwall 6. Sawing concrete pavement full depth)26 7. a ing bituminous pavement full depth) 8. Salva a iron pipe culvert 1 1 25 1,130 1 635 ILF 50 ILF LS LS SY SY EA LF I5.00 $6,000.00 2,800.00 4.00 1.00 150.00 4.00 1 2.00 LS LS SY SY EA LF LF LF $6,000.00 2,800.00 100.00 1,130.001,158 150.00 104.00 1,270.00 250.00 1.0 1.00 25 0 25 633 65 LS $6,000.00 LS SY SY 2,800.00 100.00 1,158.00 EA LF LF 0.00 100.00 1,266.0_0 LF 325.00 OT331 P2.WK4 Page 1 Estimated Unit Contract Used to Item Description Quantitv Price rnct nntm r=vfnr%e;r%n 9. Salvage 12" CMP 140 LF $5.00 LF $700.00 147 LF _ $735.00 10. Salvage 15" CMP 294 LF 5.00 LF 1,470.00 227.5 LF 1,137.50 11. Salvage and reinstall wood fence 26 LF 10.00 LF 260.00 0 LF 0.00 12. Salvage and reinstall timber 40 LF 25.00 LF 1,000.00 0 LF 0.00 13. Salvage and reinstall yard light 1 EA 1,700.00 EA 1,700.00 1 EA 1,700.00 14. Common excavation 12,700 CY 2.96 CY 37,592.00 12,700 CY 37,592.00 15. Sub rade excavation 4,533 CY 2.96 CY 13,417.68 1,038.3 CY 3,073.37 16. Gravel entrance reconstruction 52 EA 70.00 EA 3,640.00 50 EA 3,500.00 17. Granular borrow 7,700 Ton 4.35 Ton 33,495.00 421.36 Ton 1,832.92 18. Geotextile Fabric Type V stabilization 6,565 SY 0.90 SY 5,908.50 373 SY 335.70 19. Sub rade preparation 103.6 RS 75 RS 7,770.00 103.6 RS 7,770.00 20. Aggregate base, Class 5 11,920 Ton 5.34 Ton 63,652.80 10,762.69 Ton 57,472.76 21. T e 41A Wearing course mixture 2,710 Ton 19.20 Ton 52,032.00 2,748.74 Ton 52,775.81 22. ape 31B Base course mixture 3,650 Ton 18.35 Ton 66,977.50 3,387.72 Ton 62,164.66 23. 2" Bituminous wearing course(driveway) 1,170 SY 5.75 SY 6,727.50 1,238.3 SY 7,120.23 24. Bituminous material for tack coat 1,750 Gal 1.20 Gal 2,100.00 400 Gal 480.00 25. Relocate mailbox 71 EA 60.00 EA 4,260.00 71 EA 4,260.00 26. 15" RC pipe culvert, Class V 326 LF 19.40 LF 6,324.40 336 LF 6,518.40 27. 18" RC pipe culvert, Class III 44 LF 22.65 LF 996.60 36 LF 815.40 28. 27" RC pipe culvert, Class 111 32 LF 34.60 LF 1,107.20 32 LF 1,107.20 29. 30" RC pipe culvert, Class 111 40 LF 38.40 LF 1,536.00 40 LF 1,536.00 30. 15" CM pipe culvert 432 LF 14.40 LF 6,220.80 334 LF 4,809.60 31. 15" RC pipe apron 16 EA 375.00 EA 6,000.00 16 EA 6,000.00 32. 18" RC pipe apron 2 EA 450.00 EA 900.00 2 EA 900.00 33. 27" RC pipe apron 2 EA 550.00 EA 1,100.00 2 EA 1,100.00 34. 30" RC pipe apron 4 EA 600.00 EA 2,400.00 2 EA 1,200.00 35. 15" CM pipe apron T 18 EA 130.00 EA 2,340.00 16 EA 2,080.00 36. Salvage and reinstall 15" CMP 501 LF 12.00 LF 6,012.00 465.5 LF 5,586.00 37. Extend culvert 12 EA 240.00 EA 2,880.00 14 EA 3,360.00 38. Random rip rap CL 3 w/ eotextile fabric 55.5 CY 60.00 CY 3,330.00 55.5 CY 3,330.00 39. Furnish and install sign panel (stop) 1 EA 145.00 EA 145.00 0 EA 0.00 40. Furnish and install sin panel left turn 1 EA 140.00 EA 140.00 0 JEA 1 0.00 OT331 P2.WK4 Page 2 Item Description Estimated Unit Contract Used to Quantitif Price Cost Date Extension 41. Furnish and install sign panel (right turn) 1 EA_ $140.00 EA $140.00 0 EA $0.00 42. Furnish and install sign panel (hill /w percent grade -8%) 1 EA 140.00 EA 140.00 0 EA 0.00 43. Furnish and install sign panel (trucks use lower ear) 1 EA 140.00 EA 140.00 0 EA 0.00 44. Furnish and install sin panel (speed limit plaque) 1 EA 60.00 EA 60.00 0 EA 0.00 45. Furnish and install sin panel dead end) 1 EA 140.00 EA 140.00 0 EA 0.00 46. Furnish and install sign panel (no outlet) 1 EA 140.00 EA 140.00 0 EA 0.00 47. Salvage and reinstall sign 20 EA 46.00 EA 920.00 20 EA 920.00 48. Bale check (per bale) 100 EA 5.40 EA_ 540.00 19 EA 102.6_0 49. Silt fence, re -assembled 2,300 EA 1.90 EA 4,370.00 120 EA 228.00 50. Bituminous lined flume 7.5 SY 31.00 SY 232.50 9.9 SY 306.90 51. Temporary rock construction entrance 3 EA 188.00 EA 564.00 0 EA 0.00 52. Mulch material, Type 1 ' 25 Ton 110.00 Ton 2,750.00 0 Ton 0.00 53. Seedin0 12.6 jAcre 98.00 Acre 1,234.80 0 Acre 0.00 54. Seed Mixture 800 650 LB 2.15 LB 1,397.50 0 LB 0.00 55. Disk anchoring 12.6 Acre 32.40 Acre 408.24 0 Acre 0.00 56. Wood fiber blanket, type regular 6,125 SY 1.10 SY 6,737.50 0 SY 0.00 57. Wood fiber type high velocity 5,000 SY 1.50 SY 7,500.00 0 SY 0.00 58. Commercial fertilizer, 20-10-10 3.25 Ton 320.00 Ton 1,040.001 0 ITon 0.00 1 U IAL tSIU CiUNtZUULt "b SUMMARY OE -WORK P _ R� FORMED TO DATE: TOTAL SCHEDULE "A": TOTAL SCHEDULE "B": TOTAL OF WORK: Less Retainage (5%): Less Pay Estimate No. 1 AMOUNT DUE CONTRACTOR: OT331 P2.WK4 Pape 3 $384,393.52 $293,599.04 $125,876.91 293,599.04 $419,475.95 (20,973.80) (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: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Signed Title OWNER: CITY OF OTSEGO Signed Title OT331 P2.WK4 Date Date Paqe 4 Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. September 14, 1996 Mayor & City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Final Project Costs 95-2; Island View Estates and 95-1; Mississippi Shores Dear Mayor and Council Members: Item 8.3 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-349-}' as-ao Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. have with the assistance of Phyllis Cokley, Finance Director, accumulated the cost associated with the above referenced projects as of this date. We also have estimated the remaining engineering and contractor costs, uncompleted or unbilled, for Island View Estates. We feel the costs are adequate for final project costs. Mississippi Shores Improvement Project 95-1 (Final): Contractor Engineering Field Service Preparation of Assessment Roll (to be billed) Publishing Administrative Bonding: Standard & Poor $1,250.00 Springsted 6,547.18 Kennedy & Graven 1,045.16 TOTAL PROJECT COST; Mississippi Shores 235 units @ 5649.57/unit $125,876.91 12,658.15 3,987.42 1,000.00 102.55 180.90 $152,648.27 Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors Mayor & City Council Page 2 September 14, 1996 Island View Improvement Project 95-2 (Final): Contractor $356,996.57 Engineering 24,831 .82 Engineering (yet to be billed) 3,013.91 Field Service 31,166.66 Field Service (yet to be billed) 4,533.00 Preparation of Assessment Roll (yet to be billed) 1,000.00 Appraisal Fee 500.00 Soils Engineering services 10,057.55 Publishing 102.56 Legal 433.10 Administrative 1 80.90 Bonding: Standard & Poor 1,250.00 Springsted 6,547.18 Kennedy & Graven 1,045.16 8,842.34 TOTAL PROJECT COST; Island View $441,658.41 90 units @ $4,907.32/unit The assessment hearing notice sent to the landowners was for the amount that was projected last spring after bids were received. In the case of both projects, the final cost is less than at the time when bids were received. I will be available to discuss the costs with you at the September 23, 1996 Council Meeting. Sincerely, HAKANSOX-;�NDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. La�vrpfice (:� Kv�hak, PE WE cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk Phyllis Cokley, Finance Director OT329.may Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. September 19, 1996 Garrison Hale City Administrator City of Albertville PO Box 9 5975 Main Avenue NE Albertville, MN 55301 RE: Minneapolis Factory Shoppes Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Mr. Hale: 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-34#6-1-- 0520 Item 8.4 The City of Otsego has received a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the above mentioned project. The City Council has directed us to respond to issues affecting the City of Otsego. Our comment and concerns will be related to Itgm- s 12, 14, and 18. .r Item 12; Physical Impacts on Water Reser" rces. ,s The project area shown in�the is ithin the Otsego Creek Watershed. The Watershed consists polio he City,,o�\ Albertville, Otsego, and St. Michael, and the,�Ta. il' of . onticellpja.''�ortions of the City of Otsego, Albertville, and IVlonti�loyownship dram b t'hthrough the project area to School and Mud fakes; The ovedfow' fror hool Lake and Mud Lake flows into Otsego Creek and-ultimate;ly to th�N�}ississippi River. Will the proposed development wNtrict flows �g�hthe stream through the project? What storm event desrgn will flow thr conduit that replaces the ditch? The City is concerned that plak'nt of this development in the area could comprise the ultimate drainage plan. The plan was prepared for the Otsego Creek Authority and is dated December 20, 1993. The Cities of Albertville and Otsego are members of the Otsego Creek Authority. Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors Garrison Hale Page 2 September 19, 1996 Item 14; Water Related Land Use Management Districts The area of the project as previously mentioned is part of the Otsego Creek Watershed. The Otsego Creek Authority, a joint effort between the Cities of Albertville and Otsego, should review the project for impact on the Watershed District. Item 18; Water Quality, Surface Water Runoff School Lake and Mud Lake are a of MIgn1ioririu ,program so directed by the Mn/PCA as a result of the expansion 'AI ert 's Wastewater Treatment Facility. If specific goals have len set fEh thkes, the impact of this development should be addressec'kiy comp•ar" its discharge goal with that of s•� the lakes goals and the ultirLiate discharge tsego Creek. k Storm Water Drainage is the ^primary issue ooncern due to the multiple jurisdiction within the watershed and.'the potential'.oevelopment occurring in the area. The project storm water management goajsould be compatible with the Watershed plan and the issue of Storm Water agement needs to be addressed by the EAW authors. If you have any questions on the above, please contact myself or Elaine Beatty at the City Hall. Sincerely, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lawrence G. Koshak, PE jlg cc: Otsego City Council Elaine Beatty, Clerk Andy MacArthur, Attorney Bob Kirmis, NAC OT916.gh all Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. September 14, 1996 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: 85th Street Feasibility Study Dear Mayor and Council Members: 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-3-61 osad Please find attached a feasibility study for the above referenced project. We have determined, in a preliminary way, that the proposed improvement is necessary, cost- effective, and feasible and should be made as proposed. If the Council decides to proceed with the work, or decides that it is beneficial to proceed with obtaining additional data, we recommend that a portion, or all, of the attached resolution be passed. The resolution orders the following work to be performed: 1. Order a public hearing for the improvement and set a time and date for the same. 2. Obtain an appraiser to review the proposed assessments and -comment as to the relative benefit to the properties. 3. Perform soil test borings along the length of the roadway. 4. Obtain entry rights to the area of the regional pond and perform soil test borings in this area. 5. Perform field survey work necessary for preparation of plans and specification for the proposed improvement. Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors Honorable Mayor & Council Members Page 2 September 14, 1996 We will be available at the September 23, 1996 Council Meeting to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Ld�ence,)6. K906hak, PE kas Enclosure cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk Bob Kirmis, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office OT332.hon Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PROPOSED BITUMINOUS STREET RECONSTRUCTION OF 85TH STREET OTSEGO, MINNESOTA Prepared by: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 Telephone: (612) 421-5860 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 Minneso tatutes 3 6.02 to 326.16. L wr nce G. Kosha , PE Reg. No. Date OT332.rpt Z32 1) 9h 9A g Kevin P. Kielb, PE Reg. No. Date OT332.rpt CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................1 II STUDY AREA BOUNDARY......................................1 III ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT .............................. 1 A Existing Conditions ....................................... 1 B Proposed Improvements ................................... 2 C Estimated Costs ............................ . ............ 3 D Financing and Assessments ................................. 4 1 MSA Account ...................................... 4 2 Assessment Policy .................................. 5 3 Projected Roadway Assessments ........... . ............ 6 IV STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ........................... 8 A 85th Street Storm Sewer ..................... . . ... .... .... 8 B Halls Pond Area Improvements .............................. 9 C Storm Sewer Assessments ................................ 12 D Projected Funding Balance ................................. 13 E Special Considerations - Storm Sewer ........................ 13 F Sequencing of Improvements .............................. 14 G Sub -Regional and Local Improvements ........................ 14 1 Pond in NW'/4 of SW'/4 of Section 21 .................... 14 2 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Improvements ...... 15 3 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition East Improvements ... 16 4 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition West Improvements .. 17 5 Area west of OTSEGO Acres 1 st Addition Improvements ...... 18 6 Area west of Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements ...... 19 7 Otsego Acres and Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements ... 20 8 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Pond Improvements .. 21 9 Area 5A and 5B (North Odean Avenue) Improvements ........ 22 H Assessments for Sub -Regional and Local Improvements ............ 23 1 Direct Benefit Assessment ............................ 23 2 Uniform Assessment ................................ 24 V PROJECT SCHEDULE........................................26 JI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 26 ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX A Exhibit A - Project Location and Halls Watershed District Boundary Exhibit B - Typical MSA Urban Street Section Exhibit C - Roadway Construction Benefitting Properties Exhibit D - Hall's Pond Watershed Exhibit E - 85th Street Storm Sewer and Area of Benefit Exhibit F - Regional Pond and Area of Benefit Exhibit G - Areas removed from or routed away from Hall's Pond Exhibit H - Sub -regional Pond in Area 313 and area of benefit Exhibit I - Area 3A Storm Sewer and area of benefit Exhibit J - Area 5H Storm Sewer and area of benefit Exhibit K - Area 4J Storm Sewer and area of benefit Exhibit L - Area 2C Storm Sewer and area of benefit Exhibit M - Area 4A and 4K Storm Sewer and area of benefit Exhibit N - Area 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4G Storm Sewer and area of benefit Exhibit O - Area 4B Storm Sewer and are of benefit Exhibit P - Area 5A and 53 Storm Sewer and area of benefit .-APPENDIX B RESOLUTION ORDERING HEARING AND ADDITIONAL WORK OBJECTIVE The objective of this report is to determine the feasibility of upgrading 85th Street from Page Avenue to Nashua Avenue to Municipal State Aid (MSA) Standards. This study will also analyze the feasibility of constructing storm sewer improvements for areas tributary to the 85th Street storm sewer system. This study will analyze existing conditions, required improvements, funding sources, and assessment policies. The study area boundary is depicted on Exhibit A. Il. PROJECT LOCATION The roadway portion of the project is located within Sections 20, 21, and 22, Township 121 N, Range 23W, in Otsego, Minnesota. The roadway location, along with the Halls Pond Watershed District boundary, is depicted on Exhibit A at the back of this report. III. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A. Existing Conditions The project consists of improving 85th Street from Page Avenue to approximately 700 feet east of Nashua Avenue. The project termini are the extents of previous MSA projects which improved 85th Street to MSA Standards. 85th Street is a 24 foot wide paved rural design street with ditch sections and culverts to provide drainage. The existing shoulders consist of 0.5' to 2' of topsoil in some areas, and are non-existent in others. Odean Avenue traverses the street, separating it into east and west segments. The west segment is located between Nashua Avenue and Odean Avenue and is designated as MSA route 217-102-015. The east segment is located between Page Avenue and Odean Avenue and designated as MSA route 217-102-020. The west segment is approximately 5,000 lineal feet. The east segment is approximately 4,025 lineal feet. Both segments of roadway have exhibited signs of pavement distress in recent years. The western segment has required patching in recent years to replace areas of severe alligator cracking. The alligator cracking is caused by structural failure of the roadway section, and may be attributable to the poor subgrade materials. 1 The soils in the project area appear to vary from fine sands, to sandy loams, to loams. Inclusions of silty clay loams were noted in the section of 85th Street between Nashua Avenue and Odean Avenue. The subgrade soils are thought to be generally unsuitable for roadway construction. Test borings must be performed during the design phase of the project to determine the exact subsoil characteristics. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps indicate that several of the low areas within the existing right-of-way are Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA) wetlands. These areas will require special attention during the project design phase. The wetland areas must be delineated and work must be performed within the guidelines of the WCA. The existing ROW is 66 feet along the length of the roadway. There are no known drainage and utility easements located adjacent to the ROW. The roadway profile exhibits sharp vertical curves, reducing site distances in some areas. Site distance is also limited at several roadway intersections along the project length due to horizontal obstructions, primarily tree growth. The average daily traffic along the roadway is expected to increase in the near future due to proposed development work. An executive style golf course is planned for the NW'/4 of the SE'/4 of Section 20. A residential development is in the conceptual stage for the NW'/4 of the SW'/4 of Section 21. Both developments, when completed, will cause an increase in traffic to 85th Street, and may burden the capacity of the roadway as it exists. B. Proposed Improvements The project involves constructing the roadway to Municipal State Aid (MSA) Standards. 85th Street is proposed to be a 44 foot wide urban design section with concrete curb and gutter. Provisions for future sidewalks would be made within a 5' wide boulevard area. Provisions would also be made to allow for grading for a future bike -path on one side of the road. The typical design section will consist of a 3'/2" bituminous surface over 6" of Class 5 aggregate base course. A 2' layer of clean sand will be placed below the aggregate base to provide structural support where 2 A subgrade soils are determined to be inadequate for roadway construction. Exhibit B depicts a typical MSA urban design section. Right-of-way purchase will be required to expand the ROW from 66' to 80'. Slope easements and temporary construction easements will be required to allow for roadway construction. The extents of the easements will be determined during the design phase of the project. Estimated Costs Costs for street construction were analyzed for each segment of the proposed 85th Street. Our cost estimates are as follows: Table III -1 85th Street Odean Avenue to Nashua Avenue MSA Segment 217-102-015 Cost Estimate Item Common Excavation and Subgrade Prep Class 5 Aggregate Base Course Bituminous Surfacing Concrete Curb and Gutter Erosion Control Revegetation Signs and Markings Total Estimated Construction Cost Construction Contingency at 10% ROW Acquisition Overhead at 20% TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 3 Estimated Cos $262,400 82,200 132,500 70,000 22,500 71,000 8.500 $649,100 64,910 44,250 43,730 $801,990 Table III -2 85th Street Page Avenue to Odean Avenue MSA Segment 217-102-020 Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cos Common Excavation and Subgrade Prep $135,000 Class 5 Aggregate Base Course 66,300 Bituminous Surfacing 106,500 Concrete Curb and Gutter 57,000 Erosion Control 16,100 Revegetation 46,900 Signs and Markings 7,500 Total Estimated Construction Cost $435,300 Construction Contingency at 10% 43,530 ROW Acquisition 35,600 Overhead at 20% 87,060 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $601,490 Financing and Assessments MSA Account The portion of 85th Street analyzed is currently on the City of Otsego's MSA system. The MSA segment designations are 217- 102-015 (Odean Avenue to Nashua Avenue) and 217-102-020 (Page Avenue to Odean Avenue). The roadway qualifies for MSA funding for construction, ROW acquisition, and engineering services. The unencumbered balance in the MSA construction account as of September 6, 1996 was $629,191.57. An amount of $4,671.28 is encumbered pending closeout of the CSAH37 and Odean Avenue intersection realignment project (MSA projects 217-105-01 and 217-020-02). In addition, approximately $25,400 has yet to be requested from MSA for ROW acquisition for that project. The actual MSA construction funds available at this time are estimated at $603,791.57. The City receives MSA allotments annually, 25% of which are El designed for maintenance. The remaining 75% are for utilization for construction activities. The 1996 MSA construction allotment was $229,489. MSA allotments are determined based upon population and roadway mileage within the City. The recent dissolution of Frankfort Township resulted in a net gain of population and roadway mileage for the City of Otsego. This could provide for an increase in the total annual MSA allotment in the City receives. For purposes of this report, however, we have conservatively assumed that the 1997 allotment will be similar to the 1996 allotment. MSA allows City's advancements on funds for construction. The lesser of three years allotment or $500,000 can be advanced to Municipalities for construction projects. The maximum the City of Otsego could advance is $500,000. This is approximately 2'/2 years of construction funds. As a result of this advance, the City would not receive the construction allotment in 1998 and 1999. The year 2000 construction allotment would be approximately $100,000. The advance in funds would not affect the maintenance allotment. The following table depicts the theoretical maximum MSA funding available for this project: Table III -3 City of Otsego Estimated MSA Construction Funds Present unencumbered amount $629,191.00 Yet to be requested for CSAH37 ROW < 25,400.00> Theoretical 1997 apportionment 229,489.00 Potential advancement of funds 500.000.00 Total Theoretical MSA Construction Funds Available $1,333,280.00 2. Assessment Policy The City of Otsego's Assessment Ordinance sets guidelines for determining assessment amounts for properties which abut MSA designated and eligible streets. The ordinance indicates that abutting properties shall be assessed for the costs of a typical street and any additional costs shall be paid for by the City. Because the roadway is located within the Urban Service Area, the typical roadway section would consist of a 34 foot wide 5 3 roadway with bituminous berms and 5' wide boulevards. Our estimated lineal foot cost for this type of roadway is as follows: Table III -4 City of Otsego Estimated Construction Costs Typical Urban Roadway Section Item Common Excavation and Subgrade Prep Class 5 Aggregate Base Course Bituminous Surfacing with Curb Erosion Control Revegetation Signs Total Estimated Construction Cost Overhead and Contingency at 25% Estimated Cost per Lineal Foot $1.90 8.50 20.50 2.35 8.75 0.90 $42.90 10.73 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST PER LF $53.63 By dividing the total estimated project cost by two, an assessment value per front foot of property is obtained. The estimated cost per front foot of property was determined to be $26.82. Projected Roadway Assessments Potential roadway assessments were determined based upon property access to 85th Street. Table III -5 was generated based upon half -section maps and costs described in section III -D-2. Where front footage could not be obtained from half -section maps, the distances were estimated based on aerial topography maps. The benefitting properties for the roadway construction portion of the project are depicted on Exhibit C. Based upon a front foot cost of $26.82, and a total assessable front footage of 12,597.92, the total potential revenue from street assessments was determined to be $337,876.21. L TABLE III -5 City of Otsego 85th Street Improvement Project Estimated Roadway Assessments Total Estimated Amount from Roadway Assessments $337,876 ' Based on equal annual payments for 10 years at an interest rate of 8%. VA Cost' Front Cost Total Per Lg Block Subdivision Footage Per FF Cost Year 1 1 James Addition 160.00 $26.82 $4,291 $639 2 1 James Addition 160.00 26.82 4,291 639 3 1 James Addition 160.00 26.82 4,291 639 4 1 James Addition 160.00 26.82 4,291 639 5 1 James Addition 160.00 26.82 4,291 639 6 1 James Addition 160.00 26.82 4,291 639 7 1 James Addition 155.00 26.82 4,157 620 '/4 of NW '/4 Section 22 1,340.00 26.82 35,939 5356 5 3 Hall's Addition 200.00 26.82 5,364 799 6 3 Hall's Addition 200.00 26.82 5,364 799 '/4 of NE '/4 Section 21 1,300.00 26.82 34,866 5196 10 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 267.00 26.82 7,161 1067 2 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 250.00 26.82 6,705 999 3 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 250.00 26.82 6,705 999 4 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 250.00 26.82 6,705 999 - 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 250.00 26.82 6,705 999 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 250.00 26.82 6,705 999 7 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 218.40 26.82 5,857 873 8 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 217.00 26.82 5,820 867 1 4 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 367.00 26.82 9,843 1467 28 2 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 1 st Add 300.00 26.82 8,046 1 199 10 1 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Add 258.52 26.82 6,934 1033 E '/4 of SW '/4 Section 21 660.00 26.82 17,701 2638 '/4 of SW '/4 Section 21 2,010.00 26.82 53,908 8034 3726 85th St Section 20 300.00 26.82 8,046 1199 3776 85th St Section 20 300.00 26.82 8,046 1199 3830 85th St Section 20 300.00 26.82 8,046 1 199 3882 85th St Section 20 300.00 26.82 8,046 1 199 3922 85th St Section 20 270.00 26.82 7,241 1079 3984 85th St Section 20 275.00 26.82 7,376 1099 '/4 of SE '/4 Section 20 1,150.00 26.82 30,843 4597 Total Estimated Amount from Roadway Assessments $337,876 ' Based on equal annual payments for 10 years at an interest rate of 8%. VA IV. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The proposed roadway improvements will occur primarily in the Hall's Pond Watershed area. The long range watershed improvements must be considered for the design of the 85th Street improvements. The 85th Street storm sewer will serve as a trunk facility to convey stormwater from the Hall's Watershed to the Hall's Pond area. Additional improvements to the Hall's Pond Watershed are required to correct local drainage problems. Subarea descriptions utilized in this report represent the same areas as detailed in the Storm Water Drainage Report prepared in 1995 for this area. Exhibit D depicts the Hall's Pond Watershed and associated subareas. Exhibit D also depicts the physical and proposed political boundaries of the watershed. A brief analysis of the recommended storm sewer system improvements are as follows: A. 85th Street Storm Sewer The storm sewer system in 85th Street will be sized as a trunk storm sewer facility. A storm drainage system must be constructed to carry the stormwater from the proposed urban design street section. Oversizing of the storm sewer is recommended to account for future local improvements within the Hall's Pond Watershed. A preliminary storm sewer design was completed based upon data included in a Stormwater Drainage Report prepared in 1995 for the Hall's Pond Watershed. The construction costs for the storm sewer was estimated at $98,527 for the area between Page Avenue and Odean Avenue and $138,050 for the area between Odean Avenue and Nashua Avenue. The 85th Street storm sewer and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit E. Estimated project costs for the storm sewer are listed below: Table IV -1 City of Otsego 85th Street Storm Sewer Estimated Costs Page to Odean to Odean Nasha Total Estimated Construction Cost $98,527 $138,050 $236,577 Construction Cont. @ 10% 9,853 13,805 23,658 Overhead @ 20% 19.705 27,610 47.315 Total Estimate Project Cost $128,085 $179,465 $307,550 B. Hall's Pond Area Improvements Construction of the 85th Street storm sewer will increase the rate and volume of water entering the Hall's Pond area. Hall's Pond is presently at or near full capacity, meaning improvements would have to be made to the pond area to allow for the extra stormwater. The low water level of Hall's Pond is set by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to insure that a minimum surface area of the pond is maintained. The high water elevation is governed by the low floor elevations of surrounding residences to insure flooding does not occur. The difference in these elevations is presently 1.5 feet. This is the allowable "bounce" in the pond. This bounce is very small and causes a significant hinderance to routing additional stormwater to the pond. The existing outlet from the pond is a 24" RCP pipe, 7,586 feet in length, and at a slope of 0.1 2%. The pipe discharges to the Mississippi River at a point north of the Mississippi Shores Addition. The present capacity of the pipe is approximately 8.5 cfs at maximum allowable pond elevation. Several options were analyzed to allow for added stormwater to the Hall's Pond area. These options are described below: 1 . Construct a regional pond in the SW'/4 of the '/4 of Section 21 This alternative allows for full development of the Hall's Pond Watershed with restrictions as described ins Section IV -E of this report. The excavation work would be performed in conjunction with the 85th Street roadway project. A portion of the material excavated would be utilized as clean fill for the 85th Street roadways, and the remaining material would be hauled off-site or graded into the pond easement area. Approximately 110,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated. The project would also include site grading, topsoil import, re -vegetation, and landscaping. Our estimated costs for this project are as follows: 9 2 3 Table IV -2 City of Otsego Regional Pond Cost Estimate Construction Easement Acquisition Construction Contingency @ 10% Overhead @ 20% Total Project Cost $175,000 32,500 17,500 35,000 $260,000 The costs shown consider simultaneous roadway construction and pond construction. Pond construction costs will increase if the pond is constructed as a separate project. Purchase Surrounding Residences This alterative would allow for increasing the high water level of Hall's Pond to provide increased storage volume in the pond. Our preliminary analysis indicates that approximately 10 residences would be affected by an increase in the high water line of Hall's Pond. The City would be required to purchase these properties and incur relocation costs of the residents. Based upon the relatively high number of residences involved, this option becomes significantly more costly than Alternative 1 . We did not pursue this option further. Auxiliary Gravity Outlet System This alternative involves construction of a gravity sewer outlet pipe, parallel to the existing 24" outlet pipe, from Hall's Pond to the Mississippi River. The existing outlet pipe is 24" RCP, 7,586 feet in length, and at a slope of 0.12%. Because Hall's Pond is at full capacity, the auxiliary outlet pipe would have to be sized to convey the proposed additional inflow to the pond. The additional peak inflow is estimated at 43.9 cfs. Based upon a computer model of the drainage, a gravity outlet alone will not convey the additional stormwater without increasing the pond elevation. We have estimated the cost for a 48" RCP pipe for discussion purposes only. 10 I! 5 Table IV -3 City of Otsego Auxiliary Gravity Outlet for Hall's Pond Cost Estimate Construction $769,472 Construction Contingency @ 10% 76,947 Overhead @ 20% 153,894 Total Project Cost $1,000,313 Lift Station with Forcemain A lift station with a forcemain could be utilized to pump the additional inflow from Hall's Pond to the Mississippi River. The lift station would be designed to pump the additional peak inflow to Hall's Pond. The forcemain would also be sized to handle the additional peak inflow flow. A 36" diameter forcemain would be required to convey the 20,000 gpm peak flow. The lift station would require four primary and one backup pump to provide adequate capacity to handle the additional peak flow. We have estimated the cost of this alternative as follows: Table IV -4 City of Otsego Hall's Pond Lift Station Estimated Costs Lift Station Structure with Pumps & Controls $200,000 Forcemain with Outlet Structure 845,000 Construction 1,045,000 Construction Contingency @ 10% 104,500 Overhead @ 20% 209,000 Total Estimated Project Cost $1,358,500 Review of Alternatives Based upon our review of the alternatives, pond excavation appears to be the most cost-effective means of expanding the storage capacity of the Hall's Pond area. Non -quantifiable 11 C implications, such as creation of a scenic park area and recreational benefits also make this a desirable alternative. The pond size, location, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit F. 6. MSA Participation for Stormwater Improvements The MSA participation for storm sewer improvements is based upon the percentage of area contributing to a storm sewer system vs. the ROW area contributing to the storm sewer system. MSA participates up to a maximum of 100%, and to a minimum of 55%. Because of the size of Hall's Pond Watershed in relation to the ROW, the minimum of 55% will be utilized for this project. Storm Sewer Assessment The City's assessment ordnance indicates that the cost for construction of storm sewers shall be assessed against the property in the area serviced by the sewer on the basis of equivalent square footage of the property. For the trunk facilities in 85th Street, and for the regional pond expansion, all properties who have the potential to access these facilities would be considered to be served by them. We have estimated that the area of benefit for the proposed trunk facilities is approximately 468.6 acres of land. This does not include existing or proposed ponding or easement areas. This also does not include City ROW areas for roads. Based on an MSA contribution of 55% of the trunk facility costs, a breakdown of costs was determined as follows: Table IV -5 City of Otsego Trunk Storm Sewer Facilities Hall's Pond Watershed Cost Estimate Required Item MSA Assessment Total 85th Street Trunk Facility $169,153 $138,397 $307,550 Regional Pond Expansion 143.000 117,000 260.000 Total $312,153 $255,397 $567,550 Based upon an assessment amount of $255,397 and an assessment acreage of 468.6, an assessment per acre of property was determined 12 0 E at $ 545.02. This equates to a cost per square foot of property of $0.013/SF. Projected Funding Balance Based upon our initial review of the project, we have prepared the following table: Table IV -6 City of Otsego 85th Street Project Projected Funding Balance Special Considerations - Storm Sewer The extra capacity provided by the proposed regional pond alone will not allow for the entire Hall's Pond Watershed District to be directly routed to the Hall's Pond area. We recommend several conditions or changes be made to the watershed to allow for construction of a functional system: 1. Area 51 (NW'/4 of the SWY4, Section 22) be diverted to the Lefebvre Watershed at the time this land is developed. 2. Areas 5G, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D continue to drain away from Hall's Pond for stormwater ponding. 3. A sub -regional pond be developed in area 3B (NW'/4 of the SW'/4, Section 21) to detain all stormwater from areas 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E. The pond will have an outlet to the 85th Street stormwater system, but the outflow will be at a reduced rate. 4. All presently undeveloped lands must pond the entire 100 year storm, and release at a reduced rate. We recommend reducing 13 Total MSA Assessment Item Cost cost Cos 85th Street Construction $1,403,480 $1,065,614 $337,866 85th Street Storm Sewer 307,550 1 69,1 53 138,397 Regional Pond Expansion 260.000 143.000 117,000 Project Totals $1,971,030 $1,377,767 $ 593,263 Special Considerations - Storm Sewer The extra capacity provided by the proposed regional pond alone will not allow for the entire Hall's Pond Watershed District to be directly routed to the Hall's Pond area. We recommend several conditions or changes be made to the watershed to allow for construction of a functional system: 1. Area 51 (NW'/4 of the SWY4, Section 22) be diverted to the Lefebvre Watershed at the time this land is developed. 2. Areas 5G, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D continue to drain away from Hall's Pond for stormwater ponding. 3. A sub -regional pond be developed in area 3B (NW'/4 of the SW'/4, Section 21) to detain all stormwater from areas 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E. The pond will have an outlet to the 85th Street stormwater system, but the outflow will be at a reduced rate. 4. All presently undeveloped lands must pond the entire 100 year storm, and release at a reduced rate. We recommend reducing 13 the outflow rate to twice the average annual rainfall amount, released over a six month period. This will ensure that the localized ponds do not flood and will lessen the impacts to the downstream storm sewer system. By implementing the above strategies, the proposed improvements to the Hall's Pond Watershed should provide a long term solution to the drainage problems in the area. Exhibit G depicts the proposed restrictions listed in Items 1 and 2 above. F. Sequencing of Improvements This report describes many improvements to the Hall's Pond Watershed area. The improvements vary from local, to sub -regional to regional in nature. Although there is no specific sequential order in which many of the improvements can be made, there is a general order which must be followed. Downstream improvements must be made prior to upstream improvements occurring. This will insure that downstream areas are not flooded due to the upstream improvements. A description of a portion of the required sequencing follows: The 85th Street Storm Sewer and regional pond expansion must be constructed prior to localized or sub -regional improvements. 2. The pond in area 3B must be constructed prior to any of the localized area 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E improvements. 3. Any localized improvements which will utilize downstream facilities cannot be constructed until the downstream facilities are in place. These restrictions may limit development of land within the Hall's Pond Watershed. G. Sub -Regional and Localized Improvements 1 . Pond in the NW'/4 of the SW'/4, Section 21 This pond is located in Subarea 3B of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The pond will be created around an existing wetland area and will serve to provide stormwater control for Subareas 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E. The pond will be created to provide stormwater retention of the entire 100 year storm runoff, and will release at 14 2 a rate of two times the average annual precipitation rate over a six month period. We have estimated the cost of this improvement as follows: Table IV -6 City of Otsego Sub -Regional Pond Construction Hall's Pond Watershed District 3B Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $249,700 Easement Acquisition 50,000 Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 62,425 Total Project Cost $362,125 The area of benefit for this project would include areas 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E. We have estimated the total area of benefit, less roadways ponds and easements, to be 196.87 acres. This yields a cost of $1,839.41 per acre, or a cost of $0.0422 per square foot. Pond location, easement area, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit H. Based on an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year payoff period, an annual cost of $274.13 per acre would be incurred. Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Improvements This is area 3A of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The 85th Street storm sewer improvements, the regional pond improvements and the sub -regional pond improvements in area 3B would have to be constructed prior to this improvement being implemented. The recommended improvements consist of constructing a drainage ditch west of and south of the existing platted lands to prevent direct off-site runoff from entering the platted properties. Localized ponds would be created south of and west of the platted lands to aid in buffering this stormwater flow. A stormwater collection pond would be created within the platted lands to collect stormwater to be discharged to the sub -regional 15 13 pond in area 3B. Storm sewer pipe would be utilized to connect the local ponds and also to connect the collection pond to the sub -regional pond. Improvements to the existing ditch system would also be required to direct flows from the platted lands to the collection pond. We have estimated the cost of these improvements as follows: Table IV -7 City of Otsego Area 3A Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $143,230 Easements 20,000 Overhead and Contingencies @ 25% 35,808 Total Project Cost $199,038 These improvements would benefit areas 3A and 3C. We have estimated the total area of benefit, less roadways, ponds, and easements to be 60.47 acres. This yields a cost of $3,291.52 per acre or $0.0756 per square foot. Pond locations, pipe size and locations, easement areas, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit I. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an annual cost of $490.54 per acre would be incurred. Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition East Improvements This is area 5H of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The regional pond expansion and the 85th Street Storm Sewer would have to be constructed prior to installation of this system. The recommended improvements consist of construction of a stormwater collection pond between Ogren Avenue and Packard Avenue. Storm Sewer pipe would convey water from this pond to the 85th Street system, and ultimately to the regional pond. Localized ditch grading and storm sewer pipe would be required to convey water to the collection pond. We have estimated the costs of these improvements as follows: 16 El Table IV -8 City of Otsego Area 5H Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $49,500 Easements 10,000 Overhead and Contingencies @ 25% 12,375 Total Project Cost $71,875 The area of benefit would be limited to area 5H of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of this sub- district, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 32.54 acres. This yields a cost of $2,208.82 per acre or $0.051 per square foot. Pond locations, pipe sizes and locations, easement areas, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit J. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an annual cost of $329.18 per acre would be incurred. Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition West Improvements This is area 4J of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The Regional Pond expansion and the 85th Street Storm Sewer system would have to be constructed prior to implementation of this system. This system would require utilization and protection of existing ponding areas within the subarea. An outlet pipe would be constructed from these ponding areas to the 85th Street storm sewer system and ultimately to the regional pond. Localized ditch grading would occur to direct flows to the local ponds and to the proposed storm sewer. We have estimated the costs of these improvements as follows: 17 5. Table IV -9 City of Otsego Area 4J Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item cost Construction $53,585 Easements 5,500 Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 13.396 Total Project Cost $72,481 The area of benefit would be limited to area 4J of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of this sub -district, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 31.55 acres. This yields a cost of $2,297.34 per acre and a cost of $0.053 per square foot. Pond locations, pipe sizes and locations, easement areas, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit K. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an annual cost of $342.37 per acre would be incurred. Area West of Otsego Acres 1 st Addition Improvements This is area 2C of the Stormwater Drainage Report. Improvements to areas 4D, 4F and 4G, as well as the 85th Street trunk system and the regional pond expansion would have to be completed prior to these improvements occurring. This area would also require complete ponding of the 100 year storm event for undeveloped portions of the subareas. This system would include construction of a stormwater retention pond and construction of an outlet from the pond. The outlet would discharge into Subarea 4D, and be conveyed to 85th Street and eventually to the regional pond. We have estimated the costs of these improvements as follows: 0 Table IV -10 City of Otsego Area 2C Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $55,860 Easements 10,000 Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 13,965 Total Project Cost $79,825 The area of benefit would be limited to area 2C of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of this subarea, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 35.69 acres. This yields a cost of $2,236.62 per acre or a cost of $0.0513 per square foot. Pond locations, pipe size and location, easement areas, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit L. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year payoff period, an annual payment of $333.32 per acre would be required. Area West of Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements This is area 4A of the Stormwater Drainage Report and also contains improvements to area 4K of the same report. The improvements to area 4F and 4G, as well as the 85th Street system and regional pond would have to be constructed prior to this system being installed. The improvements would consist of constructing a localized pond and protecting several other small ponding areas within the subdistricts. An outlet from the ponds would be constructed to discharge into Subarea 4F and eventually into the 85th Street storm sewer system and to the regional pond. We have estimated the cost of this system as follows: 19 7. Table IV -11 City of Otsego Area 4A and 4K Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $47,220 Easements 10,000 Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 11,805 Total Project Cost $69,025 The area of benefit would be limited to area 4A and 4K of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated acreage of these subareas, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 32.72 acres. This yields a cost of $2,109.57 per acre and a cost of $0.0484 per square foot. Pond locations, pipe size and location, easement area, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit M. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an annual payment of $314.39 per acre would be required. Otsego Acres and Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Improvements This is area 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4G of the Stormwater Drainage Report. This system will also serve to carry stormwater from areas 2C and 4A to the 85th Street Storm Sewer system and ultimately to the regional pond. The improvements to the 85th Street system and construction of the regional pond will be required prior to construction of this local system. The improvements will require protection and cleaning of existing drainage swales and ponding areas. Several stormwater collection ponds will be created to channel stormwater to a pipe system. The pipe system will carry stormwater from the collection ponds to 85th Street system and eventually to the regional pond. Inflow from areas 2C and 4A will be accounted for in the pipe system. We have estimated that the cost of this system will be as follows: 20 Table IV -12 City of Otsego Area 4C, 4D, 4E and 4G Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $135,250 Easements 12,500 Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 33.813 Total Project Cost $181,563 The area of benefit would include areas 2C, 4A, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4G. The combined estimated acreage of these subareas, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 157.08 acres. This yields a cost of $1,155.86 per acre or $0.0265 per square foot. Pond location, pipe size and location, easement areas, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit N. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an annual payment of $172.26 per acre would be required. Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Pond Improvements This is area 4B of the Stormwater Drainage Report. This system will outlet to the 85th Street system and will ultimately discharge to the regional pond. The 85th Street system and the regional pond will have to be constructed prior to this system being implemented. This system will consist of constructing a local pond system and related ditch work to convey water to the pond. We have estimated the cost of constructing this system as follows: 21 0 Table IV -13 City of Otsego Area 4B Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $16,500 Easements 5,000 Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 4,125 Total Project Cost $25,625 The area of benefit would be area 4B as shown in the Stormwater Drainage Report. The estimated area of Subdistrict 4B, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 19.64 acres. This yields a cost of $1,304.74 per acre or $0.030 per square foot. Pond locations, pipe size and location, easement area, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit 0. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8%, and a 10 year payoff period, an annual amount of $194.45 per acre would be incurred. Area 5A and 5B (North Odean Avenue) Improvements Areas 5A and 5B of the Stormwater Drainage Report are located adjacent to Odean Avenue, North of 85th Street. The system will discharge into Hall's Pond and is an improvement to the existing drainage system. The regional pond expansion should occur prior to this improvement to insure adequate storage is available at the Hall's Pond site. This system will consist of protecting and improving existing ponding areas and constructing a pipe system from the local ponds to the regional pond. The existing ditch system will be improved to carry stormwater runoff to the localized ponding areas. We have estimated the cost of this improvement as follows: 22 2 Table IV -14 City of Otsego Area 5A and 5B Drainage Improvements Cost Estimate Estimated Item Cost Construction $39,385 Easements 6,500 Overhead and Contingency @ 25% 9.846 Total Project Cost $55,731 The area of benefit would be areas 5A and 5B of the Stormwater Drainage Report. The total estimated area of 5A and 5B, less roadways, ponds, and easements, is 28.71 acres. This yields a cost of $1,941.17 per acre or $0.045 per square foot. Pond location, pipe size and location, easement areas, and area of benefit are depicted on Exhibit P. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year payoff period, an annual amount of $289.29 per acre would be incurred. Assessments for Sub -Regional and Local Improvements The improvements described in Section G provide benefit to local and sub -regional areas. We have analyzed two methods of assessments for these improvements. These alternatives for assessments are as described below: 1 . Direct Benefit Assessment This method would apply assessments directly against the areas which benefit from improvements. These are the areas described under each improvement detailed in Section G. This leads to an uneven assessment throughout the watershed. Areas farthest away from Hall's Pond would be assessed for all improvements between their properties and the regional pond. An analysis for local and sub -regional improvements is provided in Table IV -15. The areas shown correspond to the areas listed in the Stormwater Drainage Report. The assessment amount varies from $545 to $5,676, depending upon the distance from the regional pond. 23 K Uniform Assessment This alternative would utilize a uniform assessment rate for all improvements to areas tributary to the proposal regional pond. Areas 5A and 5B do not flow to the proposed regional pond and are not included in this analysis. The total estimated cost of the remainder of the improvements are depicted in Table IV -16. Based upon an estimated area of 468.6 acres, a uniform assessment of $2,810.40 per acre or $0.065 per square foot would be required to pay for the storm sewer improvements for areas tributary to the proposed regional pond. Based upon a uniform annual payment, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year payoff period, an annual payment of $418.83 per acre would be incurred. This includes all local improvements as well as costs for the 85th Street Storm Sewer and regional pond. The regional pond and 85th Street Storm Sewer will require an estimated $545.03 assessment per acre. Based on equal annual payments, an interest rate of 8% and a 10 year payoff period, an annual payment $81.23 per acre would be incurred. Table IV -16 City of Otsego Assessment Alternative #2 Uniform Assessment Estimated Improvement Cost - Regional Pond $117,000 85th Street Storm Sewer 138,397 Pond in NW'/4 of the SW'/4 of Section 21 362,125 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition 199,038 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition East 71,875 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 2nd Addition West 72,481 Area West of Otsego Acres 1 st Addition 79,825 Area West of Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 69,026 Otsego Acres and Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 181,563 Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates 3rd Addition Pond 25,625 Total $1,316,954 24 Table IV -15 City of Otsego Assessment Alternative #2 Direct Benefit Assessment 25 Sub- Otsego Reg. Trunk Regional Acres & Vasseur's Pond Storm Pond Vasseur's Vasseur's Vasseur's Area W Area W of Vasseur's Oak Grove Near Sewer located Oak Grove Oak Grove Oak Grove of Otsego Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates Areas Total Hall's Facility in Sub- Estates Estates Estates Acres 1 st Oak Grove North 3rd Add 5A & 5B per Subarea Pond 85th St Dist 3B 3rd Add 2nd Add E 2nd Add W Addition Estates Pond Ave N Odean Subarea 2C ... $249.68. $295.35 ......................................... $2,236.62 ........... $1,155.86 ........................ $3,937.51 3A ... $249.68. $295.35 $1,839.41 $3,291.52............................................................................ $5,675.96 3B ...$249.68. $295.35 $1,839.41..................................................................................... $2,384.44 3C ... $249.68. $295.35 $1,839.41 $3,291.52............................................................................ $5,675.96 3D ...$249.68. $295.35 $1,839.41..................................................................................... $2,384.44 3E ...$249.68. $295.35 $1,839.41..................................................................................... $2,384.44 4A ... $249.68. $295.35 ................................................... $2,109.57 . $1,155.86 ........................ $3,810.46 4B ...$249.68. $295.35 ........................................................................ $1,304.74............. $1,849.77 4C ...$249.68. $295.35 ............................................................. $1,155.86 ........................ $1,700.89 4D ...$249.68. $295.35 ............................................................. $1,155.86 ........................ $1,700.89 4E ...$249.68. $295.35 ............................................................. $1,155.86 ........................ $1,700.89 4F ...$249.68. $295.35 ............................................................. $1,155.86 ........................ $1,700.89 4G ...$249.68. $295.35 ............................................................. $1,155.86 ........................ $1,700.89 4H...$249.68. $295.35 ............................................................................................... $545.03 41 ...$249.68. $295.35 ............................................................................................... $545.03 4J ...$249.68. $295.35 ................................ $2,297.34..................................................... $2,842.37 4K ...$249.68. $295.35 ................................................... $2,109.57.................................. $2,654.60 5A....................................................................................................... $1,941.17. $1,941.17 5B....................................................................................................... $1,941.17. $1,941.17 5H ...$249.68 . $295.35 .................... $2,208.82................................................................ $2,753.85 25 V VI PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule would allow for project construction to begin in 1997 and be completed in 1998: Event Accept Feasibility Study & Order Survey Work Hold Public Hearing Order Plans and Specifications Accept Plans and Order Bids Accept Bids and Award Contract Begin Construction Suspend Construction Resume Construction End Construction Hold Assessment Hearing CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Date September 23, 1996 November 12, 1996 November 25, 1996 April, 1997 May, 1997 June, 1997 November, 1997 May, 1998 August, 1998 October, 1998 This report analyzed the feasibility of reconstructing 85th Street from Page Avenue to Nashua Avenue to meet Municipal State Aid (MSA) Standards. Stormwater drainage within the Hall's Pond watershed was also reviewed. The 85th Street storm sewer will serve as a trunk facility for that watershed. The improvement is technically feasible as described in this report. Reconstruction of 85th Street is necessary due to the recent structural deterioration of the existing pavement section. Potential development in the area may tax the capacity of the existing roadway, which makes the improvement desirable. The project would be funded by assessments and by MSA funding. The project appears to be cost-effective if an advancement of MSA construction funds is obtained by the City. The estimated MSA funds available are slightly less than estimate construction contribution required of the MSA account. The MSA funds available were estimated conservatively, and may exceed the amount listed. We recommend that this study be forwarded to an appraiser for review of the assessment amounts recommended in this report. The appraiser should determine if the proposed assessment amounts are equivalent to or less than the benefit of the improvement. The storm sewer system improvements to be made in conjunction with this project include oversizing the 85th Street storm sewer to serve as a trunk facility and construction of a regional pond to allow for added capacity to the 26 Hall's Pond area. Both storm sewer improvements would be best made in conjunction with the 85th Street reconstruction project. Improvements to sub -regional and local storm sewer improvements within the Hall's Pond Watershed were reviewed. Methods of assessments for these improvements were discussed. The City should determine a fair and equitable assessment policy for these improvements. 4 27 ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX A 3N1� J.1�13d0�1d In N N 3N1 -I .,i�J3dO�jd W W' LJ F- F- W � Q Z U � O � U pp m ry CD =D m U 1 1 L Q p 0 _ o CLU ¢ o a co Elf_0 v a� o O lV)� = N W J X - W � O m 0 Q W m W t-- W Z x Q W L(U L N d. Ci L N W o z af w�} o Q 0 o r' m E- iw N D W Q LLo W CN Z O O C° m C� O o W 0 o t ZW LLJ m O 0 Q J ¢ - Z CD W u �1 - N � Ln m N (n V) C/)O Z Cm Q � Q N U � J �p Z QLn Q U C7 N — N n N 3N1 -I .,i�J3dO�jd W W' LJ F- F- W � Q Z U � O � U pp m ry CD =D m U 1 1 Q p 0 _ o CLU ¢ o a co Elf_0 v a� o D lV)� = N X Q LLJ =QQ � O m W i ¢' o a) t-- W O m y�� x Q W L(U L N L N MININIRIMMI oa vll1:�►�,.:�ill �' �..M r"lI \Lr\ VI Lj l_I ILI I I EXHIBIT H SUB -REGIONAL POND IN AREA 3B AND AREA OF BENEFIT 800 0 800 1600 SCALE IN FEET Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave. Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 11I\Ln VI ULI`!LI I I 800 0 800 1600 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT I AREA 3A STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave. Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 600 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT J AREA 5H STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 NT 600 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT K AREA 4J STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,inc. Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 /—\I\L_/'1 VI UCIVCF I I 600 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT L AREA 2C STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson 7 Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors L Landscape Archrtects 3601 Thurston Ave, Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 !'1I\L—!'N vi L>L— INLI I I 600 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT M AREA 4A AND 4K STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors L Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 1"1%f\CP-1 Ur pCIVCr l l 600 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT N AREA 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, AND 4G STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 AREA OF BENEFIT 800 0 800 1600 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT 0 AREA 4B STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors R Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 600 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT P AREA 5A AND 513 STORM SEWER AND AREA OF BENEFIT Hakanson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. Engineers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects 3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-0520 APPENDIX B RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDERING ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY WORK ON AN IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the council adopted April 8, 1996, a report has been prepared by Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. with reference to the improvement of 85th Street between Page Avenue and a point 700 feet east of Nashua Avenue, and this report was received by the Council on September 23, 1996, and, WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective and feasible, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA: 1 . The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of both abutting and non -abutting properties as detailed in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of $1 ,971 ,030. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the day of , 1996, in the council chambers of the city hall at p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. The engineer, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., shall proceed with obtaining additional information related to the project to include the following: A. Obtain an appraiser to review the proposed assessments and comment as to the relative benefit to the properties. B. Perform soil test borings along the length of the roadway. C. Obtain entry rights to the area of the regional pond and perform soil test borings in this area. D. Perform field survey work necessary for preparation of plans and specifications for the proposed improvement. Adopted by the council this day of Norm F. Freske, Mayor 1996. Elaine Beatty, Clerk CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT. MEETING DATE COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE SEPTEMBER 23,1996 ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY 9.1 DAN GREENE, REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE 1996/97 GENERAL LIABIfITY INSURANCE PROPOSAL P.COKL Y The City's Comprehensive Municipal Property and Casualty Insurance Policy is due for renewal effective September 25, 1996. Dan Greene, First National Insurance has received quotes for the coverages necessary and as in years past, the League Of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has provide the best coverage at the best price. The following is a premium summary comparison for the last three policy years. COVERAGE 1996/1997 1995/1996 1994/1995 Property $ 2,278 $ 2,187 $ 2,055 Inland Marine 676 483 545 Municipal Liability 10,362 9,815 9,690 Automobile Liability 741 840 850 UM/UIM 50 inc. 55 Auto Physical Damage 1,027 751 741 Crime 83 413 91 Bonds 324 inc. 381 Open Meeting Law TOTAL $16,041 $14,989 $14,908 Workers Compensation 4,489 5,649 6,139 The renewal premium quote is based on a $1000 deductible, just as last year. The property values have increased approximately 6% to maintain the replacement coverage values, therefore, a property premium increase. The Inland Marine coverage has increased $193 because of additional equipment. The Municipal liability has increased $547 due to city expenditure increases. Municipal bond coverage is included in the comprehensive property and casualty insurance package. I would also like to point out the dividend advantage of the LMCI T. The City has received a $2,022 dividend in 1995, a $1,415 dividend in 1994, a $880 dividend in 1993, and a $175 dividend in 1992. A dividend is also anticipated for 1996. I have also attached for your review the workers compensation renewal information page, with comparisons to last year's payroll, rates, premium and experience modification rate. Dan Greene has also included for your reference and comparison, rates from other workers compensation insurance carriers. The major factor in the reduction of the workers compensation premium is the rate reduction for covered workers. Mr. Dan Greene will be present to review the insurance proposal with you and answer any questions you may have regarding the City's proposed coverages. It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Comprehensive Municipal Property and Casualty Coverage as provided by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. "--�Mc Laague of Minn"ota Citi" Cid" promoting e=Janea Dan or Sandy Greene First National Ins. 716 Main St. # 107 Elk River, MN 55330 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (612) 281-1200 - (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 - TDD (612) 281-1290 Date: August 13, 1996 Re: City of Ostego Eff. Date: 9/25/96 RENEWAL PREMIUM SUMMARY AND BINDER THIS YR. *Property $2,278. *Inland Marine *Municipal Liability *Automobile Liability *UM/UIM *Automobile Physical Damage *Crime *Bonds Open Meeting Law TOTAL *Deductible: $1 , 000 - peqer-r7 WORKERS COMPENSATION 676. 10,362. 741. 50. 1,027. 83. 324. 500, LAST YR. $2,187. 483. 9,815. 840. INCL. 751. 413. INCL. 500 $16,041. $14,989. $4,489. $5,649. League of Minnesota Cities insurance Trust Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan r Administrator Berkley Administrators e member of the Berkley Risk Management Services Group P.O. Box 59143 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0143 Phone (612) 544-0311 Self-Imured Workers' Compensation Quotation (RENEWAL of Agreement No. 02-000875-4) OTSEGO VACATION, SICK PAY, HOLIDAY PAY IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS. 07/01/1996 07/01/1997 ESTIMATED DEPOSIT CODE PATE PAYROLL PREMIUM STPEET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE 5506 4.36 34444. 4104. CLERICAL 821' o.44 156333. 688. S1:ATING RINK OPERATION 90'-6 a.35 3333. 78. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P410 i.?5 13733. 172. ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS ?411 0.47 37778. 178. Manual Premium 520. Experience !''Modification 0.36 Standard ='remium 4489• .Managed Care Credit 0% 0. Deductible Credit 0% {'• Premium Di=_coUnt 0. Discounted Standard Premium 4429. LMC Insurance Trust Discount 0% `?. Net Denosit ;-7emi"m 442J, OPTIONAL RATES: POOL TRI STATE FUND MICH PHY OLD CODE 5506 15:0711.67 T1.68 12.27 7.20 CODE 8810 .39 .37 .30 .21 .65 CODE 9016 3.92 3.15 2.91 3.06 3.76 CODE 9410 3.08 2.58 2.38 2.51 2.16 CODE 9411 N/A N/A N/A N/A .69 VACATION, SICK PAY, HOLIDAY PAY IS INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Agreement Administrator Berkley Administrators a member of the Berkley Risk Management Services Group P.O. Box 59143 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0143 Phone (612) 544-0311 Information Page RENEWAL 1. The "City" OTSEGO 8899 NASHUA AVE N E ELK RIVER MN 55330-0000 2. The Agreement period is from 12:01 a.m. 07/01/1995 to 12:01 a.m address. Agreement No. 02-000875-4 "City" is: Xcity Joint Powers Entity Other (describe) 07/01/1996 at the "City's" 3. A. Workers' Compensation Coverage: Part One of the Agreement applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of any state of the United States of America and the District of Columbia. B. Employers Liability Coverage: Part Two of the Agreement applies to work in each state listed in item 3.A. The limits of our liability under Part Two are: Bodily Injury -Each Claimant $200,000. Bodily Injury -Each Occurrence $600,000. Bodily Injury by Disease -Agreement Limit $600,000. C. This Agreement includes these amendments and schedules: 4. Retro -rating option selected? NOT APPLICABLE 5. Elected Officials Covered? YES Boards and Commissions Covered (List) NONE 6. The premium for this Agreement will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit. PREMIUM BASIS ESTI- RATES ENTRIES IN THIS ITEM, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED ESTIMATED MATED TOTAL PER $100 OF CODE ELSEWHERE IN THIS AGREEMENT; DO NOT MODIFY ANY OF THE ANNUAL ANNUAL REMUNERATION I REMUNERATION NO. OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. PREMIUM 85000. 7.20 170000. 0.65 36000. 0.69 AGENT F-416021790 FIRST NATL INS AGCY 729 MAIN STREET ELK RIVER, MN BA 467CG (12/92) 55330 5506 STREET CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE 6120. 8810 CLERICAL 1105. 9411 ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS 248. Manual Premium 7473. 10'% Sick, Holiday, & Vacation Allowance 747• Adj. Manual Premium 6726. Experience Modification 0.85 Standard Premium 5717. Managed Care Credit 0% 0• Deductible Credit 0% Premium Discount 0• 68. 0.00 Discounted Standard Premium 5649. LMC Insurance Trust Discount 0'/ 0• Net Deposit Premium 5649. DATE _05-rt0 /? CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT. MEETING DATE COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE SEPTEMBER 23,1996 ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY 9.2 CONSIDER IMPLEMENTATION OF A MANAGED CARE PLAN FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION INJURIES P.COKLEY The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust recognizes the importance of managing the care of work-related injuries, therefore, they have increased their workers' compensation premium reduction from 5% to 10% for cities participating in a managed care program. The City of Otsego's 1996/1997 workers' compensation premium is $4,489. The savings in the premium warrants consideration of implementation of a workers' compensation managed care plan. Managed care providers must be certified by the State of Minnesota in the providing of workers' compensation managed care services for employers. The key components of the program include a select, credentialed provider network, medical case management, bill review in accordance with medical treatment guidelines, and employer/employee support and education. Most health care providers are certified by the State of Minnesota as managed care providers. Information from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust indicates that there are approximately 10 different providers certified by the State of Minnesota. I have received quotations from four certified providers and will be prepared to discuss the services of each provider and the costs associated with implementation of managed care at the city council meeting. Costs are only incurred if there is an injury and are based on the level of the injury. If the injury is minor, managed care is not implemented and there is no further costs. The purpose of managed care is to manage the costs, manage the care, and return the injured worker back to work as soon as possible. It is recommended that the City Council review the benefits of managed care, the costs associated, the premium savings, and consider implementation of a managed care plan for workers' compensation. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Norman F. Freske Councilmember Suzanne Ackerman Councilmember Ron Black Councilmember Larry Fournier Councilmember Vern Heidner FROM: Phyllis Cokley, Finance Direct DATE: September 23, 1996 SUBJECT: Managed Care Supplemental Information What is managed care for workers'compensation? Managed care is a comprehensive program for managing work-related injuries and illnesses, authorized by workers' compensation laws and offered by various health insurance organizations. It consists of a network of medical providers committed to providing high-quality, cost-effective care to employees who have work-related injuries or illnesses. The goal is to effectively manage medical care and return the injured employee back to work. A managed care program includes: 1) A preferred provider network that includes occupational medicine, primary care and a broad range of other medical specialists. 2) Early referral to appropriate participating providers through a 24 hour medical information and referral service. 3) Utilization review and case management to coordinate the delivery of medically necessary, appropriate, and cost-effective care. 4) Coordination of return -to -work initiatives with employers to keep the employee on the job, or return the employee to work as quickly as possible. 5) Account services staff skilled in program implementation, employee/employer training, and ongoing client support, including bill review. Minnesota worker's compensation managed care rules require participating providers to: 1) Assess the injured employee within 24 hours of employee's initial request. 2. Provide an initial evaluation within five working days of an employee's request for a change of provider when transferring care from a non -network provider. 3) Comply with treatment parameters established by the State of Minnesota. 4) Agree to comply with the Managed Care Plan's utilization review, peer review, dispute resolution, billing and reporting procedures. 5) Agree to comply with communication requirements as established by the State (Workability form) and by the Managed Care Plan's compensation services. 6) Accept as payment in full, reimbursement for compensable and medically appropriate services, in accordance with the fee schedule developed by the State of Minnesota. Four quotes received: The four Managed Care providers that I received quotes from are; Medica, Comprehensive Care, Preferred Work Care, and HealthPartners. Mork Clinic, Elk River is a provider in the network of all but the Comprehensive Care organization. Mork Clinic appears to be the clinic employees have chosen when there was an injury while working for the city. The following is a brief outline of the fee schedule for each of the four organizations that I contacted. Medica $95 per case for medical only claims - requires more than one visit. Set up in system, injury that does not need ongoing care beyond initial visit - no charges. $550 per case for more than three days lost time. Preferred Work Care One time enrollment fee of $100.00 - includes implementation materials, enrollment information, I.D. cards, and employer/employee training. $15 per injury if case management is waived. $35 per case, medical only for 90 days - hourly rate thereafter. $125 per case, medical with restrictions for 180 days - hourly rate thereafter. $295 per case, loss work time for 180 days - hourly rate thereafter. $9 - bill review. $90 - $100 hourly rate. HealthPartners $50 - one time fee for group installation. $50 per case, medical only. $350 per case, loss work time. Comprehensive Care One time fee of $100 - will be returned in the form of credits against monthly fees over $100 during first year. $9 per medical bill processed. $77 per hour for all non -physician services. $90 per hour for all staff physicians. Benefits: The city will receive a 10% reduction in their workers' compensation premium if a managed care program is implemented. The benefits of managed care also include appropriate care and management of the injury for the employee and management of the claim for the employer. This reduction could be used in managed care fees if there is a number of injuries sustained by employees, although, the city's workers' compensation claim history has been very favorable, without any serious injuries. Recommendation: It is my recommendation that the 10% reduction in the city's workers' compensation premium warrants the implementation of a managed care program for the city. The benefits the employee and city will receive should an injury occur, out weigh the cost of the program. The Managed Care Providers that I contacted are certified by the State of Minnesota and provide comprehensive services in the area of managed care for workers' compensation. Preferred Work Care appears to provide the most breakdown in costs, therefore, may be the most manageable in normal non -serious injuries. It is my recommendation that the city authorize implementation of a managed care program with Preferred Work Care as the managed care provider. _ ry RRTn r.. M - I- N- N- E - S - O- T- A Dear City Official: TaC7F=0WE SEP 13 1996 I 1 I wish to extend a cordial invitation to attend the League of Minnesota Cities Regional Meeting hosted by the City of Watertown at the Watertown City Hall/Community Center. The afternoon program begins at 2:00 p.m. You will hear presentations on new League of Minnesota Cities programs --Lease Purchase, Ambassadors, On -Line Services, Home Page, 4M Fund and 4M PLATS Fund. You will also learn how claims against cities are handled by LMCIT. A program schedule is enclosed. ' The afternoon program will conclude by 5:00 p.m., followed by a social hour. Dinner will be served at 6:00 p.m. with the evening program scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. Following a welcome to our city, LMC President Blaine Hill, Breckenridge Clerk -Treasurer, will address the audience regarding the organization's focus for the up coming year. The evening program will focus on local control of right-of-ways, property tax reform, and Minnesota Elections 96. To make reservations for your city, please return the enclosed registration form as soon as possible. In case of cancellations, please notify Michael A. Ericson at (612) 955-2681 or (metro line) 446-1711 by October 11, 1996. Unless registrations are canceled, it will be necessary to bill your city for those who did not attend and did not cancel. If anyone from your city requires special accommodations or has special dietary needs, please advise us in advance so special arrangements can be made. I look forward to seeing you on October 17, 1996. Sincerely, oLt Q Norman A. Bauer Mayor of Watertown enclosures HEART OF THE LUCE LINE TRAIL 309 Lewis Avenue South. P.O. Box 279, Watertown, Minnesota 55388 Telephone (612) 955-2681, Metro Line 446-1711 FAX (612) 446.1701 _ryF,RTnr'&. M - I - N N - E - S . O - T - A REGISTRATION FORM We will have city officials attending the regional meeting in Watertown and we agree to pay for these meals unless the host city is notified of any changes by October 11, 1996. NAMES/TITLES OF PERSONS ATTENDING: (Please furnish names of people attending so that name tags can be prepared). — Persons making reservation(s): CITY: *Number of attendees Number of attendees PHONE: ( ) x $15.00 registration fee = x $9.00 dinner = TOTAL PAYMENT ENCLOSED $ Please make checks payable to City of Watertown and return with registration form to: Michael A. Ericson City Administrator P.O. Box 278 309 Lewis Ave S Watertown, MN 55388 $15.00 registration fee applies only to the first ten registrants. There is no charge for more than 10 registrations from one city. HEART OF THE LUCE LINE TRAIL 309 Lewis Avenue South, P.O. Box 279, Watertown, Minnesota 33388 Telephone (612) 955.2681, Metro Line 446.1711 FAX (612) 446.1701 J M/C 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Loarw of Min„eroM 0f es Phone: (612) 281-1200 - (800) 925-1122 Cieim PMOO&9 wMuca Fax: (612) 281-1299 - TDD (612) 281-1290 1996 REGIONAL MEETING PROGRAM AFTERNOON PROGRAM 2:00-2:30 p.m. "I'M GOING TO SUE YOU " How claims against cities are handled League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Staff 2:30-3:00 p.m. WHATS NEW. How the League's Home Page, Ambassadors Program, Investment Programs (the 4M Fund and the new 4M Plus Fund) and other new League services will benefit your city. League of Minnesota Cities Staff 3:00-3:15 p.m. Break 3:15- 4:00 p.m. WHAT'S DUE. ARE WE PAYING TOO MUCH? An explanation of the sales tax on cities with an emphasis on what purchases are exempt. Minnesota State Department of Revenue Staff 4:00-5:00 p.m. AROUND THE TABLE. Each city presents its latest accomplishments Tom Thelen, Field Representative, League of Minnesota Cities 5:00-6:00 p.m. SOCIAL HOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE AFTERNOON PRESENTERS AND TO INTERACT WITH OFFICIALS FROM OTHER CITIES. 6:00-7:00 p.m. Dinner EVENING PROGRAM 7:00-7:15 p.m. INTRODUCTION Jim Miller, Executive Director, League of Minnesota Cities BOARD OF DIRECTORS REMARKS WELCOME Host City Mayor 7:15-8:30 p.m. LOCAL CONTROL. View the video on whether cities will retain control over their rights of way. Will property tax reform diminish the ability of cities to provide services? Tips for bringing the impact on cities of these and other MINNESOTA ELECTION 96 ISSUES to the attention of national and state candidates. Gary Carlson, Director, Intergovernmental Relations Sharon Klumpp, Associate Executive Director, League of Minnesota Cities 8:30-9:00 p.m. OFFICIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. What kinds of business transactions between a councilmember and the city are legal, illegal or unwise. 9:00 P.M. Adjourn AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER L� To Hwy. 1 ZG atertown .n Population 2,459 WA p Jew lr Hqh School and Mdd1° Sc t� y N �y `o �, `� 1► S0 V0 C,4/.b tiya'' �'F•. To Hwy j Fad qf, w I c tit w TOH qv£ 4 SE c,� .oa `�•f `�' Sf y � c,�j �e' z C `' "►y •9 O � f' w �f St_ z �ti Tr LES / y o F '7 fit,/,�° .iy o LA C ' NIXON AVE . N� S f .ry tiF ,� y �F Riversldo.Twracs l`i�•r0 Y� Mobile Home Park Lnti C�/cry Site of New 0 '�' �.'o Softball Fields To Hwy. 7 • .� N �• N �' P HuntAf DrtvA :+ (i SUGARBUSH ADDITION N C J z, i rn s L i -_ L f C, r i C.vz; I CLAIM TOTAL 3 FeR wl !AT P�PP 99E 4 BANK OF ELK RIVER PRINCIPAL AND INT. -WATER REV.BONDS 09/19/96 1830 28,155.00 7 Ne .Y. U RECYlbL'i2v;...N�"-'l- 25 2' Q5E47 -coi, ev- F, 'fix4 PPLI AP W- At ?4 ee CORROW TRUCKING 6A RECYCLING SERVICES 09/19/96 1835 1,156.25 12 CUB FOODS FOOD FOR HERITAGE DAYS 09/19/96 1836 :100.00 13 r -Ar _41; zm lix ik'92 :4 1 jA838� N� 5 4% 1. ELK RIVER AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBERSHIP 09/19/96 1840 180.00 ELK RIVER FLORAL FUNERAL ARRANGEMENT 09/19/96 1841 57.75 :7 20 LONG & SONS AUGUST CLEANING 09/19/96 1844 867.98 231 24 MINNESOTA MUTUAL OCTOBER PREMIUM -LIFE & STD 09/19/96 1845 164.20 Z5 NAN,", Mi r ".Plf .1; N f 111, Ad ml�� Rm 2 211. PITNEY BOWES RENTAL -POSTAGE METER 09/19/96 1847 171.73 29 DALE SAMPSON HORSE & WAGON -APPRECIATION DAYS 09/19/96 1848 50.00 aar 149/9-6 '5'3 WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT SIGNS 09/11" 8 277.83 WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURER MAILING LABELS-ASSESS.HEARING 09/19/96 1854 24.00 37 PC rM4 38 . - AO 41 RADZWILL LAW OFFICE AUGUST LEGAL SERVICES 09/19/96 1857 3,956.52 42 43 44 XUA M awd 43 A7 4a 49 so Wlll� I ml 53 54 '3 RIP 7" PMV BANK OF ELK RIVER ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST TOTAL YEAR TO DATE Claims Licit fol Approval CLAIM TOTAL oiirusT ENGINEERING SERVICES — " o ion 1 A SQ FED.WITH,SS,MEDICARE-MONTHLY 9/7/96 09/19/96 1862 PAY PERIOD 9/7/96 .-,..v n MTnn crmnFn 9/7/96 C� J 09/19/96 1863 09/19/96 1864 X67,9�11 6 3/a, 7/ 3,159.34 474.36 125.00 444 176.