City Council Agenda Packet 05-11-1998
,.
.
.
Mayor: Bill Fair
AGEN A
REGULAR MEETING. MON ICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 11 1998. 7 p.m.
Council Members: Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, R ger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
1. Call to order.
2.
A.
Approval of minutes of the special eeting held April 27, 1998.
B. Approval of minutes of the regular eting held April 27, 1998.
C. Approval of minutes of the special eting held May 4, 1998.
3. Consideration of adding itemli to the agend .
4. Citizens comments, petitions, requests, an
5. Consent agenda.
A.
B.
@
D.
@
C9
Consideration of a resolution adop ing assessment agreement, accepting bids, and
awarding contract - Resurrection hurch and Methodist Church utility extension.
Consideration of beginning orname tal fencing of Hillside Cemetery.
Consideration of change order #13 for Project 93-14C, Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion (extension of inte ior completion time limit).
Consideration of approval of [mal lat and development agreement for Klein Farms
Estates III.
Consideration of a conditional use ermit allowing open sales as an accessory use
in the B-4, Regional Business Dist ict. Location: 101 West Broadway, Lots 9 &
10, Block 52 Original Plat. Applic nt: Scott Rolfe, Skippers Pool's and Spas.
Consideration of a request for a s' pIe subdivision within the R-l zoning district
to create two single family lots fro one existing parcel. Applicant: Daryl Tindle.
Consideration of a zoning map a ndment from Agricultural to PS (Public/Semi
Public Use) and consideration of a conditional use permit within the PS Zoning
District to allow a church facility. ocation: The SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 13. Applicant: United Me hodist Church.
G.
.
.
.
Agenda
Monticello City Council
May 11, 1998
Page 2
H. Consideration of a request for a con itional use permit within the PZM zoning
district for a concept plan approval fa 60-unit townhouse development.
Applicant: Star City Builders.
I. Consideration of a preliminary plat. nd a conditional use permit for an R-PUD in
an R-2 (single and two family reside tial) zone. Location: Lot 7, 8, 9, and 10,
Block 8, Original Plat. Applicant: ichael Cyr d.b.a. Front Porch Association.
J. Consideration of River Mill 4th Ad ition preliminary and [mal plat. Applicant:
Residential Development, Inc.
K-. S~ \:.0\.....
6. Consideration of items removed from the c nsent agenda for discussion.
7. Review options for development of 7th Str et and utilities adjacent to the St. Henry's
Church site.
8.
Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan A ndment for the South and West growth areas
adjacent to the City of Monticello. Applica t: City of Monticello.
9.
l~
Consideration of bills for the frrst half of ay, 1998.
<d \t 0 Y ~D >1 ott~l f ~ ~ tt-c. C AJ;~ f)
Aajo~rnment. . , -. U
.
.
.
MIND ES
SPECIAL MEETING. MON ICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 27, 998 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Bill Fair, Brian Stumpf, Rog r Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent:
Clint Herbst
A special meeting of the City Council was held for the purpose of discussing general items as
brought forward by Council members and/or City taff. Items discussed were as follows:
1. Viewed a portion of the video tape of the pril13 Council meeting.
2. Public Works Director John Simola review d which streets will need reconstruction
during the next five years and noted that th Council would be reviewing the assessment
policy in the near future prior to beginning he reconstruction projects.
3. Public Works Director John Simola report d that the 1960 lighting system in the
downtown area will need replacing in the n ar future.
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reques ed that Council review the Project Priority
Listing and record any items they would . e added. The listing will be discussed at the
special Council meeting scheduled for Ma 14, 1998.
4.
5. Mayor Bill Fair requested that staff investi ate the possibility of utilizing a Sentenced to
Serve crew for special projects. The total ost to operate a crew is $52,000 per year, of
which the State pays half. Mayor Fair sug ested that staff check with surrounding cities
to see if one of them would be interested' sharing the cost of a crew.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO
ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING. Motion carr' d unanimously.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
;lit
.
MINUT S
REGUI..AR MEETING - MONT CELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 27, 1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present:
Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, Brian tumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent:
None
2.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMP AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGUL MEETING HELD APRIL 13, 1998, AS
WRITTEN. Voting in favor: Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Bruce Thielen.
Abstaining: Roger Carlson. Motion carrie .
- P.
3.
A.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY BRUCE
THIELEN TO ADD THIS ITEM TO HE CONSENT AGENDA. Motion carried
unanimously.
.
4.
n
None.
5. Consent agenda.
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox Inn, Inc. - Chin Yuen
3. Monticello Recreation db Joyner Lanes
4. GAGA RANI Corporatio dba Comfort Inn
5. PO River Alliance dba lP 's Annex
6. Hawks Sports Bar & Gri , Inc.
. Recommendation:
A.
i r
Approve the following annual mu icipallicenses:
Intoxicatine I,ll;lJlor. On-sale (fee
.
P ge 1
~&
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 4/27/98
(fee $200--set by statute)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor, Inc.
2. Silver Fox
3. Joyner Lanes
4. VFW Club
5. American Legion Club
6. lP.'s Annex
7. Hawks Sports Bar
8. Comfort Inn
Non-intoxicatine Malt. On-sale
1. Rod and Gun (Steak Fry 0 ly)
2. Pizza Factory
3. Country Club
Non-intoxicatine Malt. Off-sale (ti e $75)
Renewals
1. Monticello Liquor
2. Maus Foods
3. River Terrace
4. Tom Thumb
5. Holiday Stationstore
6. SuperAmerica
Set-up License (fee $275)
1. Country Club
2. Rod and Gun (steak fry onl )
Club Licenses (fee--set by statute ased on membership)
1. VFW - $500
2. American Legion - $500
B.
Pag 2 c:2. 8
.
C.
. 6.
Council Minutes - 4/27/98
D.
E.
F. n f . F 2n Ai' n Pr .
Recommendation: Accept the Kle Farms 2nd Addition as constructed and
initiate the warranty period. Accept nce is contingent upon all appropriate fees
being paid to the City.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER CARL ON AND SECONDED BY BRIAN STUMPF TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RE OMMENDED. Motion carried unanimously.
7. P i r i f
certification to County Auditor.
.
City Administrator Rick Wolfsteller repor d that the proposed assessment roll included
utility billing accounts which are delinque more than 60 days and also included the
additional $25 administration fee for prep ation of the assessment roll. It was
recommended that the assessment roll be ertified in 1999 at an interest rate of 8% as
allowed by state statute.
Counci1member Brian Stumpf suggested t at staff investigate creating a late charge
schedule such as $25 per $100 for the de' quent accounts.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STU PF AND SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
DIRECT STAFF TO CREATE A LATE CH GE SCHEDULE FOR DELINQUENT
ACCOUNTS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW. M tion carried unanimously.
Mayor Fair opened the public hearing. T ere being no public comment, the public hearing
was closed.
Pa e3
~
.
.
.
8.
Council Minutes - 4/27/98
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED BY BRUCE THIELEN TO
ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR DEL QUENT ACCOUNTS AS PRESENTED.
Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLD
Chief Building Official Fred Patch reported hat Glen posusta, owner of Amax Self
Storage, has appealed the Planning Commis ion's denial for a variance to allow barbed
wire to be installed on top of a 6-ft high ch link security fence. Planning Commission's
denial was based on the fmding that barbed ire was inconsistent with the ordinance,
which prohibits fences constructed of barbe wire, razor ribbon, electric fences, and the
like; however, the ordinance does provide t r additional security on commercial and
industrial properties by allowing chain link nces up to 10ft in height.
Mr. Glen posusta stated that one of the ma' reasons for installing the barbed wire would
be to give his customers additional security for the valuables being stored in his facility. A
wrought iron fence was proposed to be inst ed along Dundas Road and along future
Cedar Street when those improvements are made.
Council discussed the current ordinance la guage, and it was noted that a hardship must
be proven in order for a variance to be gra ted. The owner had indicated that security is
not currently a problem. Councilmember erbst noted that it was his understanding that
prohibiting barbed wire fences was more fi r residential areas rather than commercial and
industrial areas.
AFfER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS M DE BY BRIAN STUMPF AND SECONDED BY
BRUCE THIELEN TO DENY THE V ARlAN E BASED ON THE FINDING THAT ADDING
BARBED WIRE TO THE CHAIN LINK FEN E IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT
ORDINANCE AND A UNIQUE CONDITIO OR HARDSHIP HAD NOT BEEN
DEMONSTRATED. Voting in favor: Bill air, Brian Stumpf, Bruce Thielen, Roger
Carlson. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Motio carried.
9.
City Planner Steve Grittman reported tha the City has adopted the text of a new zoning
district intended to implement the objecti es of the downtown revitalization plan, and it
was requested that Council consider rezo ing a portion of the downtown area to CCD,
Pa e4
~8
.
.
.
Council Minutes - 4/27/98
Central Community District. Grittman noted that PZM district areas were added as
transitional zones near the edges of the down own, which should protect the
neighborhoods from inappropriate encroach nts.
AFI'ER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MAD BY CLINT HERBST AND SECONDED BY
ROGER CARLSON TO ADOPT AN ORDINA CE AMENDMENT REZONING A PORTION
OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO THE CENT AL COMMUNITY DISTRICT DESIGNATION
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING C MMISSION. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 3 8.
10. n
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRIAN STUMP AND SECONDED BY BRUCE TlllELEN TO
APPROVE THE BILLS FOR THE LAST HAL OF APRIL AS PRESENTED. Motion carried
unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried una' usly.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
P ge 5
~
.
.
.
MINUT S
SPECIAL MEETING. MONT CELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 4,1 8.4:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Bill Fair, Clint Herbst, Brian tumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen
Members Absent:
None
Counci1member Brian Stumpf had to leave the mee ing for a short time due to an emergency call
for the fire department.
2. Community center presentation.
Mr. Mark Wentzel of Ankeny Kell Architec s presented information regarding the
community center as proposed by the small. group to date. He described each proposed
use within the center, including the second oor expansion area, and the outside image of
the building, which was proposed to be bri k so as to be maintenance free.
Discussions included community and meet" g room use, the proposed drop-off area near
the Senior Center entrance, expansion capa ilities of the facility, and positioning of the
central desk for control of patrons entering the facility for various functions.
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill noted hat the costs are currently being gathered and
proposed for review by the Council on Ma 26.
No action was required by the City Counc' .
3.
n . r n
(Remediation Action Plan) l:\Pplication.
n
Assistant Administrator Jeff O'Neill reque ted that the Council adopt a resolution
requesting funds from the State for assist" g in the analysis of soils and development of a
plan for remediation for the community ce ter site. The remediation plan could include a
subsequent application for clean-up funds through the State Petro Fund. The application,
if funded, would provide 75% of the cost 0 study the site. The City would pay 25%.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIE EN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO
ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING C NTAMINATIONINVESTIGATION AND
REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN APPLICA ION. Motion carried unanimously.
SEE RESOLUTION 98-17.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN A SECONDED BY CLINT HERBST TO
ADJOURN. Motion carried unanimously.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
:(~
.
.
.
SA.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
(lO.)
Council is asked to adopt a resolution acce ting bids, adopting the assessment agreement,
and awarding the project extending sanitary sewer and water service to the Resurrection
Church and Methodist Church sites.
Bids were opened on Friday, May 8, 1998. The lowest responsible bidder was Kuechle
Underground, Inc., from Kimball, MN, at $ 0,804.24. The distribution of costs as
identified in the assessment agreement is co sistent with the plan proposed in the
feasibility study. Under the plan, a portion ill be funded by the City for oversizing. The
remainder of the cost is split between the R surrection Church and Methodist Church.
The amounts will be identified in the respec ive assessment agreements. Please note that
the Resurrection Church assessment agree nt includes trunk fees due at the time of
building. The Methodist church payment 0 trunk fees, or assessment, will occur at the
time of development.
Finally, the proposed agreements do not in lude a requirement for a letter of credit to
draw on in the event of nonpayment of spe ial assessments. This is the policy that we
have applied to institutions that request ut' 'ties. For developers of subdivisions, we
require a letter of credit in the amount of -60% of the assessment, which we hold to
cover for potential nonpayment of assess nts.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve a resolution ad pting assessment agreement, accepting bids,
and awarding contract for Resurre tion Church and Methodist Church utility
extension. Motion is contingent 0 execution of assessment agreements.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the re olution.
C. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends alter ative # 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of bid tabulation; Copy of assessme t agreements.
.
.
..
WSB
BA Mittdsteadt, P.E.
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Peter R. Willenbring, P.E.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Ronald B. Bray, P.E.
350 Westwood L ke Office
8441 Wayzata oulevard
Minneapolis, N 55426
612-541- 800
FAX 541- 700
& Associates, Inc.
May 11, 1998
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Monticello
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Project Bid Award
Resurrection Church/Methodist Church
Sanitary Sewer Extension
City of Monticello Project No. 98-01C
WSB Project No. 1096.00
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Bids were received for the above-referenced project on Friday, May 8, 1998, at Monticello City Hall.
A total of thirteen (13) responsive bids were rec ived. Kuechle Underground, Inc. of Kimball,
Minnesota submitted the lowest bid in the amo t of $40,804.24. The bids were checked for
mathematical accuracy and tabulated. The enginee 's estimate was $63,376.35.
Therefore, we recommend award of the contract to uech1e Underground, Inc., 20 Main Street North,
Kimball, Minnesota 55353 in the amount of$40,80 .24 for the completion of City Project 98-01C.
Please give me a call at 541-4800 if you have any uestions or comments regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
:~;i~J:
Bret A. Weiss, P .E.
City Engineer
lv/urn
.
F:\WPWlN\1096.00\051198.hmc
Infrastnlcture E gineers Planners
EQUAL OPPOR NITY EMPLOYER
.
.
.
Bids Opened: 10:00 a.m.
May 8, 1998
Contractor
Kuechle Underground Inc
J. R. Ferche, Inc.
Yolk Sewer & Water, Inc.
Latour Construction
Larson Excavating Contractors Inc
Barbarossa and Sons, Inc.
Inland Utility Construction, Inc.
R. P. Utilities, Inc.
Randy Kramer Excavation, Inc.
Rolstad Construction Co.
Redstone Construction Co. Inc.
Schluender Construction
Northdale Construction
Engineer's Estimate
BID TABUL4TION
Resu"ection Church Sanitary Sewer
City Project N( . 98-01C
Cty of Monticello Minnesota
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Project No. 1096.00
Bid
Security Total Bid
./ $40,804.24
./ $47,298.66
./ $48,246.20
./ $49,376.83
./ $57,150.78
./ $58,327.70
./ $58,354.04
./ $58,730.40
./ $59,132.77
./ $59,745.80
./ $62,992.50
./ $63,876.00
./ $75,124.82
$63,000.00
I hereby certify that this is a true and
correct tabulation of the bids as
received on May 8, 1998.
(\)"0, I n I . \1 J A..... L;
Chat(1e< R. Janski, P.E.
'-..i
F:I/VPWlNlJ096.00\fp<clJ3/DTAB."",. /VPD
MAY. - 0 6' 9 8 (WE D ) 13: 5 7
.
.
.
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. . L. P
-r~ be
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 003
------~
AGREEMiNT POR ASSBSS
S AND WAIVER
This Agreement made and day of
, 19__, by and bet City of Monticello, a
municipal corporation (hereinafteJ:' "city") and Resurrection
Lutheran Church, a Minnesota nonpr fit corporation (hereinafter
"Developer") .
WHEREAS, Developer is
real property legally described
(lIpremiees") and intends to con~t
owner of certain unimproved
Exhibit A
church (the
"Proj ect "); and
WHEREAS, as part of the construction of the project,
the parties acknowledge and agree that it is necessary that
oertain public improvements must e constructed adjacent to the
~remiaes, necessitated by the Froject, to-wit: sanitary sewer
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the parties ac nowledge that the public
improvements may be constructed b City in an oversized manner so
as to service other shall result in benefit
to property other than the
WaEREAS, city ia
improvemenCs as hereinabove
Developer agrees to pay lOa
standard size improvement to the
and/or assess other benefitted pr
incurred in excess of said amount;
to construct the public
on the condition that
cost attributable to a
remises, and city agree to pay
owners for the coata
511 ~2.,
MA Y. - 0 6' 9 8 (WE D ) 13: 5 8
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 004
.
.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, in oon81 eration of the mutual promises
hereafter contained, the sufticien y of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereby a rea as follows:
1. Developer hereby petitions City and City agrees to
construct and install the followi 9 public improvements in order
to service the Project: sewer improvements.
2. Developer ivee its right to notice and
public hearing ta be held on said improvements pursuant to M.S.
~429.031 and ~429.061 and cansent to the construction of the
above improvements and assessment of the costs of said public
improvements against the premises in accordance with City special
assessment policies as hereinafte described.
3. The parties acknow edge that City may construct
said public improvements in an rsized manner so as to serve
additional property other than Premises. Developer agrees to
pay 100 percent of the cost attri utable to a standard size
improvement to the Premises. agrees that it shall be
responsible for the difference be ween this cost and the total
cost of the oversized public impr vements, or shall have the
right, at its option, to assess 0 her benefitted properties for
said excess amount.
4. Developer ges that its share of the total
estimated cost of the public impr vements hereinabove described
together with watermain improveme previously built which City
shall assess against the Premises $111,150 for construction
and $ for engineerin contingencies for a total
-2-
511--- 3
MAY. - 0 6' 9 8 (WE D ) 13: 5 8
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 005
.
.
.
estimated cost of $ eveloper understands that this
is an estimate only as determined y city's engineer and that the
actual figure may be higher or 10 er, depending on various
factors. Upon completion of construction, city's engineer shall
determine the Developer's share of the improvements. Developer
agrees that City may assess such mount against the Premises as
provided herein, and further agre the amount of the
assessment under this agreement i equal to or les8 than the
benefit to the project.
5. Developer acknowle gee that the premises is the
primary benefitted property from he public improvements, but for
the Project, City would not const uct any of the public
improvements.
6. The assessment sha 1 be adopted by the City
Council upon the completion of struction of all of the public
improvements herein described, ether with interest at a rate
to be determined by City. The eesments shall be payable
commencing in the year following date of completion of all
such improvements, and within ten (10)
years thereafter.
7. Developer all rights of appeal that
it has by virtue of Minnesota Sta 1429.081 or otherwise, to
challenge the amount or validity f amounts, or the procedure
used by the City in levying the a eesement, the benefit to the
Premises or lack thereof by virtu of the improvements, or any
other defense available to er either at law or equity to
-3
51t,tj.
MAY. - 0 6 I 9 8 (WE D ) 13: 5 8
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 006
.
.
.
ontemplated herein. Developer
ers, agents and employees from
arising out of the levying of
the assessment of the premises as
hereby releases the City, its
any and all liability related
said assessment.
Provided, however, that n the event that the Developer
believes its share of the public provemants as determined by
City's engineer are in excess of e coet attributable to a
standard size improvement to the emises, Developer shall have
the right to submit this aole dia uted issue to arbitration by an
independent engineer in accordano the rules and regulations
of the American Arbitration Aesoc'ation (AAA), at Developer's
sole cost and expense. Both part es shall be bound by the
decision of the arbitrator as Nothing contained
herein shall permit Developer to any other
issue related to the improvement ssessments.
6. Nothing contained erain shall prevent city from
assessing the ~remiaes for public improvements other than those
specifically described within thi Agreement, all as provided by
law.
9. This 1 be construed in accordance
with the provisions of Minnesota aw, and shall be binding upon
the parties hereto, their suocess rs and assigns.
10. Developer has revi wed this Agreement with the
assistance of co~nsel and enter i to this Agreement as its free
act and deed.
11. The Developer aha 1 provide the City with a
611 'S-
MAY. -06' 98 (WED) 13: 58
OLSON US SET & WEINGARDEN . L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
.
.
.
P. 007
certified copy of a resolution ad pted by ita board of directors
or governing body authorizing the Developer to enter into this
agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
hands the day and year first
By:
And By;
written.
OF MONTI CiLLO
William Fair
Its i Mayor
Its:
RES RECTION LUTHERAN CHURCH
By:
And By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
as.
COUNTY OF )
this
and
The foregoing instrumen
day of
the
of City 0
corporation, on behalf of the co
Ita:
It&l~
Not ry Public
-5
S- fI--'"
MA Y. - 0 6 I 9 8 (WE D ) 13: 5 9
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN . L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
.
.
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
es.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing
day of
the
Minnesota nonprofit
corporation.
instrument was acknowledged before me this
, 199_ by
of Reeu rection Lutheran Church, a
corporation, n behalf of the nonprofit
muni\mcnt\797S1239S.01
Not ry Public
-6-
P. 008
~1I--7
MAY. - 0 6 I 9 8 (WE D ) 13: 5 9
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 009
.
.
.
AGRE:Il:XENT rOR ABSBS IdN'l'S AND WAIV1!:R
This Agreement made and ntered into this day of
, 19__, by and bet een the City of Monticello, a
municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and United Methodist
Church of Monticello, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
(hereinafter "Developer").
WHEREAS, Developer is t e owner and purchaser of
certain unimproved real property egally described on the
attached Exhibit A ("Premises") a c1. intends to oonstruct thereon
a church (the IIproject"); and
waEREAS, as part of the construction of the project,
the parties acknowledge and agree that it is necessary that
certain public improvements must e constructed adjacent to the
Premises, necessitated by the Pro'ect, to-wit~ sanitary sewer
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the parties ac owlec1.ge that the public
improvements may be constructed b City in an oversized manner so
as to service other areas of City which shall result in benefit
,to property other than the Premise. 1 and
WHEREAS, City is willi construct the public
improvements as hereinabove desc on the condition that
Developer agrees to pay 100 perc nt of the cost attributable to a
standard size sanitary sewer imp ovemant to the Premises, and
City agrees to pay and/or assess other benefitted property owners
for the costs incurred in excess of said amount;
511-(
- I .__
MAY. -06' 98 (WED) 13: 59
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 010
.
.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consi eration of the mutual promises
hereafter contained, the sufficien is hereby
acknowledged, the pa~tie8 hereby a follows:
~. Developer hereby pe itions city and City agrees to
cons cruet and install the followin public improvements in order
to service the Project; sanitary ewer improvements.
2. Developer hereby wa ve ita right to notice and
public hearing to be held on said mprovements pursuant to M.S.
~429.031 and S429.06~ and consent 0 the construction of the
above improvements and assessment f the coste of said public
improvements against the premises n accordance with City special
assessment policies as hereinafter described.
3. The parties acknowl dge that City may construct
said public improvements in an oversized manner so as to serve
additional property other than Developer agrees to
pay 100 percent of the cost standard size
sanitary sewer improvements premises. City agreea that it
shall be responsible for the dift renee between this coat and the
total cost of the oversized publ! improvements, or shall have
the right, at its option, s other benefitted properties
for said excess amount.
4. Developer acknowle ges that its share of the total
estimated cost of the public impr vements hereinabove described
which City shall assess against t e Premises is $45,350 for
construction and $ engineering and contingencieS
for a tctal estimated cost of $ Developer
-2
6A--'
MAY. -06' 98 (WED) 13: 59
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN . L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 011
.
.
.
understands that this is an estima e only as determined by city's
engineer and that the actual figur may be higher or lower,
depending on various factors. completion of oonstruction,
city's engineer shall determine t e Developer's share of the
improvements. Developer agrees t at City may assess such amount
against the Premises as provided erein, and further agrees that
the amount of the assessment unde agreement is equal to or
less than the benefit to the Proj
5. Developer acknowle that the Premises is the
primary benefitted property from he public improvements and
further acknowledges that, but fo the Project, City would not
construct any of the public impro ements.
6. Developer acknowle the total amount of
the cost of the public improvemen a which are the responsibility
of Developer as provided in this greement shall be levied as a
special assessment against teh Pr The assessment shall be
adopted by the City Council upon he completion of construction
of all of the public improvements herein described, together with
interest at a rate to be determin The assessments
shall be payable commencing in t e year following the aate of
completion of all such improveme and shall be paid in full
within ten (10) years thereafter.
7. Developer hereby all rights of appeal that
it haa by virtue of Minnesota St S429.0al or otherwise, to
challenge the amount or validity of amounts, or the procedure
used by the city in levying the benefit to the
~11--IO
MA Y. - 06' 9 8 (WE D ) 13: 59
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN p, L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 012
.
.
.
premises or lack thereof Py virtue of the improvements, or any
other defense available to Develop r either at law or equity to
the assessment of the premises as ontemplated herein. Developer
hereby releases the City, its offi era, agents and employees from
any and all liability related to 0 arising out of the levying of
said assessment.
Provided, however, that in the event that the Developer
believes its share of the public i provements as determined by
City's engineer is in excess attributable to a
standard size sanitary sewer to the premises,
Oeveloper shall have the right to thili sole disputed issue
to arbitration by an independent ngineer in accordanoe with the
rules and regulations of the Amer can Arbitration Association
(AAA), at Developer'S 801e cost 50th parties shall
be bound by the decision of the provided by law.
Nothing contained her~in shall it Oevelope~ to appeal or
dispute the publio improvement essments or any other issue
related to the public improvement a..el.ments.
8. Nothing ere in shall prevent city from
assessing the Premises for publi improvements other than those
specifically descriped within th's Agreement, all as provided by
law. The parties specifically a knowledge that, at such time as
water main and storm sewer impro ements become available, they
will be subject of a separate as essment agreement.
9. This Agreement sh 11 be construed in accordance
with the provisions of Minnesota law, and shall be binding upon
S-1I--11
MA Y. - 0 6 I 9 8 (WE D ) 14: 00
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
.
.
.
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 013
the parties hereto, their Bucce.so s and assigns.
10. Developer has revie ed this Agreement with the
assistance of counsel and enter in 0 this Agreement as its free
act and deed.
11. The Developer shall provide the City with a
certified copy of a resolution ado ted by its board of directors
or governing body authorizing the eveloper to enter into this
agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the arties have hereunto eet their
hands the day and year first above written.
And By:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
william Fair
Its: Mayor
Its:
UNI EO METHODIST CHURCH OF
MON ICELLO
By:
And By:
Its:
Its:
-5-
6/1- ---/OL,
MAY. - 0 6 I 9 8 (WE D ) 14: 00
OLSON USSET & WE I NGARDEN P. .. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
.
.
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
BS.
COUNTY OF )
this
and
The foregoing inscrument was acknowledged before me
day of ' 199___, by
.,
the and
of city of Monticello, a municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corpcration.
P. 014
Nota Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
sa.
COUNTY OF )
instrument was acknowledged before me
, 199_, }::ly
of unitEd Methodist Church of
nonprofit corporation, on behalf
The foregoing
day of
the
Monticello, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation.
this _
-I
of the
Not uy Public
muni\mont\7~7S12Gge.Ql
-6-
511--/3
.
5B.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
A
(IS.)
The fencing of Hillside Cemetery has been subject of discussion for several years. In
1994 we allocated $9,500 toward a chain' k fence at Hillside Cemetery and have since
opted for an ornamental type fence, appro tely 6' high with two gates, expected to
cost in the neighborhood of $38,500. The mount previously budgeted and the amount in
the 1998 Budget total $19,500. The rema' ing $19,000 is to be placed in the 1999
budget.
City staff is requesting that the Council aut orize us to begin fencing the cemetery this
year. If one tours the cemetery, it is easy t see the amount of vandalism that has
occurred there, and we believe that fencing the area would make it less likely that
someone was going to topple a stone on a uick trip through the cemetery. The gates
would be open to the public during normal ark hours. The same individual that opens
and closes our restrooms in the parks wou open and close the gates.
We would like to start by fencing the area long 6th Street and the area along Cedar
Street this year. The retaining wall on 7th treet and the hedge on Highway 25 do
provide some deterrent to access so, conse uently, those two sites could be done later.
What I would propose to the City Council' s that we develop a fencing type suitable to the
Park Board and go out for bids for the wh Ie project with a phase I and phase II
approach. Consequently, we would lock a contractor into providing a price for the first
half (1998), as well as the second half (19 9), which would be useful in budgeting. In
addition, we could also have it as an optio to do only the phase I portion and see how
much price savings there is in doing the w ole works.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize City staff to prepare bid documents based upon
consultation with the Park Board fi r ornamental fencing for Hillside Cemetery,
with a phase I and II approach and an option for only half the work.
2. The second alternative would be t wait until 1999 to do the project when all the
funds are available.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public W rks Director, City Administrator, and Assistant
Administrator that the City Council autho ize commencing the ornamental fencing project
this year for Hillside Cemetery as outline in alternative #1.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
2
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11//98
5C.
A
r
(J.S.)
Our contract and amendments with Adolfso & Peterson required that two of the SBR
tanks be operational by February 1, 1998. he actual start up of the first two SBR tanks
occurred on February 16, sixteen days after the required interim completion date. The
contractor could be subject to liquidated da ges during this period of time, from
February 1 to February 16. If we were able to demonstrate an actual loss during this
period of time, we would be entitled to $50 per day or the actual loss, whichever is less.
The contractor has stated that he experienc d delays during the construction which were
beyond his control and is, therefore, reques ing to be released from the liquidated damages
for this time period. In his letter, Clyde Te wey of Adolfson & Peterson, indicates that he
could still complete the project by final co pletion date of October 15, 1998. His letter
was written on April 22, 1998. Mr. Terwe , today, is not as confident that the project can
be completed by October 15, due to some elays being experienced in the methane gas
purification room and the main boiler room due to layouts. A copy of Mr. Terwey's letter
is enclosed for your review along with a co y of Change Order No. 13.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
The first alternative is to grant the' terim time extension from February 1, 1998,
to February 16, 1998, and release & P from liquidated damages for this Phase I.
~,..
,,~~ C/01
\-,y
The second alternative would be to approve the extension of time from February 1,
1998, to February 16, 1998, but e it contingent on completing the entire
project by a certain date, such as tober 15, November 1, etc.
3.
The third alternative would be not 0 grant an extension time.
C.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Wo ks Director that the City Council approve the
time extension. Some of the issues broug t up in his April 22, 1998, letter do offer
bonafide reasons for the delay. It is possi Ie that we could demonstrate some actual costs
during this period of time and recover so of the liquidated damages, but in the spirit of
cooperation, I recommend that we keep t e job moving forward in the spirit ofpartnering.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Change Order No. 13; Copy of pril22, 1998, letter from Adolfson & Peterson.
3
,
.
.
.
MRY ((J7 I 98 11: 53 FR HDR ENG I t-EER I NG I NC 61 2 591 5413 TO 92713272 P.02/03
Change Order No.
Co
~rojfIct N;jlme: WnWw~terTr'atment Ptilnt ExP'"$Ion HOR ProjeclNo.;OS124-004-164
ProjectOWner: City Of Monticello, MN OWner's Project No.: 93--14C
Date of Issullnee: 517/98
project Contractor: Adolfson and Peterson Date of Contract: 12118J96
ContractP.riod: 12118JQ6- 10115JQ8
It is agreed to modify the Contract referred to above as to I OWII:
hem No. Item and Oeficription of Changes Contract Pric8 Contract Time
[)&creMe Inerease Decrease Inctease
1 Document 00600 -Mreement - Article 3.1, as am mded 0 0 0 16
(Interim cOrTiPtetion Date - TK 3300 and TK3200
(Attachmant A)
Sut -Total 0 0 0 15
Diffl!lren< :e:Net 15
Summaty: It is agreed to modify the contract referred to bove as fOllows:
Contract Plice prior to this Change Order Contract Time prior to this Change Order
~ 11.503,992.50 Interim Completion Dates (referenc;e Document (0500):
February 1. 191il8. fvtilrch 1, 1998 Iilnd April 1 , 1008
Final Completion Oate: October 15, 1998
Net Increase (dectease) ofthi$ Change 0<<Jer Net Increase (decrease) Of this Chang. order
1$ 0.00 I 15 days (Interim ColT1'letlon Date)
Revised Contract Price with all approved Change Orders Revi* CQntract Time with a11l!Jppmvfld Change OI'ders
Is 11,503,992.50 Interim Completion Oates(reference Attachnu~nt A):
~ebn.lary 115.1998. March 1,1998 and April 1, 1998
inal Completion Oate: October 1S, 1998
The chengee Incll,lc;led in thi$ Ch8~. Order are to be aCI omplished in accordance With the 1Iel'ms, stipulations and
cOl\dltlons of the original contract as though included tt ere!n.
I I I
Ac.cepted for Contraetor by: D$te
I I I
Recommended for Approval By (HOR Englnw-Ing, Inc.) Date
I I I I
Approved fQr Owner by; Attest Date
DietrtbUtlOn: L-jOwner LJ;ontra or L-jOrfice L-JFleld L-J:>ther
PORM 11I.502002 (VI";'" 1.0 O<t PO) ..k50~ lll~ j(ttO.2
C~ 1991 MI)R l!nam..nll& ,....
5"~ ,/
-- - -- --- ---
e
,
.
.
.
MAY ~ '98 11:54 FR HDR ENGlt-EERlt-6 INC 61 591 5413 TO 92713272
P.03/03
@
Attachm nt A
Cbaole Ord r No. 13
Wastewater Treatmen Plant Expansion
Montitell ,MN
1. Document OOSOO, Article 3.1 and 3.2, date December 18, 1996 between the City of
Monticello, MN, OWNER, and Adolfson Peterson, CONTRACTOR, is amended
as follows:
A. Article 3.1:
L The interim completion date for 3200 and TK3300 shall be changed to
February 16, 1998.
B. Article 3.2:
1. The contract language shall be ended as follows:
.. Accordingly, instead 0 requiring any sU(:h proof. OWNER Md
CONTRACTOR agree t as liquidated damages for delay (but
not as a penalty) CO CTOR shall pay the OWNER Five
HWldred Dollars ($500) for cac:h day that expires after the time
specified in paragraph 3 1 for the February 16, 1998
(TK3200fI'K3300), M ch 1, 1998 (TK6100EITK4300E) and
April 1, 1998(TK31 (0) ubstantial Completion dates Witil the
Work is substantially c mplete:.
2. section 01010 - Summary of Work, 1.03 ork Sequence, shall be amended as
follows:
A. Completion date for TK3200 and K3300 shall be changed to February 16,
1998.
05/07/98
** TOTAL PAGE.03 **
s-e ....~
04/22/96 WED 1~:05 FAX
iJ
ADOLF 5 & PETERSON
141 OUl
@
. ~ Adolfson
.. & PeterSon
. Construction
'7ot.!J1 ConstrUCtion Serv~"
6701 West 2.3rd Street
MmM~~.Mm~5~
(612) M4-1561
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9377
Mimeapolis. MinneBOta 56440
FAX (612) 525-2333
April 22, 998
HDR Engineering. Incolporated
300 Parkdale 1 Building
5401 Gamble Drive
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55416-1518
FAXED 591-M13
Attention: Bob Peplin
Re: Monticello Wastewater Treatment PIa t E:Xp8DSiou
HDR 'Project No.. 08124-004-164, City ojed No. 93-14C
Change Order Request - Phase I Time DellSiOo
Gentlemen,
.
We believe the SBR system was ready to op e January 31, 1998 and met the intent of
the documents. Flow actually started going to he SBR tanks on Monday, February 16.
You should issue a 16 calendar daytime 'on for Pbaseto February 16.
Some of the reasons why the 16 days went by are:
. Furore tie in at the Influent Building oft wet well to the existing dty well was
determined to best be done before taking he existing pumps out of service. A method
was devised to apply steel plates on the well side and core the large holes at a later
date with the wet we111ive. The plant 0 ions would ouly allow this to be done on
Monday nights, Operations needed time t get the wet well cleaned out prior to the
down time required. to install the steel pI es.
_ The Owner/Operator did not have a plan' place on how to start.up the new system.
They proceeded cautiously working witb the equipment supplier to assure that the
flow could be switched from the existing plant to the new SBR system with a minimal
impact to the effluent discharge qualities Sludge seeding was required and
coordinated with the flow. This step was complicated by the winter weather.
.
S-c.--3
04/22/98 WED 15:06 FAX
f,
ADOLFS N & PETERSON
.
. CPR #89 changed the routing of the effluent er it leaves the SBR tanks. It required.
major piping cbanges~ changed the function f existing tan~ affected our temporary
piping, and provided for chlorination.
_ CPR #108 required tank modification to as re the volume of efftuent could be
handled through the existing tank.
_ During January and February there were 8 eld Orders, \9 RFI~s" and 20 CPR's
issued causing an impact to our schedule.
When the new plant went on line, we were reI . 1y comfortable that we could complete
the project by the Octobe.- 15, 1998 completion date so a time elrtension on the end of the
job is not required.
.
cc: file
Bob SykC$
John Simola faxed 271-3272
.
Sincerely~
ADOLF SON & PETERSON, INC.
C~J~ ~
Clyde S_Tcrwcy~ P.E.
Project ManagerMce President
llZI002
@
~c.,;L}
0~/08/98 FRI 13:06 FAX
ADOLFSON & PETERSON
1aJ001
.
WE Adolfson
4 & Peterson
Construdion
..Total Construction Services"
6701 West 23rd Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
(612) 544-15t\1
May 8. 1 8
HDR Engineering, lneorpo.-ated
300 Parkdale 1 Building
5401 Gamble Drive
Minneapolis,. Minnesota 55416-1518
Attention: Bob Peplin
Re: Month:eIIo Wastewater Treatment
BDR Projed No. 08124-004-164, City
Retainage RedUttiOD
Gentlemen.
.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9377
Minneapolie, Min"",,* 65440
FAX (612) 525-2333
F~D 591-5413
t EIpauion
ojed No. 93-14C
We request that our retainage be reduced at . time in accordance with Specification
Section 01027 article 1.10. Due to the nature this project, the largest portion has been
completed, is being occupied by the Owner it is being used to treat sewage.
The areas I'm referring to are the Site wor~ ministration Building, Headworks
Building and equipment and SBR tanks. All of hen!. are being used for the purpose
intended. Current financial report on the three is:
Site work
HeadworkslSBR'S
Admini~Qn BId&,
Total
$892,573
$5,987,741
H~~..J!.71-._.--- -
$7.766.386
All areas
$10,304,764
We reque$t that $350,000 of the retainage be
remaining on the areas that are being used to
$126.918 for areas that are not complete yet.
.
$44,629
$299,387
$44.31>>
$388.320
$515,238
eased at tbis; time. That willlea.ve 38.320
pun.chlist completion. It also leaves
;)50 \\:) \. "'?o ~g
.
.
05/08/98 FRI 13:07 FAX
.
Please call me if you have any questions.
cc; file
Bob Sykes
John SimQIa faxed 271-3272
.
ADOLF ON & PETERSON
I4J 002
Sincerely;
ADOLFSON & PETERSON, INC.
~~S~
Clyde S.Terwey. P.E.
Project Manager Nice President
.
.
.
50.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
City Council is asked to consider approval 0 the fmal plat and development agreement for
the Klein Farms Estates III project. The de elopment agreement identifies terms and
conditions which include specific requireme ts for construction of utilities. It also requires
completion of landscaping improvements in manner consistent with the City Planner's
requirements. An associated disbursement greement is included which establishes funds
set aside for payment of contractor and Cit related expenses.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt a development agr ement and approve the fmal plat for Klein
Farms Estates III.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the dev lopment agreement and deny approval of the
fmal plat for Klein Farm~ Estates III
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Administrator recommends altern tive #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of final plat; Copy of development ag eement.
4
.
~
c
r;:
~
~
~
~
~
C'j
. CI)
~
~
&s
CJ)
~
Ct::
~
......
-<
"""'-4
~
~
.
112V1121 . d
, "',
" ,
I
I
_..J
~ ~. 0:\
~':. ~..... ,., ~..:.
~~ ,~\ ~. t'\ ;, ~ "\.... __ -
.' ~. -' i.:Ir... \~ .. ,-.- ~",--
'i.:~.:~ . ~
-,,-, ',:\; \. E 'of j>.:~"
I
In
.;:(
.~.
,at
~.
-~
},
I:
I ~ :1
'I :..t
!.~'{), :~ ~
lili "t 2
! i \I!!
1\
1\
I
,
,~ I
Sl ~= =i :
iIIJ.- ,
'l- I
i!~ :
n:
I
,
,n
:~:
,..
I~:
~
..,
'"
Q -
.... ~ :.-
. -
.
.
.
....
...... .....
:.:
-,
" ~ I
i,
I
~~;
/"....'
.-'
.',
"
r:.~
I
I
I
\
I
I
1 ..,
I ,..
I ::1
I .i:
I
I ...
I ..
I ...
I
\
I'
it'
I ~,!
I :Hl
I .,' c~
I tt
I ~!
I ~\
\ ',:: t~
I ,-
I ,\ l~
I 1 ~i
00 .~ n;
I ,., H tl
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,_.
L:
...
~--
."
;~:
:1.
.':t.
:E:
;'i~
..'
': \ 1(.:r~~, ,. ;.
,..
1
..,'
......
,i~ ~ 4
ill ~'\f~
t ' i .
~t ,
11 1,.
~I h- \
:~f :J ~
t 'i i l
~1 ~ -1; ~:;; 1
~= t. ,
~1 .! I
It ii I,'
..,. 'I
~i !i i
... h S
::' _' ~.~I II
I' iilil .
:$ :a;JI I ~
-., lilDU I
'.., III ' , l!I ..
I ~ ~:lllll R l~
II"I~ I i!.ll
o · t
,
i !
.. i
!! i t 1
. t I .
'a 1
i t
~ l
~ ~
t ~ I
it I..
ill:
.. ~ I
~ ,.
~ 1\
~ :;
~ ~.;
~,"I~ ,
t 1'"
ill!fh
~i!lti;
, !~<l':l J
1 (t.z11.J
t {1 :i!it
i lliS[11
~ lit .'
S'Ehit
!~'1Ilf
'Il! J-il
!.g:hl~
gilt 5
Hhd~
I j
i .t :>
t t~ j
!~ t
~I
, I
t~ .
i~j
q
I .
2,1
!~
il.
f~f
,ri
t ,
.~ I I
11 B
n it
,~ t~
,':
i \ II
~l i~
H iH
l ~l .
,. ~ k' Zl
~l~ 1,1 p'" ~
il~ 1 ~t i \ i
~l~ t ~~ ~'I- 1
1.; iiI !
Pl~ ~ ~~ 1: I
~ r it it ~
:t& ! ~~. ;1
II. Ell ::
iil i l!t ij
",it. 1"'~ :,
llt. 1 ~Jl ~.
ji15 hI ~\ ~
:!i i nih
h~ ;~
8121C:6 98.!... C:19
I/QI alON xe~ ..l!.l$Od
3J '8 Sl lS3MaI W
.!...S:61Zl
MAY. -07' 98(THU) 09:43
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 002
.
.
.
DEVELOPER'S A REEMENT
I{LEIN FARMS 3R ADDITION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and enter d into this _ day of -, 1998,
by and between the CITY OF MONTICELL , a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Min esota (t118 "City"), and E & K
DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company (the "Developer").
WHEREAS, City has granted final approval to a plat known as Klein Farms
3rd Addition (the "Subdivision"), said land legally described as set forth in
Exl1ibi't A attaclled hereto and made a part 118reof ("Property") which
Subdivision sl1all consist of 37 twinhome residential units and an Outlot; and
WHEREAS, Developer intends to construct, install, provide for and
maintain streets, public storm sewer, an water, signs, patllway grading, and
drainage improvement in accordance itl, the plans and specifications as
hereinafter described, all at the sole cost and expense of Developer; and
WHEREAS, the City has by resol tion adopted November 13, 1995,
granted final approval to the Subdivision and the improvements contemplated
herein provided that the Developer ente into tIle within Agreement and that
Developer faithfully perform the terms a d conditions contained herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
promises and conditions Ilereinafter con ained, it is hereby agreed as follows:
1 . Plat Issues. The Developer agrees that the Subdivision shall be
developed in accordance with the Final lat which is hereby incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
Prior to the commencement of construction, notwithstanding the
provIsions of paragrapll 22(b) I Davalo er must pay to City all outstanding
expenses incurred by City for plattin and other development purposes
including, but not limited to, engineering, legal, and other professional staff
fees.
~() -~
MAY. -07' 98 (THU) 09: 43
OLSON USSET & WE I NGARDEN ,L, L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 003
.
.
.
2. Protective CovenAntB. TI1e eveloper shall promulgate protective
covenants in accordance with representations hereto'fore made to the City and
shall present them to the City for appro al. The review by the City shall be
limited to a determination of consistency with representation made to the City
whether in conformance with appli able City ordinances, whether in
conformance with other applicable laws, and whether they are in fileable form.
By approving the covenants the City doe not become a party thereto, does not
become liable for their contents, nor does the City incur any obligation to
enforce them.
3. Owners' AssociatioQ. De eloper shall form an aSSociation of
owners for the Project, shall submit the rticles and bylaws of the association
to the City for review, and shall file them witl) the County Recorder. The City's
review shall not be construed to make t e City a party to the association, nor
to impose on it any obligation to enforc the articles and bylaws, nor impose
any liability on the City whatsoever.
4. . The parties acl<nowledge that the
Property as described in this agreeme t has been previously described as
"Outlot" in a certain development agre ment between the parties dated May
12, 1995, ("the Prior Development Agr ement"), paragraph 6E and Exhibit C
therein. Pursuant to the provisions of s id Prior Development Agreement and
Exhibit C therein, the Property as davel ped herein shall be specially assessed
in the amount of $ . This amount shall be distributed equally against
each of the 37 twinllome parcels. Asse sments against each individual parcel
shall be paid at time of occupancy 0 pursuant to annual installments as
required within said Prior Development greement.
All terms and conditions 0 said Prior Development Agreement,
including acceptance o'f the amollnt of assessments, and waiver of Notice and
Right to Appeal said assessments purs ant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
429.06', 429.08', or otherwise, ap Iy equally to the provisions of this
paragrapll as if fully set fortl1 herein.
5. Be. res a i so ev r. As inducementtotheCity's approval
of the Subdivision and entering into t is Agreement, the Developer hereby
represents and warrants to the City:
a.
That tile Developer is the fee owner of the Property and has
authority to enter int this Agreement.
-2
S-D--3
MAY. -07' 98 (THU) 09: 43
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. . L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
r. UUq
.
.
.
b.
That the intended use of tile property is for a common
interest community co sisting of 37 twinhome residential
units.
c. That the Subdivision co 1plies with all city, county, state, and
federal laws and regul tions including, but not limited to,
wetland regulation pro ection, City subdivision ordinances
and zoning ordinances, 0 the best of Developer's I<nowledge.
d, That to the best of De eloper's knowledge, the Subdivision
does not require an Env"ronmental Assessment Worksheet or
an Environmental Imp ct Statement, but shall prepare the
same if required to do s by City or other governmental entity
and shall reimburse Cit for all expenses incurred by City in
connection with the pr paration of the review, including staff
time and attorneys fee .
6. Develooer Imorovements. T e Developer agrees it shall construct,
install, and maintain certain public and pri ate improvements Wllich shall include
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water ain improvements, roadway, grading,
pathway, landscaping and drainage improvements (II Developer Improvements")
on the Property, at Developer's sole cas and expense.
Developer agrees the Devel per Improvements shall be performed
in accordance with the plans, specificatio 5, and preliminary engineering reports
approved or to be approved by the ity Engineer and the City prior to
commencement of construction and ther after, in accordance witll all City rules,
regulations, ordinances, and the require ems of this Agreement, which shall
include, but not be limited to, the folio iog:
a. Street and pathway grading, graveling, surfacing and
stabilizing which 511811 include cu.rbs, gutter and driveway
approaches.
b. Street ligl'1ting within the Subdivision as determined to be
necessary by the Cit .
c.
Storm sewers,
appurtenances.
all necessary catcll basins, Dnd
d. Water main, includin all appurtenances.
5"b-lJ.
MAY, -07' 98 (THU) 09: 44
.
e.
f.
g.
11.
i.
OLSON USSET & WE I NGARDEN p, ,L, P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 005
Sanitary sewer, includi 9 all appurtenances.
Setting of lot and block monuments.
Surveying and staking.
Site grading, fencing a d landscaping and maintenance.
Establishment Q'f at lea t two post office cluster box stands
and boxes with groups of six or more.
J. The City shall install $tr- at name signs, stop signs and other
traffic control signs at all locations deemed necessary by
City, at Developer's co t and expense.
k. Storm water basin, Ian scaping/seeding plan.
7. Permits. Upon execution of his Agreement, Developer and other
necessary parties shall promptly apply of r all permits, approvals, licenses, or
other documents from any and all necessa y governmental agencies (which may
include, but is not limited to, the City, W igl1t County, peA and DNR) so as to
enable Developer to construct tl1e eveloper Improvements as herein
contemplated. Developer shall use its best efforts to obtain the same as soon
as reasonably possible.
.
No grading or building perm t shall be issued by City unless tile
plans or application are In conformity with the City comprehensive plan, this
Agreement, and all local, state and fede al regulations. The City shall, within
fifteen (' 5) days of receipt of plans, eview SUCll submittal to determine
whether 'the foregoing requirements l1av been met.
If the City discerns said plan or applications are deficient, it shall
notify the Developer in writing stating th deficiencies and the steps necessary
for correction. Issuance of a grading r building permit by City shall be a
conclusive determination tl1at the plans r applications have been approved as
to the requested activity by Developer and satisfies the provisions of this
section.
Tile City may issue building ermits prior to City acceptance of the
Developer Improvements provided that tl e party applying for the building permit
agrees to withhold requests for occupfln y until necessary Developer Improvc-
.
~4.
51J -- S-
MAY. -07' 98(THU) 09:44
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 006
.
ments Ilave been installed, Wliicli includ operational and tested sewer and
water systems, installation of sod in the f ant yard, or appropriate escrow sum
to insure compliance, at City's discretion, and roadway development sufficiently
completed to support access by emergen Y vehicles, snowplows, and garbage
trucks, to be determined by the City Engi ear in his sole discretion. Until such
approval is granted, no dwelling may b occupied on either a temporary or
permanent basis, except that model home may be occupied by sales personnel
for marketing and related purposes.
Notwltllstanding this provisio , if the Developer is in default of tl1is
Agreement, as hereinafter defined, in add tion to any other remedy provided by
this Agreement, City may refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy for any lot
or parcel in the Subdivision until Develope cLlres the default as provided herein.
8. Pre-Construction Activities. The Developer or his engineer shall
schedule a pre-construction meeting wit City to r0view a proposed schedule
for construction of the Developer Impro ements.
10. v s. Developer
shall install, construct, and maintain the eveloper Improvements in accordance
with the terms of tllis Agreement. De eloper guarantees and warrants the
workmanship and materials respecting SUCll Developer Improvements tor a
period at one year following City's accep ance of the same, except landscaping
improvements shall be guaranteed and arranted for a period of two years.
.
Tile Developer shall repair or replace, as directed by the City and at
the Developer's sole cost and expense, ny work and/or materials that become
defective, in the sole opinion of tile City or its Engineer, within said Guarantee
Period even tllOUgh notice thereof be giv. n by City after said Guarantee Period.
The Developer, or Developer's contractors, shall post maintenance bonds or
other security acceptable to City to see re these warranties.
11 . Developer authorizes the City
Inspector and City Engineer to ins ect construction of the Developer
Improvements on a full-time basis and grants to tllem a license to enter the
Subdivision to perform all necessar duties and/or inspections deemed
.
-5
Sb-~
MAY. -07' 98(THUI 09:44
OLSON USSET & WE I NGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 007
.
.
.
appropriate during tile construction of tile improvements until final certification
of acceptance is approved by City and e piration of any applicable warranty
period. Inspections by the City are to e logged and reported bi.weekly to
Developer.
Construction and installation plans shall be provided to City and
shall be reviewed by and subject to ap roval of the City. Developer shall
instruct its engineer to provide adequate f eld inspection personnel to assure an
acceptable level of quality control to the xtent that the Developer's engineer
will be able to certify tllat the constructio work meets witll tile approved City
standards as a condition of City accepta ceo
Developer shall cause its con ractor to furnish City with a schedule
of proposed operations at least five (5) days prior to the commencement of the
construction of each Developer Improve ent. The City shall inspect all such
work items during and after construc"ion for compliance witll approved
specifications and ordinance requirements.
12. Acee e . . Upon notification by
Developer that any of tl18 Developer Impr vements have been completed, City
Engineer shall inspect the Developer Improvement and, at his sole discretion,
determine if the Development Impro ement(s) has been completed in
accordance with the plans, specification and exhibits attached hereto.
If the City Engineer determine that the Developer Improvement has
been completed in accordance with all req irements, the City Engineer shall give
the Developer written notice of acceptance witllin seven (7) days effective as
oJ the date of the inspection.
If the City Engineer detennin 5 that the Developer Improvement(s)
is not completed in accordance with said requirements, the City Engineer sliall
notify Developer in writing of the deficien y and provide a reasonable date upon
which to cure the deficiency. Failure by t e Developer to cure within the stated
time period shall constitute an Event of efault.
13. CO) Ie ion f vel
complete the Developer Improvements 0
this agreement. The Completion dat
Unavoidable Delays as hereinafter define
may be extended by the period of such
r m. Developer agrees to
e year from the date of execution of
as provided herein is subject to
, in which event the completion date
navoidable Delays.
-6-
50-7
MAY. -07' 98(THUl 09:45
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN p, L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
.
.
.
p, 008
For the purpose of this secti n, Unavoidable Delays mean delays
which are caused by strikes, fire, war road weight restrictions, material
shortages, weather tl18t renders constr ction progress impossible. causes
beyond the Developer's control or ther casualty to the Developer
Improvements, or the act of any federal, s ate. or local government unit, except
those acts of tile City authorized or cant mplated by this Agreement.
In the event Developer b lieves an extension is warrar1ted,
Developer shall request such extension in writing to the City Engineer and
specify the requested length of extensio and the reason therefore. The City
Engineer shall determine the length of the extension, if any. in his sole
discretion.
14. Ownershio of Imorovements. Upon the completion of the Developer
Improvements required to be constru 'ted by tllis Agreement, and the
acceptance thereof by tl18 City. the Dev loper Improvements lying within the
public easements and public: right-of-wa s as shown on tile Subdivision plat
shall become City property without 'Furth r notice or action. Within thirty days
tllereafter, and be'fore any security as erein required is released, Developer
shall supply City with a complete set of reproducible " AS BUILT" and
"DEVELOPMENT PLAN" plans in a for acceptable to the City Engineer,
without charge to City, whicll documen S 511all become the property of City.
Notwitllstanding the foregoing, the roa and street improvements shall not
become the property of the City.
15. Clean Uo. Tile Developer shall properly clear any soil, earth, or
debris on City~owned property or public ri 11t-of~way resulting frol11 construction
work by the Developer, its agents, or assigns.
16. Maintenance of Roads. Dev loper shall provide all maintenance for
road improvements both during constru tion and after completion.
17. Eros'or ar r n I. The Developer 511all provide and
comply with erosion and drainage contra plan requirements as approved by the
City Engineer and as otherwise required by City. As development progresses,
the City may impose additional erosion nd drainage control requirements if, in .
the sole opinion of the City Engineer, tlley would be useful and appropriate in
controlling drainage and erosion. Developer shall promptly comply with sLlch
erosion and drainage control plans an with such additional instructions it
receives from City. Tile parties reco nize that time is of tile essence in
controlling erosion.
-7
Sb-ct
MAY. -07' 98 (THU) 09: 45
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 009
.
.
.
18. Hold Harmless Aareement. F r the purposes of this paragraph 16,
"Developer" includes the association to b formed pursuant to paragraph 3.
Developer acknowledges tl at failure to control erosion in
accordance with the plans and exhibits as contained herein may cause flooding
and/or damage to adjoining property own rs. In such event, Developer agrees
to hold City harmless and indemnify City from claims of all third parties or by
Developer for damages arising OLlt of sue flooding and/or dnmoges.
TI1e parties recognize that in mergeney situations, time is of the
essence in preventing damage to persons and to property. In the event of an
emergency situation requiring immodiatG action to prevent loss or damage to
persons or property, to be determined at he sole discretion of City, tl1e notice
and cure provisions of paragraph 25 shall no'L apply and Ci'lV is authorized to
undertake any corrective action it deems ecessary to prevent or minimize any
such flooding and/or damage.
In such event, Developer grees to l10ld City harmless and
indemnify City from claims of all third p rties, or by Developer, for damages
arising out of said corrective action by Cit , and agrees to reimburse City for all
out-of-pocket expenses incurred by City arising out of the corrective action,
whether performed within or without desi nated easement areas, including but
not limited to any costs necessary to re-Ia dscape disrupted soils located within
tile Subdivision.
19, Insurance.
a. The Developer will pr vide and maintain or cause to be
maintained at all times uring the process of constructing the
Developer Improvem nts until six (6) months after
acceptance o'f all Devel per Improvements and, from time to
time at the request of t e City furnish with proof of payment
of premiums on:
1) Comprehensive enaral liability insurance (including
operations, co tingent liability, operations of
subcontractors, ompleted operations and contractual
liability inslIran e) together with an Owner's
Contractor's Pol cy with limits against bodily injury,
including death, nd property damage (to include, but
not be limited 0 damages caused by erosion or
-8-
s-/) -- fj
MAY.-07'98(THU) 09:45
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
.
.
.
P. 010
flooding) which ay arise out of the Developer's work
or the work ot an of its subcontractors.
Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than
$500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for
each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not
be less than $20 ,000.00 -for each occurrence. The
City, City Engine r and Developer's Engineer shall be
an additional nal ed insured on said policy. Developer
shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with tile
City upon reques .
2) Worker's comp nsation insurance, with statutory
coverage.
20. ParI< Dedication. The City acknowledges that the Developer
dedicated sufficient park in Klein Farms 1 st Addition to satisfy park. dedication
requirements for Klein Farms 3rd Addi ion and no additional dedication is
required for Klein Farms 3rd Addition.
21 . Secur" e . For tile purpose of financing
the construction, installation and mainta ance o-f the Developer Improvements,
Developer has executed and delivered to Builders Mortg(]ge ("Lender") a Note
and Mortgage encumbering the prop rty in an amount not less tllan
$170,140.00. The proceeds of tllis 10 n sllall be escrowed by Lender and
disbursed only in accordance with th torms and conditions of a certain
Disbursement Agreement attaclled l1er to as Exhibit B and incorporated by
reference herein.
No work sl1all be cOl11mence under this Agreement until the Note,
Mortgage, and Disbursement Agreeme t has been executed and conformed
. copies filed with City.
22. Rp.sp-onsihility for Costs.
The Developer 511811 BY all costs incurred by it or City in
connection with the development of the Subdivision,
including but not Ii ited to construction of Developer
Improvements, legal, lanning, engineering, and inspection
expenses incurred in connection with approval and
8cceptance of the 5u division plat, the preparation of this
8.
~9
~b-IO
MAY. -07' 98 (THU) 09: 46
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P L. L. P
.
.
.
TEL:612 925 5879
P. Oil
Agreement, and all rea onable costs and expenses incurred
by the City in monitoril 9 and inspecting development of the
Subdivision, Including r asonable attorneys fees in tile event
City undertakes enforc ment of this Agreement by City.
b. Tile Developer shall pa in full all bills submitted to it by the
City within thirty (30) ays after receipt. I'f the bills are not
paid on time, tile City may l"'Islt all plat development work
until the bills are paid i full.
23. Prohibitions Aaainst As~ mgnL.ui. Aareement. Developer
represents and agrees that (except for ssociating with other individuals or
entities), prior to the completion of the D veloper Improvements as certified by
the City:
Except only by way of security for, and only for the purpose
o'f obtaining financing ecessary to enable the Developer or
any successor in intero t to the Property, or any part tllereof,
to perform its obligatio s wltl"'l respect to the construction o'f
tile Developer Improve ents under this Agreement, and any
other purpose authori ad by tllis Agreement, tile Developer
(except as so autlloriz d) will not make or create, or suffer to
be made or created, ny total or partial sale, assignment,
conveyance, or transf r in any other mode or form o'f with
respect to this Agree ent or any interest tllerein, or any
contract or agreemen to do any of tile same, without the
prior writter1 approval f City.
8.
b. In tile absence of spe ific written agreement by the City to
tile contrary, no sucll transfer or approval by City shall be
deemed to relieve De eloper from any of its obligations. In
the event tllat City ap roves a substitute developet and the
Property is transferred to said substitute, tile City agrees to
relieve tile Developer of liability from performance as
described in this cant act. Said substitute 511all assLlme all
responsibilities and ights of the Developer under this
contract.
24. Events o'f Def~ult Definillh The following shall be "Events of
Default" under this Agreement and the erm "events of default" shall mean,
., -
Sb -II
MAY. -07' 98 (THU) 09: 46
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 587Y
r. U 1 ~
.
.
.
whenever it is used in trds Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides),
anyone or more of the following events:
a. Failure by the Develope to observe and substantially perform
any covenant, conditio , obligation or agreement on its part
IO be observed or perf rmed Ilereunder, after written notice
to the Developer as pr vicled in this Agreement.
b. If the Developer shall dl11it in writing its inability to pay its
debts generally as they become due, or shall file a petition in
bankruptcy, or shall make an assignment for the benefit of its
creditors, or shall cons nt to the appointment of a receiver of
itself or of the whole 0 any substantial part of the property.
c. If the Developer sha I file a petition under the federal
bankruptcy laws.
d. If the Developer is in d fault under the Mortgage and has not
entered into a worl<-o t agreement with the Lender.
e.
The Developer shall, af er commencement of the construction
of the Developer 1111 rovements, default in or violate its
obligations with resp ct to the construction of the same
(including the nature a d the date for tile completion thereof),
or sl1all abondon or su stantially suspend construction work,
and such act or action is 110t due to Unavoidable Delays and
any slIch default, viola ion, abandonment, or 5uspension shall
no't be cured, ended, 0 remedied within the time provided for
in this Agreement.
25. ' a Whenever any Event of Default
occurs, the City shall give written notic - of the Event of Default to Developer
by United States mail at its last known ddress. I'f 111e Developer fails to cure
the Event of Default within fi"fteen (15) days of the date of mailed notice, in
addition to any other romedy provided i this Agreement, and without waiver
of any such right, City may avail itself f flny or all of tl1e following remedies:
a.
Halt all plat developm nt work and construction of Developer
Improvements.
~ 1 -
~b -/;L,
MAY. -07' 98(THU) 09:46
.
.
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 013
b. Refuse to issue buildin permits or occLlpancy permits as to
any parcel until sLlcll ti e as the Event of Default is cured.
c. Apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin
continuation of tile Event of Default.
d. Exercise any and all re edies available to City pursuant to
the Disbursement Agre ment. If the Event of Default is the
failure of Developer to omplete, construct, install or correct
the Developer Improve ents in accordance with the plans
and specifications and his Agreement, City may perform the
construction or work nd apply to Lender pursuant to the
Disbursement Agreemont to reimburse City for its expenses.
Tllis provision Sl1811 be license granted by tile Developer to
the City to act, but shall not require the City to take any such
action. Developer co sents to such action by City and
waives any claim De eloper may have against City for
damages in the event ity exercises its rights in accordance
with this provision.
Terminate this Agreem nt by written notice to Developer at
which time all terms and conditions as contained herein shall
be of no 'further force and effect and all obligations of the
parties as imposed Iler under sllall be null and void.
e.
26. Miscellaneous.
.
a.
This Agreement shall b binding upon tile parties, their heirs,
SLlccessors or assigns, as the case may be.
If any portion, sect on, subsection, sentence, clause,
paragraph, or phase of this Agreement is for any reason held
invalid, sLlch decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of t is Agreement.
b.
The action or inactio of the City shall not cons'titute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement.
To be binding, amend ents or waivers shall be in writing,
signed by the parties, nd approved by written resolution of
the City Council. Th- City's failure to promptly take legal
c.
.12.
5D--/3
MAY. -07' 98(THU) 09:46
OLSON USSET & WE I NGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
.
.
.
p, 014
action '~o enforce this greement shall not be a waiver or
release.
d. Future residents of this ubdivision sllall not be deemed to be
tllird party beneficiaries of this Agreement.
e. This Agreement shall r n with the land and shall be binding
upon the Developer, its successors and assigns. The
Developer shall, at its xpense record this Agreement in the
Office of the Wright C unty Recorder. After the Developer
has completed tile wo k required under this Agreement, at
the Developer's reques tile City will execute and deliver to
Developer a release in ecordable form.
f. All parties to this Agr eme'nt acknowledge they have been
represented by counsel and have entered into this Agreement
freely and voluntarily.
27. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and
shall be either hand delivered to the Dev loper. or mailed to the Developer by
United States mail. postage prepaid to t e following address: 9240 Baltimore
Street NE, Blaine, MN 55449, or suell 0 her address as may be designated in
writing from time to time. Notices to C ty shall be in writing and either hand
delivered to tile City Administrator or ailed to City by United States mail,
postage prepaid to the address: City of Monticello, 250 Eas't Broadway,
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and eveloper have signed 'this Developer's
Agreement tile day and year first writte above.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
William Fair
Mayor
Riel< Wolfsteller
City Administrator
-, .
5'D-I'f
MAY. -07' 98(THU) 09:47
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 015
.
.
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)55.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was ack owledged before me this _ day of
, 1998, by Mayor iIIiam Fair and by City Administrator
Rick Wolfsteller of the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation,
on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Pu lie
E & K DEVELOPMENT LLC
President
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
155.
COUNTY OF
Tile foregoing instrument was aek owledged before me this _ day of
, 1 998, by its
of E & K Developme 1t LLC, a Minnesota limited Liability
Company on bellalf of tile corporation.
Notary Pu lic
Tills I nstrument Drafted By:
Olson, Usset, Agan & Weingarden
4500 Park Glen Road, Suite 300
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
-1 -
51) --I ~
MAY, -07' 98(THU) 09:47
.
.
.
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN p, L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
EXHIBIT A
[Insert legal dese iption here]
P. 016
5b ... lip
MAY, -07' 98(THU) 09:47
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN p, L, L, P
TEL:612 925 5879
p, 017
.
.
.
EXHIBI B
DISBURSEMENT GREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and en ered on ' 1998,
by and between E & K Development LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability
Company ("Developer"), Builder's Mo gage (IlLender"), and The City of
Monticello, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation ("City").
WHEREAS, the Developer is tl)e 0 ner of the real property described in
Exhibit A attached hereto, commonly nown as Klein Farms 3rd Addition
("Subdivision");
WHEREAS, on ' 1998, the Developer and the City
made and entered into a Development A reement, a copy of which is attached
as Exhibit B, ("Development Agreement") concerning tile construction of certain
improvements to the Subdivision described therein ("Developer
Improvements ");
WHEREAS, on
, 1998, the Developer and the Lender
made and entered into a Loan Agreem. nt (IlLoan Agreement") wherein the
Lender agreed to loan the sum of $ 170,1 0,00 to tl1e Developer for tile purpose
of constructing the Developer Improvel ents and other related development
costs;
WHEREAS, on , 1997, the Developer, as maker
executed and delivered to the Lender, a payee, a promissory note in the sum
Sf) --/7
MAY. -07' 98(THUl 09:47
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 018
.
of $170,140.00 with interest thoreon p yable 3s described therein, and said
note was secured by a Mortgage exec ted and delivered by Developer, as
mortgagor, to Lender, as Mortgagee, encumbering the Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, tile pmties desire to stablish procedures concerning the
disbursement of the funds under the Loa 1 Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideratio of the mutual covenants herein and
other good and valuable consideration, he receipt and adequacy of which is
t1ereby acknowledged, the parties hereb agree as follows:
1 _ Security. Tile City hereby ae epts this Disbursement Agreement as
Security for the construction of the Developer Improvements, including
. establishment of required tree plantings under the Development Agreement.
The liability of the Lender to the City under this Disbursement Agreement shall
automatically be reduced to the extent of advances made by the Lender under
the Loan Agreement for tl18 Develop r Improvements, provided tllat said
advances are approved in writing by the City.
In the event of improper disb rsement, Lender shall be liable to City
"for any damages arising -from (]ny impro er disbursement up to tile amount o"f
such improper disbursement.
2.
c
(" Private
Engineer") shall certify in writing to th Developer, the Lender, and City the
progress of construction of tl1e Develo er Improvements at the conclusion of
.
-2
50-1$
MAY, -01' 98(THU) 09:47
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
p, 019
.
each stage of construction. Such certi ication shall set fortl1 the quality of
workmanship, the stage of construe ion according to the plans and
specifications, the dollar amount of the D veloper Improvements completed to
the date of such certification, and tile dollar alllount of the disbursement
necessary to pay 'for the certi'fied Develo sr Improvements.
3. Aoproval bv Citv. After rec ipt of the certification by the Private
Engineer, the City shall give written not ee to the Developer and the Lender
whether the City approves or rejects th Developer Improvement relating to
sucl) certification. The City will Lise its b st efforts to notify the Developer and
Lender within ten (10) business days aft r receipt of such certification by the
. Private Engineer. Tile City may perform i s own independent inspection of the
Developer Improvements.
4. Disb . If the City approves a certification
of the Developer Improvement by tile P ivate Engineer in writing, the Lender
may rely upon such approval and, if so in trLlcted by the City, advance no more
than Ninety-five percent (95 %) of the SLI certified by the Private Engineer for
the Developer Improvements. Five pere nt (5%) of all certified sums of the
Developer Improvements ("Retainage") rn y be retained until the final inspection
by the City. The Retainage shall be disb rsed after the City completes its final
inspection, accepts all Developer Impro ements and Developer provides the
necessary maintenance bond to City. If the City rejects any item of the
.
-3-
SD--I'I
MAY, -07' 98 (THU) 09: 48
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN p, L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
p, 020
.
.
.
Developer Improvement in the certificati n by the Privute Engineer, the Lender
Sl1811 not advance any -funds relating to tha item of tile Developer Improvements
until the City has given its written co sent. Certifications not relating to
Developer Improvements as referenced in the Development Agreement shall not
require the 5 % retainage pursuant to thi paragraph.
5. er. The
City may sLlspend or terminate tile certi'fi ation o'f tile Developer Improvements
by the Private Engineer. In such event, t e City shall give written notice to tile
Developer and the Lender of such suspension or termination. Such suspension
or termination shall not affect any certification issued by the Private Engineer
prior to tl1e receipt of SUCll notice to all p rties. Such suspension or termination
shall be prospective only. In the event of such suspension or termination, tile
City sllall inspect tile Developer Impr vements completed, certify to the
Developer and the Lender the dollar am unt of tile Developer Improvements
completed to the date of such certificati n and the amount to be advanced to
pay for the certified Developer Improve ents.
6. Pursuant to the Development
Agreement, tile City Engineer ot the elt sllall make a final inspection of the
Developer Improvements. The Private Er gineer shall have no authority to make
the final inspection on behalf of the City. The City Engineer may object to any
construction de'fects discovered during t e final inspection regardless of when
~4~
5b ..~O
MAY. -07' 98 (THU) 09: 48
OLSON USSET & WE I NGARDEN . L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 021
.
.
.
sucll defects occurred. Tile failure of th City to object to a prior certification
by the Private Engineer shall not be de med a waiver of the City's right to
demand tile correction of any constructi 11 defects discovered during the final
inspection.
7.
. I"f the Developer commits an
event of default upon its obligations as i posed by tl,is Agreement, or pursuant
to the Note and Mortgage executed by Developer, or as defined within the
Development Agreement with City and d es not cure the event of default within
the time proscribed within the Development Agreement, the City may give tile
Developer notice of the City's intention 0 terminate the private installation of
the Developer Improvements and the ity may proceed to let contracts to
complete the Developer Improvements. he cost of said contracts, plus other
obligations of the Developer under the D velopment Agreement, may be drawn
from the remaining unadvanced amoLl t of Lender under this Disbursement
Agreement.
In the alternativlJ, upon def ult by tl,e Developer of its obligations
under the Development Agreement fall wing the above described notice, the
City may request the Lender to advance "l1e remaining unadvanced funds under
tl,is Disbursement Agreement directly t the City, which funds the City shall
hold in escrow for the exclusive p rpose of completing the Developer
Improvements and satis"fying tho other bligntions of the Developer under tile
-5
6/) -~J
MAY. -07' 98 (THU) 09: 48
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN p, L. L, P
TEL:612 925 5879
P.022
.
.
.
Development Agreement.
Upon final completion of the 0 veloper Improvements, the City sllall
pay any remaining funds to Lender to be pplied as a payment on Developer's
behalf. The notice o'f uncured default sha I be signed by the Mayor or the Clerk
of tile City. Copies of snid notices shall Iso be served on the Lender.
In the event City does not recoup its costs in completing the
Developer Improvements under the pravis ans of this paragraph, as an additional
remedy, City may, at its option, assess he benefitted property in the manner
provided by Minnesota Statutes ~429.0 et seq.
8. Tenns of Aqr~!Jl~!lt. This greernent shall expire on
1999. This Agreement shall automati ally be extended for successive six
month periods unless Lender gives writt n notice to the City 30 days prior to
any expiration date. If the Lender choo es not to extend tile Agreement, and
tile City desires continued financial se urity for the Developer's obligations
under tile Development Agreement, tile City may request the Lender disburse
to the City the remaining unadvanced mount of this Disbursing Agreement
which funds the Ci'ty shall hold in e crow "for the exclusive purpose of
completing the Developer Improvement or other obligations of the Developer
under the Development Agreement. U on final completion of the Developer
Improvements and satisfaction of tl1 Developer's obligations under [he
Development Agreement, the City shall pay any remaining funds to Lender to
-6
Sb-~~
MAY. -07' 98(THU) 09:48
OLSON USSET & WEINGARDEN P. L. L. P
TEL:612 925 5879
.
.
.
be applied as a payment on Developer's ehalf.
P. 023
9. Any request by the City of the Lender, whicl1 is authorized by
paragraphs 7 and 8, shall be honored by the Lender within three (3) business
days after demand is made by the City.
10. Notices. Any notice provi ed for in this Agreement may be
delivered or mailed as -follows:
Lender:
Developer:
924 Baltimore Street N.E.
Blai e, MN 55449
250 East Broadway
PO ox 1147
Man icello, MN 55362
Atte tion: Rick Wolfsteller
City:
Such notices shall be deemed to ave been given when received by all
pa rties.
11 . Governino Law. This Agree ent shall be governed in all respects
by the law of the State of Minneso'ta.
12. Assignment. The rights of he City under this Agreement cannot
be assigned.
13. Bindina Effect. This Agreel ent shall inure to and bind the parties
hereto and tlleir successors and assigns.
14.
No Third Partv Riahts. This greement is made for the sole benefit
-7
5b-~3
MAY. -07' 98(THU) 09:48
OLSON USSET &. WE I NGARDEN I. L. L. P
.
.
.
TEL:612 925 5879
P. 024
of the parties hereto. No other person shall have any rights or remedies under
this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parti ~s have made and entered into tllis
Agreement as of the first day and year above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
William Fair
Its: Mayor
By:
Rick Wolfsteller
Its: City Administrator
E & K DEVELOPMENT LIMITED L1ABILll Y COMPANY
By:
Its:
BUILDERS MORTGAGE
By:
Its:
muni/mont\ 797511198.02
-8
5b -~'I-
.
.
.
5E.
Council Agenda - 5/11198
A REFER
Mr. Scott Rolfe is requesting approval of a conditional use permit allowing open sales and
display of swimming pools and related pro ucts as an accessory use to Skipper's Pools
and Spas located at 101 West Broadway. his item was previously before the Planning
Commission on April 7, 1998. At that t' , the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the conditional use permit to a ow open sales of swimming pools at 101 West
Broadway. On April 13, 1998, the City C uncil reviewed the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and moved that the pplication should be returned to the Planning
Commission for further consideration.
On May 5, 1998, the Planning Commission gave consideration to an entirely new proposal
brought forward by Mr. Rolfe and Montice 0 Community Partners [MCP]. The new plan
is for outside display and sale of swimming pool products on adjoining property currently
owned by the City of Monticello HRA. In ooperation with the MCP, Mr. Rolfe and the
MCP would develop a public gathering spa e on the front lh of the HRA property and a
fenced swimming pool display area on the ack lh of the property. The public gathering
space would be entirely constructed and . tained by the MCP and Skipper's Pools and
Spas.
According to Mr. Rolfe, the fence would lly enclose the pool display area, and the pools
would not contain water.
Ms. Barb Esse spoke on behalf of the MCP and expressed that as designed, this proposal
represents a superb win-win solution for th City, MCP, and Skipper's Pools.
On May 6, 1998, the Monticello HRA appr ved a motion to allow Skipper's Pools and
Spas to use the northerly lh of Lot 7, Bloc 52, Original Plat, except the area designated
on the proposed plan as walkway, through he end of August 1998 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Skipper's Pools and Spas m st indemnify the HRA,
2. Use must be for display pu oses only, and
3. Use must be consistent with the conditional use permit.
The HRA approved the use of their lot wit out charge or lease because Skipper's Pools
and Spa's use is immediately adjacent to th HRA lot, and the approval is consistent with
the Conditional Use Permit considered by t e City.
5
.
Council Agenda - 5111198
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the conditional se permit, finding that the proposed outdoor
display and sales use as proposed b the plan recommended by the MCP and
presented to the Planning Commissi n on May 5, 1998, is:
. A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
2.
.
.. connected with the principal use and limited to no more than 30% of the
gross floor area of the princ' al use,
.. compatible in its relationshi to the Comprehensive Plan,
.. compatible in its relationshi to the geographical area and the character of
the surrounding area,
.. justified by a demonstration f the need for such use, and
.. does not substantially depre iate the area in which it is proposed; and,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Subject to entering into a sa isfactory lease or arrangement with the City of
Monticello H.R.A.;
All lighting must be directe away from the public right-of-way;
Parking stalls must be clearl striped and marked;
No permanent or temporary signs shall be erected on the outdoor display;
Any swimming pool or spa isplayed outdoors must be provided with a
continuous surrounding bier to prevent entry;
F. Outdoor swimming pool or pa displays must not contain any water; and,
G. This conditional use permit hall be issued for the term of one (1) year from
the date of approval by the ity Council, and shall be subject to renewal by
the same procedural require nts as the initial conditional use permit.
Motion to deny the Conditional Us Permit, finding that the proposed outdoor
display and sales use as proposed is not compatible in its relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan, not compatib, in its relationship to the geographical area
and the character of the surroundin area, not justified by a demonstration of the
need for such use, and substantially depreciates the area in which it is proposed.
6
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the issuance of the onditional use permit be approved according
to Alternative #1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of HRA Motion of May , 1998
Exhibit B - Location Map
Exhibit C - Copy of New Proposed Site P an
Exhibit D - Copy of Land Survey for Lots and 10, Block 52, Original Plat, Monticello
.
.
7
.
.
.
BRA MOTION 0 MAY 6, 1998
The HRA approved a motion on May 6, 1998, rela ing to the property described as Lot 7 and a
portion of Lot 8, Block 52, Original Plat. The mo ion reads: The lIRA allows Skipper's Pool
and Spa, Scott Rolfe, the use of the northerly one- alf of the described parcel, except the area
designated as walkway, through the end of August 1998 with the following conditions: Skipper's
Pool and Spa must indemnify the lIRA, use must b for display purposes only, and the use must
be consistent with the conditional use permit. The HRA approved the motion because Skipper's
Pool and Spa is adjacent to the unused described p eel and is consistent with the conditional use
permit.
E~h;b;f A- 5€....1
, ~
-..~
'IiIi I.. .
~_Jo
.,;
~
'- ~",..
~1I
J, n4:lQ
......
7'
.....
-'P.i"~;';.' ......~.;.,',.. ";7:',';, ..' ./i.' ,.... ii' - . '. '. ,.
. . . ..< """. ....' ., >,<,' .. ,.<.".">' .. ....<."<......... ....... ,<,., ".. '.'
.., ......",. ,..,<,.",..., ... .... .......,. ..
.PROi5i.. ,/ '{'\..JSEFC>RH RA LOTONeROADW A Y
..' .,..,., .......................,......,...'..'..,.'.....,...,'..'......'...'..'..'--..;.;.. ~.2)lt~l!1!1;~i.! . ..', A EC. 0.'. M. M.' EN. D.EDB.'. ....,...,....M. CPo 5~6~.9. 8."..',
,....,...'..,.....,.....,....".. '. ....
<><Lc::-::-:"'T' . ...."0 .... ... ... ,<J". . ...
. .........;. ; . /. ...;;". "'/;;..,/.'. ... .'j'EE.}. .. ...., ..'
.EE. ..... ...... .if~' A, ';:E;'" '. ">/:;r!"..,i';:I..i';' .......... '. .'
'.' _II~
I .,' .. ________< .70.... 07 ,.i," .. ..' ... ...' 'y->> )7" "','. -> ~ 7 ....,... . ,., "'.. '
.. ...........................,,<i........,".'..>,'....'..' <....,.i '"..,.:'.. ...... t'> .'. ...,.)</ ...,....',..< ,<< ..;%..1:\\; :"...' ...<,.. ......... .>' , ::., .',.
,.,.,." . """". ,.,..... >t .',.". ',.,. ...,..',..,....< ..",.""., "..... .... .. . ",..
.. .' ,.....' ,.,.",'/ ' ',"', .... ..... . ...... .>; ','" ..)> '} .'"..,..', ',', . ..... '. .' .' . .' '"
iE/).,S,,;( i .... ..... ;. ..... .... "'J.Y;i"";;'> .. ,. ....... ....
:.;;;.1' .;i. .. }..!i"';..i;'... .... .......
.......... ',i..,'i,< ,,', '. .. '.<< ...., .<;> <>>: .,./<'
", "; ." ",";;wi/' .....iii.;. 'i. Yi
i< I.... -C -C '. ..' . ......
, < "i:.F~"
b'~.ii ..../ i. POO ..... POO~;i.
" ....,... ;..,..)/ ..,...w..:.........,,;:...:..,.,.,:~::.r.-;.~~~;.. ..,'~:<:'.....d/. 1~~;\\}iJi;< ..
'.' "'" r:" ....... "","", ...,..,.:.' .:...,~., ",,~,.~., ":' ~,":'
<":III:.;:I:i;'~" ..../,<'
.. ....'<'..":..'.< '.,:"....,
. .... "',.' ..' .i/";
,.........;.;,<,. ,''';,>/",'' ;.~ DOOR FROM
,.. ...........'....... .' ...."'.:." .... .' '>"'SKIPPER'S POOL
....< '., POO ..... r: }} ONLY ACCESS
I .,....,......'.. ''''''.: """"
:<:>':'.::: if::~: :/:;:
I.."'>. .'....,'...,.. ..','.,.'. POO
..1, . ..,/ .... .. ;
.. ,..,...,...:....'..i>L2 .. "'.' .,'....'< .... --c.::'< '
.......:.....'... ,.--C--C -..e ~<,..., -C ". .... F;ii.li~~~~R~~6~~~:
~TITLE COMPAN~1~TERS" :13~;R~~:(4L"fm . ....
1...,/..<:........ "'. .(;i,,'''B.TRASH
'II .. ..... ""i:;;;)'.
~-C ."i' . .. ....,. .' .,.' ". .......:,.dL~: ;~}~';;: ;: SPLIT RAIL FENCE
..," , " '18 .. ", ... r " " . ,.
~~~~~
ex hib"f CI
.
,.....
......'.
S~Q
I' Co ~OJt,;q r
· 1$>040
...."
/
I
//
! ", "
............-
...... ......
~
I
I
.I
I
.I
/
/
/
;>
I
I
I
I
/.
,
/
<t:r",J_ ,I
-~"
-v~ I
!) ~.
\ "
\ .
0
.J
~' )"
'oj- ~:
'^' v
~: 1
.{
t'
.~ ~
l
- 'JO
'J <(' I.v
"-
~~
~
'-
I <9G_
I /~
I -0/..._
. 'vG
/
;'
/
/
I
I
/
/
tlto
.
~~ ~tJ-__
\ TAYL'
I
I
!
I
s,..
'>S.J ·
E'(nibi+ D
-230 W
MONTi
PHONF
.
SF.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
Daryl Tindle is requesting approval of a simp e subdivision of property located at 1707
West Broadway. This parcel is adjacent to illcrest Park and has a single family home
facing West Broadway, a county highway. ot requirements include a minimum of 12,000
square feet and 80 feet of width, with setbac s of 30 feet front yard, 30 rear yard, and 10
feet side yard.
The parcel is encumbered by a power line ea ement which restricts the ability to create
buildable area. With an existing home and d tached garage on the parcel, any new side lot
line is required to be located no closer than 0 feet to the current structures. As can be
see on the Site Plan, Exhibit B, the applican has estimated the locations of the existing
structures. Based on this drawing, there sh uld be adequate room to construct a new
home on the newly subdivided parcel witho t requiring setback variances. However, this
will need to be verified by certified land sur ey prior to recording of the subdivision or
approval of any building permit.
With regard to lot sizes, both lots will be si nificantly oversized compared to the R-l
requirements. The new lots would be more than 35,000 square feet and 43,000 square
feet in area. As noted, however, a significa t portion of the lots is encumbered by the
power line easement. Therefore, this prop sal is likely the only subdivision arrangement
possible.
It should be noted that the applicant has ill strated a number of alternative land trades
which involve remnants of parcels under th power line easement. At the Planning
Commission meeting, Mr. Tindle agreed to drop his request for a land trade which
involved Hillcrest Park due to the difficult in satisfying the title requirements of dedicated
park land. However, he did request that t e City approve the creation of "Area 3" as
shown on the site plan. Mr. Tindle would hen dedicate this portion to the City for park
use, adding to the existing Hillcrest Park ea. Since this would not involve Outlot A, no
replatting would be necessary.
In addition to the requirement that a surve be completed which verifies the dimensions
proposed by the applicant, the City will re uire written confirmation of a driveway access
permit from Wright County. The applic has indicated that verbal authorization has
been granted at the time of application. F ally, the City Engineer should comment on the
need for additional utility and drainage ea ements in this area. Since the lots were
previously platted in an alternative layout, easements were provided which would no
longer conform to the lot lines. Any addi ional drainage or utility issues should be
reviewed to ensure that the revised subdi ision plan will not affect, or be adversely
affected by, the existing patterns in the ne ghborhood.
8
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the simple subdiv' ion creating one additional building site and
a smaller parcel designated as "Area "for dedication as park land, subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the simple subdivisio , based upon a finding that the existing
conditions in the neighborhood negat vely affect the appropriate development of
additional single family homes.
3. Motion to table action on the simple 'ubdivision, pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends approval of the simple su division subject to the conditions listed in the
attached Exhibit Z. The conditions include urvey verification that the dimensions
proposed by the applicant will be upheld an that there will be adequate buildable area for
an additional home on the new lot. Staff w uld like to note that this application was
accepted without the typical requirement fo a survey to facilitate City review prior to the
applicant's expenditure of significant funds n surveying. As a simple subdivision, staff
considered the review of the application to possible without the survey requirement
being enforced up front. Upon approval by the City, the applicant would then be able to
contract for the survey with the confidence hat his proposal has been approved.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Subdivision Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
9
DARY TINDLE
.
R
.
w.
RS
AO
'"
~
~
"
.~
'1..
".
.
SF, I
E~\n~1:h"~ ~C>>l
.. '''~ ...<_' \.,~.".L:~_:'~;..)'o~~.r ".,"...;~/:,-,!~..!":"O:r."",.~~~;['1"':":. .....'.'. c.,;;:" .';~- ~ \~:W:"~~"'d-o~'~~" ;''''-;:' "C.l-"'I'~. "";'j,
...... .....,,,... ,.....__~~ .. ,r.' ~' .. '~)"f -.. ;;r,o'," ' ....-;>.- ..." ..;'~ ,:--""'''' ~;.o: ::;to ~~ - .." ~..... '." -.!
~~.':'~~.'''...'''<\':''.,-:'i ,..__.;'fl'/t J""::i:.,~~," ,.~:,....~" :~-;,.,:..:..,. '.J-~:, .~... ..1_~~..L'"i';:'-)i;i.;~~_.....",,--......,''''' ~....:...-
" .,_. ... ... . -~.::~.,~",....",.:,~~:.,..-;...-:--..".:......~~..:..._,:,-,..,...,----",~:..~~- "_... -- '.--'-
._ .._' ._._, '\' ,../_, . ' ,,:,.. .;. ...;:-:. ,. _!,:,._ _. ~"... ..... ' .. .' .,:",~.__"'':''--i'' ',,_. -
. . ,". ,.~...: .. ... .u .. """........... ,.~r!'. ., ;'Fr- -.:~..'~,
DARYLTIND E ..... . -~ "1"_ :
. ..... -":" .
'-'" .J
~ 'lc,.~\' .:(
" 1 (;
dl'~ ",q, \
11 'h
.. \ I' . \
\
\
\
\ \
\
_.-
. . .. . 't .
,.,
r'I
\,
,
,
\.
~. .,
,
, .
"
~:.J~
.....:,,~..
_ :JI J,1II r.
;.".><,-;7~
,. .. ';/
---/.'-+' -.
/' ':
;;; It. J?~
#z..
"-
.....
"
111< Ell".:' ':.:,'" "-
tt,. <: '
\
\
. \
I
i
I
J "::: I'
III ·
:: 100
AI( E)a...Ar;r
.
Dc...'
o Qt-'
"
.........~. - --
:
, .
. ..
, ,
, ,
~
)
...... '
. ' . , .....-
'. /''-;/ \
.
.
.
2.
CONDITIONS 0 APPRO V AL
SIMPLE SU DIVISION
DARYL INDLE
1.
Written approval of access permit is receiv d from Wright County.
A certified survey is completed which ver' es lot dimensions and illustrates the ability to
provide adequate setbacks and buildable ar as per Zoning Ordinance requirements,
without variance.
3.
City Engineer review of drainage and utilit patterns and easements in the area.
4. Area 3, as noted on the concept subdivisio plan, would be dedicated to the City for park
use.
r, ~Io.l~ \b D,-~'''''~'''' ~ r>-<;r.tr ~~
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
~':"3
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
. 5G.
United Methodist Church is requesting a re oning of their parcel south of County Road
118 and north of the City water tower site om A-O, Agriculture to P-S, Public and
Semi-Public District. The P-S District is t ically single zoned parcels intended to
accommodate land uses that are distinct fro other large land uses. Religious institutions
such as churches are allowed in the P-S Dis ict as a conditional use; therefore the
applicant has requested approval of a CUP s well. The subject site is currently outside
the City limits within the Orderly Annexation Area (OAA). As such, all action taken by
the City with regards to this application is c nditioned upon annexation of the parcel into
the City, which may be processed at an ad . . strative level.
1. Annexation
.
The subject site is within the established 0 A. As a result, annexation of the parcel into
the City should be a matter of administrativ processing. All actions by the City with
regard to the rezoning and CUP application' will be conditioned upon approval of the
annexation.
2. Rezoning
The purpose of the P-S District is to provid for the unique location and development
characteristics of public or semi-public uses including churches. The District recognizes
that the these uses may occupy only single arcels surrounded by different uses and
establishes performance standards intended to address compatibility and impact issues of
the institutional use. Therefore, the issue 0 spot zoning should not be considered an
issue. The 6.35 acre size of the subject site is sufficient to provide adequate site design
that minimizes off-site impacts of the proposed use.
3. Conditional Use Permit
Religious institutions, including churches ar allowed as a conditional use within the P-S
District, subject to the following:
a.
Religious institutions on parcels exc eding 20,000 square feet in area shall be
located with direct frontage on, and access to, a collector or arterial street.
.
Comment: The subject site hasfron age to County Road 118, which is considered
to be a collector street. In temzs 0 access, the applicant is proposing to utilize
the existing City access to the wate tower site as a shared driveway. This idea
has the benefit of reducing the num er of access points onto County Road 118.
However, the City access is current y only a limited use gravel drive that would be
10
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
inadequate to handle traffic associa ed with the church. At a minimum, a shared
driveway should be improved to the riveway requirements outlined in Section 3-
5 (D) 9 of the Zoning Ordinance, wh ch are a 24 foot wide bituminous suiface with
concrete curb. The driveway impro ements should be extended the length of the
east property line of the subject site The extent of improvements and the cost of
installation is a matter that will nee to be negotiated between the applicant and
the City as the adjacent property 0 nero If a shared driveway were not used, the
applicant would have to provide si ilar improvements for a private driveway on
their own property. As such, the re uired improvements are not beyond the
minimum required by the Zoning 0 dinance.
b.
The buildings are setback from adjo ing residential districts a distance no less than
double the adjoining residential setb ck.
Comment: There are no establishe residential districts that abut the subject site.
However, the setback of the princip I structure is at minimum 70 feet from a side
lot line, which would exceed the co dition requirements.
c.
Parking areas are developed to acc mmodate the most intense concurrent uses of
the facility so as to minimize overfl w parking onto the public street.
.
Comment: Section 3~5{H}8 of the oning Ordinance requires one stall per each
four seats within the main assembl hall, based upon building design. The
submitted building floor plans indi ate that the main Worship hall will have a
design capacity of 332 seats. Base upon this information and Zoning Ordinance
Requirements, 83 parking stalls ar required. The submitted site plan indicates
that 115 parking stalls have been p ovided. The parking stalls above the
ordinance requirements satisfy the ondition to provide overflow parking.
d.
Compliance with requirements of S ction 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
Comment: Section 22 of the Zonin Ordinance addresses compatibility of the
proposed use and compliance with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The
subject is in a location and of suffi ient size that will avoid compatibility conflicts
with adjacent land uses.
3. Site Plan Review
Building Elevations. Structures ithin the P-S District are limited to a maximum
building height of 50 feet however, church spires or belfries are exempt. The
applicant will be required to pro vi e building elevations, which are subject to
review and approval of the City C uncil.
.
Landscaping. The applicant has ot provided a landscaping plan for the subject
site as required by Section 3-2[0] f the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping is an
important consideration for this pr ject to prevent erosion of the significant slopes
of the subject site. In developing landscape plan, the applicant should consider
11
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
the opportunity for a unique landscap treatment to the slopes adjacent to the
parking areas including retaining wa /terraced gardens. Staff has also discussed
the potential joint use of the sloped ea between the Church and City park system
as a sledding hill. This concept shoul be considered by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The landscape plan w' be subject to review and approval of the
City Council.
Parking. As noted above, the num r of required parking stalls has been
exceeded for the proposed use. Secfon 3-5[019 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines
parking area design requirements. P rking stalls must be 9 feet wide and 20 feet
deep. The proposed parking stalls c nform to this requirement. Drive aisles must
be 24 feet wide. The drive aisles on he site plan are approximately 22 feet wide.
The applicant should verify that the rive aisles are 24 feet wide or revise the site
plan accordingly.
Based upon the number of proposed parking stalls, five stalls must be designated
for disability accessible use, includin at least one van accessible stall. Disabled
accessible stalls must be 9 feet wide with and adjacent 4 foot access strip and van
accessible stalls must be 9 feet wide with an adjacent 7 foot access strip. The
disability stalls may be so located to share an access strip. The site plan should be
revised to indicate the location of re uired disability accessible stalls.
.
Section 3-5[0]9.k of the Zoning Or inance requires that all parking areas be
surfaced bituminous or other mater' I to control dust. Also, Section 3-5[0]9.0
requires concrete curb around the p rimeter of all parking areas and islands. These
improvements will be required to b installed.
Grading, Drainage and Utility P ns. The applicant has submitted a site grading
plan. However, the plans do not in lude proposed erosion control measures.
Given the significant slopes of the ubject site, an erosion control plan is critical.
All grading, drainage and utility pI s must be subject to review and approval of
the City Engineer.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Rewning of the subject pro erty to P-S, Public & Semi-Public District:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve the rez ning based upon a fmding that the proposed use
is in conformance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and is
compatible with surround' g land uses.
.
Alternative 2. Motion to deny the rezoni g based upon a fmding the proposed use is
inconsistent with the objec ives of the Comprehensive Plan and is
incompatible with surroun ing land uses.
12
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for religious institution in a P-S District:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve the Con itional Use Permit for United Methodist
Church based upon a findin that the proposed use has met, or will meet
with appropriate changes, t e conditions as defmed in the Zoning
Ordinance, including adequ te traffic access, adequate setbacks to protect
adjacent properties, adequa e parking to accommodate the proposed use
and compatibility with the ea and Comprehensive Plan objectives.
Alternative 2. Motion to deny the request d CUP based upon a fmding that the proposed
use can not meet the requir ments of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
C. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends approv I of the rezoning (Decision 1, Alternative 1)
and Conditional Use Permit (Decision 2, ternative 1) subject to the conditions included
as an attachment to this report as Exhibit
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C-
Exhibit D-
Site Location/Existing Zon' g
Site Plan
Floor Plans
Recommended Conditions f Approval
.
13
-B4
~Z..M
'./\
';A
~\
\'i:::.:
A~-~.~
. "
:Y'
-~..-........
-
.
~.._I_.-
i
.-.,--
I
-"--'-r'-~
,
.._-_.~~--;~-~-
~
5'&.--/-------u-u- EXHIBIT A
, -- ".-.
..
:>- :1 ~
~ .. ..
is !r
~ ~i ~ . .Ii '"
~ j; ...
Vl . " ::
al 1
.... :~!, ~ .
-J '" ~~ ;;.
...
~ ~ !!Hi .'. ~ ~
..A z z:~:~ ! . ! ..
=:!:l, "~ &~
~ I' !-
..~!. y~ "~
~ H~.k -! , n ~ ~
e :i:~-; ~ W" ~ ~i 1\
.S \~~
l':l .... !.~;~ ~f ~,
~ ...
~ ~;: " t~ ' 1
~: " .; :;:
a i=" ~~ H "i!
...... ~
! ! . - r
~ !~ a
:~ \~ " -
! \ ! ..
j
, I J ~';
t \. \ I' ~ ~
~ ~ ~\ ~ ' $
{~~~-: J ~~,
': \ " , 1,' ; ~ '
. ~ ; \ Il )~) '~~ ~ \
, ~ \ ~ '~ ~ t -~ ~ ';
'I ~ . ~ \ ..a ~ I.
,... ~ ,~-.~~
~,~, (p ~.;!,'
,. \ \ ~ \ II' ..
l~n "~'" ~ e"
,,'" ....1\ ," ~
~ : j ~ e, q ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~. ~
~ : :; ~ '\"' '..I ~ ~ ~
,,( \ 1 I . e J i~
~~~: '.J., 0"
:~ if I . ~'~ i~f'~:.. ~,~:'":.~:.;~~ . ~ 1
1.1' ~ .. I ~, : {"'I J ~ '" 'r....... " .. I
/....,-,..J.~...;~~t_~. :"~ ~u.. ~ -t~"'~~-
/ /Il"-'~l r 4tu:ll.-:-,,"~"\~_" ..;>"";J; _~~_:r-'~-,\,-",:-'","':-,< '.
~. I,~: .:P';:-" __"" ( ",.r' . - ....1 ... I..J '--.j ~---r--1---~- I...............~_'- ~- / _''''' "
J fi,r ': (- '\ --, -:. _-l .~_.j . I .. "'--or "~f~ ~--+--:::r:..= ....LJ f ~ _n-..i
~;---I. ~,..~.:... '_ i 1".::.-,. ~ -::;~ :'~~'l'~-'--:?~~:"J~~ ~ "', ~ ---
,~.t~ _5'S'.it('9_l~ .~,..,z.o}-- ~~j.~..m"~"~;;'I'~~.
,~
;
.
\
~ ~ ~
1 '" "'I ~
\ ~
~ '.
r
~ .;
l \ ~...
~ ,~ ~
· i" ~
~ , i
~ ~ 'I
t : " ~
e\ ':
~
~
,.
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ S ~ .
~ ~ .
.,
^ ,
~ ,
.; ~
~
, ..
~
.
,>
~
J
<
\
,
)
/
/
/
/
/
I /
/1~~/
. ,
/ . :
, I
I ,
I '
\ , I'
I \ r.
\ . '
\ \
, I
"
,I
.',......:'\
"',;'\
~ ).':
! ,
I { ,.
I.; \;
\ ,
I
.."" .;.
, 1
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
f
,
I
I
I. ,
\..
,
,
.
,
,
,
\
\
,
, \
\
\
,
\
\ ' .
\
\
, .. \ " .
: 1 ~.... . "...-~'
: ..[i . ~ ' ~~~
I:' , r ,~'\I'\I",
, .',' /f",'
~ ".....\
/./ /, I ,
/ t I . '\
/ .. ~ II ,; . /'
/'" t' / ~r ( . /
/ ,It \' (
,I,. j/I \. ' . \
\ '. J \ \ " \
'.... '\' " \
, 'I }) . \
......... ,/ . ~
.', : ." f // , . . ",.I
:: , I 1/' . - // .
.' , I , . 'i It . '"
.' '''1/'' " ""/ :' /~....r
I " .." I' .. .' '~//_ '. l.~:'~.-"'-"\.
.. / . i ,- / ,..' t. . \
I I I '\ ..... \,
I' .' \ '.. -,. \
"..: .. .......~....::.;.. \
~.'
...
'j
I"
I'
!.
I
,
\
,
,
" \
,
'/
/
,
/
/
-.~" '~~\'j, \~:l:r,r~.O
. . \ , ' ; \ '
. \. . . \ \ '
\ '
. , '
'. "
"
N">.-
'.., .'-
,..
./
, .
, . ..,/1,_
.,
. ,
,
'-'I/.'I'.ll'I-."...
t,.._....nto'liv..
.1.....lIP.~....tD,.
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
,
" " ...
, '
.... '
--,
,
"
"
n
~:
-,
~i
~L
~t~
<!'
'II
~"
. i "!
I';. -
i~'~
_!;~
"
~
...
..
;),
;
:!i ...
~
~
"
i :::
~
j..; 11.
.. ~
.,
... "
~
-"
':.!
','
,
,
/
\....-.......
~ S
..
I Q
E
"
1\
,
";
~
, .. .
/,i./~Q
" , \' l ~
I \"
\ . \. I
I .. a
\... ~ t
\~ ~ .~ \i
\ ,.
\ J 1~
\ I".
, .'/.
\ Ii;";
\ 'h
", \ h~
tl'U:;t
l_i-
, ..
,
,
,
/
. ~
=:=
i:
t~
s:!
"'''..::1
:~,
;ll
5~ --;l.,
EXHIBIT B
.
.
.
.~~~~~~~~~~
~I[~~
0-
i~
,
I
I
I
k
"
',,- .
"-'>
/
(
I
I
I
J
f
I
',- .....
,
,
,
't
~"--
", <.-'
,
"-.. ", /' /'
Y "- v
"
"
/
,<---
-----.-/
,(
"
"-
'\
"-
"-
',,>
"-
'>
/
/
.-
/"" //
" /
V
S-~--3
t\]i~~t';
z ~ ~~ ~
<~.~ .
~~!id
z;:'h,s
..: .
~~~
..: :
> .
A::C:: ~
r_l U ~
~ ~ ~
-;;;:J ~
Z ~:;:
~ u 3
~ ...J
L.. E-< tl
... CI'J _
- _ f-
Z 05
~ 0:;:
~::c::
~E-<
~~
8~
EXHIBIT C~ 1
.
I I~
.
.
z
ct
....l
Q.
a:
o
o
....l
';',-
/ ,-.
/ ,
/, ,
~
/
/
I'
~i~~1 e ,-
~~H. 1 .;
. ~ ~~~ . ~ ~
8~i!i i
z"Hi 0
~ .Ji;>. ~
Z c
~ . ~
~ ::I: ~
~ u ~
r- ~ ~
- ~::
Z ~;;::
~ ug
~ r- i:l
r- en 8
- _ f-o
Z Q 5
;:J 0 ;;::
~~
~~
8~
~'-'f
EXHIBIT C-2
.
.
.
RECOMMENDED COND IONS OF APPRO V AL
CONDITIONAL SE PERMIT
COMMUNITY UNITED ETHODIST CHURCH
1.
The applicant and the City, as the property wner, determine the improvements to be
constructed and responsibility for the costs ssociated with the installation of a shared
driveway, which satisfies the minimum desi n standards of the Zoning Ordinance, to be
located on the City property along the lengt of the east property line of the subject site.
2.
The applicant provide building elevation p ns subject to review and approval of the City
Council.
3.
The applicant provide a landscape plan that demonstrates unique treatments to the sloped
areas adjacent to the parking areas, indud' g retaining walls/terraced gardens, as a means
of controlling storm water runoff and erosi n.
4.
All drive aisles be designed to a minimum idth of 24 feet.
5.
The site plan be revised to designate five (5) disability accessible stalls, one of which must
be van accessible.
6.
All grading, drainage and utility plans be s bject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
~G_S-EXHmITD
.
SH.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
Star City Builders, Inc., has submitted a pIa requesting Concept Stage PUD approval for
a 60-unit townhouse project between Elm d Minnesota Streets, along the 7th Street
alignment. The property is zoned PZM, wh ch allows residential PUDs by Conditional
Use Permit. This developer had submitted first draft plan which the Planning
Conunission reviewed as a sketch plan at it April meeting.
The developers have addressed the general yout issues suggested by the staff report on
the sketch plan. As a concept plan, the pro ect still lacks detail required for more complex
review. There are, however, a few outstan ing issues which should be highlighted prior to
Development Stage PUD review.
First, the project will have to provide a bu eryard along the north boundary adjacent to
the Ruff Auto property. From the aerial p to, it appears that just under half of the
common boundary is utilized by Ruff Auto for its salvage operation. The remainder is
vacant land. According to the Zoning Ord' ance, where a developing parcel abuts another
parcel which is less than 50% developed, b sed on linear footage of common boundary,
the new development is required to provid half of the buffer yard on its side of the
boundary. The other half will be required f the other property owner at the time of
expansion or significant alteration.
For Residential to Industrial bufferyards, t e requirements are as follows:
Building Setback: 50 feet
Landscaped Yard: 40 feet
Plant units/ 100 ft.: 160
These latter two standards would be halve for this project, subject to a survey which
establishes the length of the common bou dary, and the limits of use on the Ruff Auto side
of the property line. A 5-foot high berm 0 opaque fence may be credited toward half of
the number of plants required of this proje t.
Given the severe aesthetic issues which y impact the residential neighborhood, we
would recommend a requirement for a fu berm with plantings which would help screen
the view of the industrial use. The auto s lvage use itself already has a fence for security
purposes.
The second issue raised by this project is he proposal for a private road rather than a
public street serving the 60 units. The de eloper has altered the design from the sketch
plan to provide a more grid-like street pat ern. The City should identify issues
surrounding the consideration of a privat street serving this number of units. Long-term
14
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
maintenance may be one concern due to the ost of reconstruction of such an extensive
private street plan. One method of addressin this issue would be to require the
homeowner's association to capitalize a reco struction fund to be available at the time that
the useful life of the street would be expende .
Separate from the design issues of the plat a proposed will be the consideration for Park
Dedication requirements for this area. The arks Commission has been working on a
Comprehensive Park Plan which identifies t s general area west of the downtown as a
neighborhood park search area. For some f , the City has been envisioning that such a
neighborhood park might be made a part of he City. owned property at Outlot A of
Country Club Manor. This area is directly est of this site along 7th Street. In addition,
the Civic Center project will be located a fe blocks east of this site, although those
recreational uses would be different in natur from traditional park and open space areas.
The Parks Commission should made a spec' IC recommendation as to the appropriateness
of a land or cash dedication requirement fro this parcel. Land could serve the area;
however, the dedication requirement for this parcel would be just over one acre, whereas
two acres is generally the lower threshhold ize. Cash donation from this development
could be applied to the City's reservation of land at the Country Club Manor site to either
increase its proposed size or fund some near term improvements.
.
Finally, a pathway connection should be pla ed through this property. Options include a
pathway along the boundary line with Ruff uto, a sidewalk through the internal street
system, or a sidewalk/pathway along 7th St eet. For purposes of linkage, the 7th Street
option may be the most appropriate. Again the Parks Commission should review this
issue at its upcoming meeting.
There remain a few design issues which sho ld be addressed at the Development Stage
submission request. These involve the amo nt of pavement shown for driveway access,
particularly on the west side of the project. At point A on the site plan, the street is
widened to provide additional frontage for wo four-unit townhouse clusters. This results
in a width of over 120 feet of uninterrupted pavement at one point and creates a very short
turning movement for the units which are n t perpendicular to the street. It may be
possible to narrow the street width in the p oject from the 40+ feet shown to 30 feet or
possibly even less. In addition, a landscape island in the triangular pavement area would
break up the expanse. In the circular area, oint B on the site plan, the street is so wide as
to allow unchanneled traffic around the cir Ie. Again, narrowing the pavement area would
better channel traffic and provide needed t rning radius at the intersection.
1.
Motion to approve the Concept St, ge PUD subject to the conditions found in
Exhibit Z.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
2. Motion to table action on the Conc pt Stage PUD pending additional information.
15
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
C.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Concept UD subject to the conditions listed in
Exhibit Z. The primary issues noted in this r port will need to be addressed as a part of
the Development Stage submission.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
.
.l---'" ;) LJ .l.">
jl;. ~ ..:-:-:,,;)'!;~
"".' '. . ~ .~..I"A._~}"
t~:;{rx~j ~!i'I.I~~.::;)~,
.
{f~
~1:'P~i
. ~I:";'
jY'~
ftf'.
..}
,~"'w
1D' ~~l:"
.~~'i~t:
\
~.~
~ '" I ~.
, ./~:~t-:.:
U)
0::
~
Cl
H
I-i
::J
I:Q
.
~
E-t
U)
,
~K~~ .(j I
~""'}"~"',"l;11!~,~: ~ ;~,
:4"1~~;:if:,! Q~ .~\~~.;~ . '.': .~' t-
~H,\~ \~,'~I:". .'::.'\
.; ~1;{}~:;:"..-.;,~.S~.~"f
'1'{~~){'
... ." ~
. ...1......,..
.~.
,;.
'.'
i'~' .
"'~i\;'~, .",
~ ~;~,!.;:.
:,.~~ :'~:::<\'''':''~
~<I'~I."'i.r.;,.;
. )'~f~
/. \1~t'i
~~~\i~~~.
;- )t '". "",.
~~~\:~(1~1~,
.,.,-
..<,/W.~~
;.;::.,:"t..,:.,\;....
." . '.t .
~"t ,,_,,'
~~.:~
''F./\'~
.
~
.~
......L...'.-' J.-il n II \./ '\
'~~I
...;./c\ ~k .
,3:~:~: I \t~' k-~ :
:-.'\ . '~ 0 ~t
... ...", \1l
~~ ~i~;r' -~ ~~
, ~~;'lC:t. (.. ~ IS' ;l
2~..1;' _,,'I S~ .
t:..){:~.~.,~': ~ \() -J" .
to"
_ 'lI,'~, .'
....~) ... .' . ~.. .. I,
~~1J: ;\...-~~ :...,\ I. '.;'
"j/lfr.:'tJt"..~ r.~:<.~~I~.
>.' :):.:" "~'\-' ~ '..'/,:, l!'~'
~i~.I\',:"'u,;<: ~'lJ;.~ .
t:",
'iO.}'"
l:' . L
rX'
~ll)~i
[i
~
~
,~~f~ 1F;~?fb
,,:..~l"" .J ,,;i-'
~
ll~"
"",... .
~ i j~
~ G:
i~
.J~.J
. :fi"{t0 t1{:~':
o
g
tlL
uJ
~
)
&:
.,..,"}..
:?;~~.
I
I-
~
IJ)
f
,:Jlh\bi4-A ~"'-I
<7rre: pLAN
.
.
.
CONDITIONS OF CONCEPf T AGE PUD APPRO V AL
ST AR CITY BUI DERS, INC.
1.
Provision of a bufferyard along the north bo ndary per Zoning Ordinance requirements.
2.
Submission of a survey documenting the Ie gth of the common boundary with Ruff Auto
and the limits of development on the Ruff uto side of the line.
3.
Submission of proposed homeowner's as so iation language which would ensure the
proper maintenance and future reconstructi n of the private street.
4.
Compliance with the recommendation of th Parks Commission regarding Park dedication
land or cash.
5.
Alteration of the design to resolve drivewa and paving expanse issues raised in the staff
report.
6.
Alteration of the design to resolve street w' th and turning radius concerns as noted in the
staff report.
7.
Other conditions recommended by City St
~H ~d-.
Exhibit Z
-.
51.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
Mr. Michael Cyr of Front Porch Associates as requested PUD and Preliminary Plat
approval for a seven unit townhouse project to be known as "Elm Street Crossing". The
project is located at the intersection of Elm d 5th Streets in a PZM Zoning District.
This district allows residential projects, inclu ing PUDs, by Conditional Use Permit. This
project was originally designed as now prop sed, but was brought to the Planning
Commission as a larger project at the encou agement of City staff. That larger project
included some required land acquisition and ity [mancial participation. Just prior to the
Planning Commission's review in April, the RA decided not to provide the financial
assistance. As a result, the developer is req esting both Concept Stage and Development
Stage PUD approvals concurrently.
However, it has now been discovered that a portion of the land which the developer
intended to purchase was previously sold to an adjacent owner to supply needed minimum
land area for other housing. That portion c nsists of a small rectangle of property behind
unit 3 (see site plan). Therefore, the develo ment will not be able to provide access to
most of the units, since the exception area i needed as a driveway. We have provided a
revision to the plan which would accommo ate the seven units on the smaller amount of
land.
This plan squeezes the buildings together to create an additional driveway, both driveways
to 5th Street being shown at 12 feet in widt as opposed to 20 feet. Units 4 and 5 would
be 9 feet apart (6 feet at the eave line), inst ad of the proposed 11 feet, and Unit 7 would
be placed at the 10 foot setback instead of 1.3 feet as proposed. Finally, Units 1,2, 3
and 7 would all be "side entry" garages, wh e units 4, 5 and 6 would be back entry
garages. The arrows on the revised plan in icate garage door locations.
One other option has been discussed. That would be to acquire a driveway easement
across the lot adjacent to Vine Street (Lot of the original plat). The owner of this lot is
the seller of the land to the developer and c uld possibly provide the easement as a part of
the sale. One concern related to the easem nt, however, would be that it would
effectively limit the lot size applicable to th existing single family home. Moreover, it
would have to be included in the PUD. T is would require renotification, since that
parcel was not originally contemplated wit this project.
With regard to density in the plat, the loss f the exception area puts the project right at
eight units per acre. This is the maximum ensity for mid-density development. While
there is no stated density maximum for the ZM District (this district would accommodate
R-3 type development), the density does in icate an intense use of land in relation to the
unit type. Of note in this project would be that there is very little green space to the rear
of the units, relying instead on the "front p rch" and front yard spaces for open space.
17
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
Many developments of this density compens te for the lack of private green or open space
by attaching more units together. Byelimin ting side yards, more open space can be
combined in usable sizes. Due to the unit st Ie and the need to provide side windows, this
is not possible for this project. To accomm date this unit design on the land as proposed,
we would encourage an intensively landsca d project, particularly in the rear yards which
will be used primarily for automobile access and parking. No landscape plan has been
provided with this proposal, as commonly r quired for Development Stage PUDs. Any
approvals should be contingent upon a sub 'ssion of a plan acceptable to staff.
A final issue involves park dedication regu' ments. The City should decide on a park
dedication policy for development such as t is which replat existing land to accommodate
more dwelling units than originally planned. In this case, three additional units are shown
beyond the original four lot plat area. On t e assumption that park planning was based on
the four lot development, the three new uni s would increase park demand, justifying an
additional dedication requirement. It is like y that a fee in lieu of land would be
appropriate. The Park Commission should eview this issue.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1:
.
1.
Motion to approve the Concept Sta e Planned Unit Development for Ehn Street
Crossing.
2. Motion to deny the Concept Stage lanned Unit Development for Ehn Street
Crossing.
Planning Commission recommended altern tive # 1.
Decision 2:
1. Motion to approve the Developme t Stage PUD for Ehn Street Crossing,
contingent upon compliance with t e conditions listed in Exhibit Y.
2. Motion to deny the Development tage PUD for Ehn Street Crossing.
3. Motion to table action on the Dev lopment Stage PUD for Elm Street Crossing,
pending resolution of the property . e issue and redesign of the project.
Planning Commission recommended alter ative #1.
.
1.
Motion to approve the Preliminar Plat for Ehn Street Crossing, contingent upon
compliance with the conditions lis ed in Exhibit Z.
Decision 3:
18
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
2.
Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat for Ehn Street Crossing.
3. Motion to table action on the Pre' . ary Plat for Ehn Street Crossing, pending
finalization of the property to be inc uded in the project.
Planning Commission reconnnended altern tive #1.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staffreconnnends approval of the Concept and Development Stages of the Planned Unit
Development, as well as the Preliminary P t, contingent upon the conditions listed in
Exhibit Y (PUD Conditions) and Exhibit Z (Preliminary Plat Conditions). If the developer
wishes to acquire other land, this project a d Public Hearing would have be re-noticed,
and new plans would have to be prepared Ii r review. Although there are typically
additional plans required for this stage of a proval, we believe the conditions as proposed,
as well as the fact that the area is already d veloped with public improvements, limit the
City's exposure to engineering problems. he primary concern is with the lack of
landscaping plans for the project, particular y in light of the density. Planning Commission
should only approve the Development Stag PUD if it is comfortable having staff review
the landscape plan at a later date. Staff rec rnrnends intensive landscaping throughout the
plat, with an emphasis on providing scree . g of the automobile spaces behind the
buildings.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Proposed Site Plan Revision
Exhibit Y - PUD Conditions
Exhibit Z - Preliminary Plat Conditions
.
19
.
, 1\
I
I:
I,
'i
.
~i~
'~,2~
.
.
\ ,,'~
H
,,\ ~ ~
:' j ~
"~<>~ \ ~;,
~~~ \',
,J; ~ -,
-:..'" .
,~.~.
~. ::~.:', ..~
_.-
.j
~
;
,
,-
/
I
~
I.
,:2
<\J
UJ
. ~. ~ . ~
Q)
.,
OJ
C
,;
'-' \
.~~
~ ~
/ 2
~
~
~,
....~-~
.'~
3 90,99 ge N
/
lu
Cl I" ..,
" } <
'- ,!" 0..\
:i
C) .. ~.)
.... '"
. .. r ,'(~
I
I
'" I
.. I
I Ie
I '"
I
I
I
I
I "
.1- 0'0':
I "
/' '"
~ -
..
.~
00'9H
.:"...01"",5
. .'".' '~c;.
l.- ...... r...
po ,. -.
fOr "I'
...
I
o
\
~ n
~ i
:. !
~
,-
I'
!/
,.
'"
..
~
Ii
(
Ib
~~1
."\.
.....
';'"1;; 'r. ~r; ,
--'I~' toj
\'/..' ,
, ~htbl+'A
ii'
.
\
.'
w' a\
.' ~
"''"
~l "~
.
i
I
-,
~
,/
''"
,\~
I ~~....I
....-
.
'V
i Y
b
\ ~
1 ,\ ~
,
\ '
: N,:."'" '" ('
. .... '" '\. '-"
~~~ '-~--~
.\
\
.' .
~~:-~
.~/~,,---:-..-....
......,- .,.". 1
~
ti
~~
~~~
t~~
0.:.
~
86 r91 3 .90.99 9c N
\
\
\ _,9f" ... ,"' -., "1
~-= ~ ~.~.- ~-.:::"- --":- - , '----"'-::::, \' - - --, ~--- --~-::'-"I -- ~;-- -rf 0
f"".4". ..- . 0 ~~ .~,
I I' .. '- I
I ~@ ~ ..... Of'
("~ I. \~.. ;,...: Ie I !, 'I
1"'~71 is "I' . <:> "
"I " ll< ~ '..~~:;:. ." .~ fu
I --- 'llo. . IS:; "' ~ .,....., ~ "V i I
'. Iii / , ::- ....... ~ I
. ...' --I. - ~ ,,'c I'"
~ . oc:;- '" ~,
.. r--'~:~ __.~~..;:'u --,- -.., 1;\ ~'" : I,:,
'".-;;, r .'~;J""' j 0' ' " \l;:j...... i " ..
1 ./ -..- .. :... 1 ~ ~\!: .~.
I ;' -- is Q G\ ---..... \ I r;
,j' - L 1,~ -t~ ~,- - - \J_.n- ~1 '",I ~
/ , i ~ ~ 1'1': gi
"I' ~ (' .' / I \ ~.~ I 't I ....
;,,1 I ~ '. / ~ (1); i, -... I J" ~" 1 '"
:: i .~ ; ;~ .~ _/:"-~_: '; ;-, l q :Ir~j~fl
~ I ~(fJ ".' ;, ,-~, ~ ... ~ ~ I ~:\ ? ~
I - -I ~,: -- (-. :..... -- ...._,'''0 -'.... ~ ~ 11 ;! I
o~ "... . I"',
I~ ~ I .. ... Jtl:I". lr) I
/ ~'-1 i m I \ ~'II 0" __
: : - It 4 e [(;2~_'-~c ~Ifn ~n_ _
~ ,_m~:1 -p.\l " : -i 1'1-, W'i~ '
B ~ c, 8>;,~ . L '---" ....--..
~ ~ 1 ! is ,~tf'I i ~\9~~ r-..,....I ',:::r I; ~ ~
'''f ,1'0. : ~ I g !: '" .~~ ~ . ..-f,. I ~i ~"~
~ I ~: Q 2 ./1 I. _),1 "", " -,,, "'~, 'i
VJ 5 _ ~
: n" ';=-=!=r-- ~, i, I' ~
I ,I .-/ .. I ,-;;:1<" ~ "?r ) . I '"
, I :-~;;- ~ 1,f2. ", "'",. ~, ~.~. " I. <:.- -'Oi,). , '.
", \i\2J 'iI,' , .... .' '~'. ':!
r, I ....... '..........."., .,. __ __
I~. .", I r 3. .9!iJia N
I I" '~;;, . '" , I. - ~ .
," ... ' ... .. I i
I ~-iT - 0'" Ii' ~~
.., I ~ " Iu "I; I "f'
"1.;. I I ~ f ~ ~ ~~<:' II I cO ",
. Q: ~ I i "l~' "". 'C.,,-.
I ~ or . I' I .~ ':'"
I '01 c. ! ; ltJ. .
I or vg, _ (') Iu I~,. " H"
.. Iu" "~'I :: .... .';.~
I ~ r: .~ ':, C\I :' ~:i
I I : a ~ ~ ~ '- I 1,,,[ Cn,_.'..,':....~
L, It: 2 "& "",' I I o. .~
" ~ ; ~ y - ", ,I ,"\:r: .,
,,- oil a'"'' ( .~~~ , ....,
..i--- -: ,- ,VIr. '-- '. I. lr)
- 1- CI ~. - - .... ~ -..::..:.: ~ ~ I ~ I
I / - - -~ - - -- - ~~ -- -+ -\- ~ -1'- I
---- ~ ~
~ '\I :'~ : ~
I
""i.J..
,"-
('
~ 0
. ,
. i '"
'"
'"
!-~'S~
.
t
\,
~
lb
- -..........----- - -.
-~ --.
00'911 3.L .99.9c N
,,: ~ iz, -~. tt!". ......,-;L
~~.:" I ~ Ji'
". "..-..-s.-,
,.
- ~~..
~.::~
i
~.l
-I --
~_ oj ,I, I'" ! I~, r IJlff
/01/ .1.4
'.:.1~
l'J"
I
--.-1
.~~~~_r~_~.'.__
3'""".1'6'-",'" '''',-v:r/ '" Y _.:..::;- ':;J:uh,'L!t .
~~.;; -;;-;'__..'. ~~ r"'~~~;-,r."- . ~ (,~,. ~ pi p
.
.
.
CONDITIONS 0 APPROVAL
ELM STREET C OSSING PUD
FRONT PORCH SSOCIA TES
1.
Revised Site Plan illustrating proper access 0 all garages.
2.
Submission of Landscape Plan illustrating' tensified landscape treatments as detailed in
the staff report to Planning Commission.
3.
Final approval of the Preliminary and Final
5'~~3
Exhibit Y - Conditions of Approval
.
.
.
CONDITIONS 0 APPRO V AL
ELM STREET CROSSIN PRELIMINARY PLAT
FRONT PORCH ASSOCIATES
1.
Submission of Final Utility Plan for review and approval by City Staff.
2.
Submission of Final Grading Plan for revie and approval by City Staff.
3.
Submission of revised Preliminary Plat illu trating lot dimensions and common space.
4.
Submission of lot covenants and homeow rs' association bylaws demonstrating adequate
provisions for common area maintenance.
5.
Final approval of the Planned Unit Develo ment.
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
~~-tf
.
5J.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
Residential Develooment. Inc. (NAC)
A
Residential Development, Inc., has requeste preliminary and final plat approval of a 27-
lot single family residential development titl d River Mill 4th Addition. The proposed
subdivision overlays a 14.51-acre parcel so th of County Road 39 and north of Interstate
94 currently platted as Outlot B of River M 3rd Addition. The subject parcel is zoned
R-l, Single Family Residential.
Streets
Layout. The proposed street layout is gen ally acceptable. One issue is the intersection
of Mill Trail Drive and Mill Trail Lane. Th applicant is proposing to replat River Mill 3rd
Addition to change Mill Trail Lane/Mill Tr il Drive from a loop street and make Mill Trail
Lane extend as a through street across the iver Mill 4th Addition. Mill Trail Drive
would intersect at a "T" with Mill Trail La e. The proposed street layout results in a non-
linear alignment of Mill Trail Lane. Staff r commends that the original layout of Mill Trail
Lane/Mill Trail Drive within River Mill 3rd Addition be maintained and that Mill Trail
Lane be extended to River Mill 4th Additi n from a 90 degree intersection between Lot 5,
Block 4, of River Mill 3rd Addition, and L t 6, Block 2, of River Mill 4th Addition.
Half Street. The applicant is proposing to lat a half street 30-ft right-of-way on the east
edge of the subject plat. The proposed ha street provides access to Lots 13-17 of
Block 2. The right-of-way for the other h lf of the street would not be dedicated until
such time as the property to the east is su ivided and developed. As only 30 ft of right-
of-way is available, a public street designe to City standards cannot be provided. Staff
recommends that the proposed half right-of-way be platted as an outlot and Lots 13-17,
Block 2, also be platted as a second outlot as access cannot be provided at this time. At
such time as the property to the east of thi plat is subdivided and developed, the east half
of the public right-of-way will be required to be dedicated and a public street constructed.
The outlot area of proposed Lots 13-17, lock 2, could then be subdivided and
developed.
The construction of this future street wou d be dependent upon the cooperation of two
separate owners. If for whatever reason t e property owners cannot work together to
construct the street, the City may be co elled to undertake a public improvement and
assess adjacent property owners to campI te the street.
Right-of-way. As required by ordinance, he proper right-of-way width of 60 ft has been
provided, except as discussed above.
20
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
Access. Access into the proposed subdivis on will be via Mill Trail Lane to River Mill
Drive, which connects to Riverview Drive/ ounty Road 39. It is anticipated that there
will be a future secondary access to Count Road 39 to the east as adjacent parcels are
developed.
Blocks. Section 11-5-1 (A) of the Subdivi ion Ordinance establishes a maximum block
length of 1,320 feet. The proposed subdivi ion layout conforms with this requirement.
The Subdivision Ordinance also suggests I t widths sufficient to accommodate two tiers
of lots. The proposed blocks conform wit this provision as well.
Lots. The lots of River Mill 4th Addition 11 conform to the minimum lot area and lot
width requirements ofthe R-l District:
Lot Area:
Lot Width:
12,000 sq ft
80 ft
Further, all of the proposed lots demonstra e sufficient building area in consideration of
R-l District setback requirements:
.
Front Yard:
Side Yard (Interior):
Side Yard (Street):
Rear Yard:
30 ft
10ft
20 ft
30 ft
Parks Dedication. Section 11-6-1 of the ubdivision requires a minimum 10% area of the
gross final plat be dedicated to the City for development of parks, open space, and trails.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate 3.7 acres (26.51 % of gross area) designated as
Outlot A on the plat to the City. Park ded' ation requirements for this development have
already been satisfied. As such, the dedica ion of Outlot A is over and above dedication
requirements. Acceptance of the dedicatio of Outlot A requires approval of the City
Council.
Sidewalks/Pathways. Section 11-7-2 (H) of the Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that the
City Council may require standard design idewalks. Outlot A abuts a significantly-sized
park to the northwest and is adjacent to M Trail Lane. As access to the park is available
across Outlot A, no additional pathways e anticipated to be necessary.
Screening. Proposed Outlot A separates he residential lots from the adjacent
Interstate 94 off-ramp and right-of-way. lans submitted by the applicant indicate
vegetative cover over the majority of the 0 tlot. This vegetation will provide valuable
buffer between residential areas and noise pacts of the Interstate.
.
21
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
Grading and Drainage. As required by S ction 11-4-1, the applicant has submitted a
grading plan for review. The proposed gra ing plan does not include erosion control
measures, which will be required as part of a fmal grading plan. All grading, drainage, and
erosion control plans will be subject to rev' wand approval of the City Engineer.
Utility Plans. The applicant has submitte preliminary utility plans in accordance with
Section 11-4-1 ofthe Subdivision Ordinan e. These plans will be subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer. The City E gineer should also provide reconnnendation as
to the need for easements to be included as part of the fmal plat.
River Mill 4th Addition is proposed for pr liminary plat and final plat approval. This plat
was tabled by the Planning Commission at he April meeting due to concern over the
neighboring landowner's objection to the p t of a street along the common boundary.
The City's attorney has reviewed the request and determined that the City can approve the
plat as presented, with a caution to the dev loper of River Mill that there is no guarantee
that the remainder of the street would be a ailable in the future or that the interior lots
requiring access from that street could be al platted and constructed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
Motion to approve the preliminary nd final plat of River Mill 4th Addition based
upon a finding that the project is c nsistent with applicable Subdivision Ordinance
and Zoning Ordinance requirement, subject to the conditions outlined in
Exhibit D.
1.
2. Motion to deny the preliminary an final plat of River Mill 4th Addition based
upon a fmding that the project is in onsistent with established City policies and/or
ordinances.
C. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on a review in consideration of esta lished City ordinance and policies, our office
recommends approval of the River Mill 4t Addition subject to the applicant addressing
the conditions of approval outlined in Exhi it D to the satisfaction of the City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C -
Exhibit D -
Exhibit E -
Site Location
Preliminary Plat
Existing Conditions
Conditions of Approval
Final Plat
.
22
-,:_1 .
----e
.t
':;" ..
-~'};\
Q
,...
,...
~
~
.-
......
=
Q~~
~.
~
Q
C
.~
u
.,
Ii
il
- ~
["-;}
---' ~
-'-~r
,,/
I
I
,
I
--:---'1
I
.~._-~
\
,
~~_-.!
:l .$
I
I
,__J.
,....-.~- ~ ~. '
"
....
CJ
-
'"
....
IJl
Q
t.o
c:l
-
&:l
i=:
III
0:
!~:J. ~
5=1".,.; I
ii~ H ~
J~z :p; ~
~ ::c ~ ~ 0:
,,;Ji .....
A - Site Locatior
II-.
~
......
o
ll.
'd
~,
18
!5! ~O>
a;"~-
r. ! ~ ~
::;j<:::jti
;~l~~
.... 0 ~ 0 .-
_ ",. 0
f1~q>~~
""',.,..
.
;;;,
-! -....-..~
'.. ,
~.
.,
-~
x,~.
--.--
, -.,
i
.,
-i
~II
. j
.---.
2. -
~
-'
"
f
-,
.
:!
-;
..:~.
"
J
'.
,
"1
j:
..~
".
.,
.-......
.,
-..! ..,
,;
-'}
~
~.
~.
j
;~.
0;
~1
"
'.
",
"
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
e~1 M / /J~y ~L",-
~- ~.
.--
.--
r--w
,
"i'._.~,
---........
RIVERVIEW DRI
j
!
i
"
i ~
.--\......--
f
r--
i
I
;
-......
J .........
1; "
,
,~
1".....t
'0 ,
. 11
! ,
I
.!.
-.
I .~
'- 1,_..
I"
",'
I~
1 ~
/Y I "k'
'-~"/Y
' ~-
.w- ..0"
:-5
, ,-.j
-'-~ i
-'.---
-~- \
'.
At I l
l
"
...
..
II'
I
-i
~,
...
..
.....- j-'---"",
S ~ 12.111
O~ ~
.~ t'& ~
..
. _ ,.._u...... ..."""T.-............"'.......~;
. i
......---..-.,
_4~~VC/Y J
.. '
I
_m.L
.!~
\
;
-1....-
..... __n.t
\ :~,
I
j..- .~-
".... ~....
~
-'
(Xl
U
......
o
<l'l
III
"t1
g
5
-I
to
.. .
u._~_.--l ".
I
;
-~-"'\
:,..---
\.
.4
"
,
.-
.' ,
\
III
-0
... ~
m~
:.....;
0_,
'"
,
I,
_"'30'"
177.04
Sll2'1~~
10 114 0 102
IIU TftM. LANE i
ll~ IlO IlO lID IlO
0: ~ ~ J g 4 g 5S
... 2
12.5S1 12.001 ,,- 12.000 12.000
lID 1103 lID IlO eo
'J'
",
110.70
seO'02'OS"W
I~_~
--
o 50 100
SOl.( IN rEEf
200
,
LOT WIDTH 80 FEET
LOT DEPTH 150 FEET
FRONT SETBACK 30 FEET
SIDE YARD 10 FEET
NUMBER OF LOTS 22 SINGLE FAMILY
MINIMUM LOT AREA 12,000 SF.
AVERAGE LOT AREA 14,487 SF.
TOTAL SITE AREA 14.51 ACRES
THESE LOTS ARE DESIGNED TO BE 80'
IN 'MOTH AT THE 30' BUILDING SETBACK
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OUTLOT B. RIVER MILL .3RD ADDlll0N , Wright
Minnesota, according ta the recorded plot tt
I 100' IVfl"" mI, "'If ,..... .. ll'f1:trleAnlll ... -. .. ...;
M'I' 'llllt' SUPnVlsttJf ANI ,.., I ,," .. 111..1 Ktil11'Ull:l II'IttU1:lt'tW. 1
l.-a 71Ir. un: IF nc u..,. c:F .,NCIIITA.
.....
IU. ...
6S....d..
EXHIBIT B - PRELIMINARY PLAT
~- -in
.
.
.
i
!
'"
iiI
j
;' g
,.
. ~
: ~
:t
C
"
3
,~
~
u
~
.~
. ..
.,
':)1-11 HI]~'ldOl]i\Ja l'1IHl)aIS]~
II ' I :1
trli.~~;~~!d
. r 1"\ "I':'la
~-:.!(t---.ll"!-:..'~<~. "y~~~~"U "" :'....~.~ll_
':>':-.11 :I.SII~h)5Hml-:HII1.I vs '\ ~ l
-I.ent l..l'lf
---.,..g;-
...
...
"
~
\!!
~
~~
if
011':)11..0" 10 JJI'
NOlllaav Hlv lllV'l cll^ICl
">'1<1 UIJ"<!OlJo\JO .1)0,,,"11)1)<1
~
.
"'
9
:J
~
~
~
..
N
':
,....,
',/
,'/
/;/
//
</
~
/l:"
"'.
~
I' ~ I
"I' Iii ,
:." g',
. \1)1 f2 ;
,.. ~
,;,'ii~
,1"
-;I'in
li,'t}'
.::.::.J'.':" .~
51 ,; ,I. l-ii.1I I','
'I' .
tjl
i~ i\ :
. Ii ,-;;; :,
Ii ,"
. __ .,... "=C'_ ....i.
, .:.-~~':._...::.:,
it
,
/l:"
"
"
01
I ' I ~
'i
,
- ..~ ~. ~
.;
'..
.:~:
!:lJ. ;
, "
:I'
"0:0"
.;:,
I
I' ..
r
I I. I I : ~~ ,.
.' .
" .
; I ~
I',
It;
I
"
f f .'
;.:
/
r
. I
I
,
'I,"
~.... ~
EXHIBIT C
. Existing Condition'
.
.
.
CONDITIONS OF PRELIMINARY PL T AND FINAL PLAT APPRO V AL
FOR RIVER MILL TH ADDITION
RESIDENTIAL DEV LOPMENT, INC.
The existing design of Mill Trail Lane/Mill rail Drive as platted by River Mill 3rd
Addition be maintained. The extension of ill Trail Lane as platted by River Mill 4th
Addition shall intersect the existing street d sign at a 90 degree angle, subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
1.
Proposed preliminary plat, Lots 13-17, Blo k 2, shall be designated as Outlot B, River
Mill 4th Addition, subject to final platting a such time as the adjacent property to the east
is platted to provide the remainder of any s eet right-of-way. The City does not
guarantee any such platting, nor does the C ty guarantee the development of any of
Outlot B.
2.
3.
The City Council accept Outlot A, River M 4th Addition, as adding to previous park
dedication.
4.
The preliminary grading, drainage, erosion, and utility plans are subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
5.
The City Engineer reconunend and approve the need and location of easements to be
included on the final plat.
6.
The applicant enter into the standard deve! pment contract and disbursement agreement
with the City.
55'~
EXHIBI D - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
05/08/98
'.
~.
,{
~:.
.
.~
~.
J
<:"
J
'"
s
c.
,.
.,
...
z
o
i=
-
c
Cl
<(
I
r-
~
...J
-'
-
::E
a:::
w
>
-
a:::
.,
.
.:t
..
,:
{.
.~.
r
13:30
1l.1IO.10.6I$
~ 0"011 -
---
1\
1\
I '.
I
I
I
l'O
f y'"
I
I
!--
(n
..(
LoJ
~"
......
Q::
LoJ
CD
Cl
-"
=e
(/)
~
-,
,
'AI
, ,
-, ^
_J , \
,
,
,
,
,
,,'5),
'C. };,
'C. ..,
\"!~/J
--_ ~fr -."..: 4
..'~ I~'I
<( '$.:'%'
\, ~
.,t..p
~~ ..,
~.
J
I
.
i
~
I
I
I~U. J.:..I.:..I
~<..
(..")
({..
f! "
~iit~
II:: .W
d~
ilill
E. lilt
=,11
!olr
aId
,q
VI
I-
W
W
:t
VI
N
La..
o
N
I-
W
W
:J:
(J)
l,J~...l
r
rr I
=, .
;H I
~i I
I~ I
o
~ -l"" ':\
\~ 1Il.1
exit I e,rr € 6~"" ~
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
7. i r
Henry's Church site. (lO.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On Thursday, May 7, 1998, a meeting was hel between representatives from 8t. Henry's
Church and City staff. Steve Andrews, Roger Carlson, and Bill Fair were also in
attendance. The purpose of the meeting was 0 review the latest cost figures for utility
and road extensions, review bridge alignment tematives, and to identify steps that need
to be taken that would enable the Church to 0 tain a building permit. Incorporation of the
St. Benedicts Center into the financing progr was also discussed. Subsequent to this
discussion, I met with John Olson of 8t. He's and Roland Swenson representing 8t.
Benedicts. Following are issues and ideas th have been identified at the meetings.
1.
According to John Olson, the preferr option for the bridge alignment is now the
straight alignment with the hill. At th meeting on May 7, it was mentioned that
there is some chance that the angled ignment might be preferred if the bridge
approach road can be changed slightl . However, on May 8, 1998, John Olson
requested that we focus on further an ysis of the straight approach with the hill, as
it does not appear that sufficient cost savings can be found to justify the angled
alignment. His direction was based 0 the action of the 8t. Henry's building
committee.
.
2. Development Expenses/Financing. Preliminary development expenses are
outlined in the attached exhibit. FoIl wing are ideas for addressing concerns
regarding the costs:
A. r 7 . The City pays for road surface
construction required in exce s of the road surface necessary to support the
development. In this case, it ppears that development of the church and
the 120-housing facility woul require construction of a 36-ft wide road,
which amounts to 80% ofth road costs. However, based on average trips
per day, it could be argued t at the minimum necessary for the site is 32 ft,
which would result in the Ch rch paying for a smaller portion of the
oversizing costs. If the Chu h can demonstrate that it generates less than
750 trips per day on average (City standard), then the City should pay the
difference between 32 ft and 44 ft. Olson informed that St. Henry's may
also request that the city pay for ROW needed in excess of the minimum
needed for the 32' wide stre t.
B.
. . As with roadways, the City also
pays for water main oversizi g. According to the water plan, this area
needs a 12-inch line extendi g through it. In this case, it appears that
development of the church d 8t. Benedicts Home would require
construction of a 10-inch lin ; therefore, the City would pay the added cost
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
to build a 12-inch line. Howe er, the architect has shown an 8-inch line is
needed by the Church and St. Benedicts Home. Staff recommends that the
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
City pay for oversizing for pi e size greater than 8-inch if it can be shown
that sufficient water supply fi r fire fighting and other uses can be obtained
through an 8-inch line.
C. Assessment Rate and Term. The spreadsheet attached shows a 12-year
term at 6.5%. The Church h s requested that the term on the assessment
be extended to 20 years. Ri k is unavailable for comment on this idea at
the moment. He will be avai able to express his views on this item at the
meeting on Monday.
D.
E. ill fi r '1 h . . The value of the fill paid
to the Church or applied as credit against the Church share of the
roadway. This value can be dentified in the feasibility study. Both the
City and the Church could b nefit from this arrangement.
.
F.
Determine credits for on-sit ponding provided by the Church. This value
can be identified in the feasi ility study.
3. Utilization of Tax Increment Fin neing for St. Benedicts Home. Development
of a TIF program for assisting the 8 . Benedicts Home was discussed. It was
mentioned that a portion of the cos to the 8t. Henry's project could be offset by
assigning a portion of the developm nt costs to the St. Benedicts project. TIF
would then be used to pay St. Bene icts' development expenses. Following are
some issues relating to this idea tha will need study:
St. Benedicts Home project also ne ds TIF contributions toward facility expenses
unrelated to utility and road expens s in order to keep rents at a certain threshhold.
The HRA general policy is to limit IF contributions to 50% of available TIF
revenue. In other words, we need run the numbers to see what the facility will
generate in terms ofTIF dollars an then St. Benedicts and St. Henry's needs to
meet with the HRA to discuss how the dollars will be distributed. The
negotiations needed to develop the Ian and be incorporated into an assessment
agreement will take considerable ti e and is not likely to be completed prior to the
date that St. Henry's Church woul like a building permit.
4.
Grading Permit. At my meeting 'th Olson, I mentioned that based on past
practice City staff it is possible to ant a grading permit subject to submittal of
an approved grading plan for the ea affected and submittal of a restoration fee.
This could be issued as soon as the plans have been approved by the City Engineer.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
5. Building Permit. In a letter sent t S1. Henry's Church on April 17, 1998, it was
noted that "Completion of an asse sment agreement outlining terms of
payment for all utilities, roads, an fees. This includes establishment of a plan
for Church payment of added cos s created by the angled alignment." The
City should not issue a building pe it until all elements of the construction
program are identified and the finan e plan established.
Given the current situation, the soo est that we could issue a building permit is
May 27. This would require the fol owing steps:
1. Complete the feasibility stu y based on the chosen alignment and
overslzmg program.
2. Complete an assessment agr ement with the Church outlining terms of
payment for all utilities, roa s, and fees. Perhaps the assessment agreement
could be structured to allow for a redistribution of assessment expenses
based on the outcome of fu her TIF negotiations.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
Motion to direct staff to complete a feasibility study based on the straight alignment
with the hill. Study to include city aying for oversizing where justified as noted
above. Approve concept ofa 20-y assessment term subject to review of the City
Administrator and bond counsel.
1.
2. Motion to deny completion of the fi iblity study following the straight alignment
and deny further consideration of epartures from current policies for determining
oversizing expense.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item was written late on Friday witho t the benefit of input from the City
Administrator, Public Works Director or C ty Engineer. Therefore, a formal staff
recommendation is not available. It is my ecommendation as assistant administrator to
select alternative 1. If this option is appro ed, staffwill begin refinement of project cost
figures for further review by the Church, S int Benedicts Center and the City Council. It
is hoped that a solid finance plan will be valailable for Council review on the 27th.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Table outlining project costs and straight a ignment with the hill.
.
'!
.
City Co ciI5-11-98
St. He's Position
In 1994 the Church ofSt. Henry purchased a proximately 39 acres to build a new church to
meet the needs of its growing parish. In anti ipation of building a new church the property
was rezoned institutional, and plans to build new church began.
As part of its development the Church planne to give to the community an amount of land
to help fill the need for senior housing. Subs quently the Church has offered to give eight
acres for not only independent living but also assisted living -- an additional need resulting
from the inability to expand at Mississippi Sores.
As it began developing it site, the Church fou d that it would only use approximately 10
acres for its own project.
The City has also expressed a need to develo 7th street on church property and then to
continue on properties to the east. The Churc and the City have been looking at two options
and the Church has been willing to dedicate p to 12 acres (depending on the bridge plan
approved) to the city street project and to a re bridge project.
As part of its plan, the Church has also set as'de approximately 3 acres to storm water
ponding.
. The Church has indicated it would run utiliti s through the site to serve the needs of our
project as well as the senior housing project. The utilities needed for both sites would be an
8-inch water line and an 8-inch sanitary sewe line.
The Church has also said it would build the r ad that would meet the needs of both church
and senior housing. For both of these project a 24-foot roadway is sufficient.
The Church and senior housing would provid fill to the City for the street and bridge
project.
In consideration of these gifts to the comm ty, the church asks for:
.
1. Trunk fees based on the developed site (1 acres).
2. Street assessment to the church based on 32-foot road. Note: The City has proposed a
44-foot roadway for a major thoroughfar . In the 1994 City transportation study, it is
projected that the average daily traffic vo ume on a completed ih street will be more than
6,000 vehicles (Figure 10). Our traffic is considerably less than that amount. See traffic
chart for St. Henry's and Benedict Center
3. City pays oversizing from an 8-inch line 0 a 12-inch line for both water and sanitary
sewer.
4. A 20-year assessment amortization at 6.5 o.
5. The Church, City and HRA participate e itably to develop this project.
.
.
.
I,
.,
What will happen if the Church needs to pay the costs outlined in the staff memo to the
Council?
The Church is building a $6.2 million project for more than 1400 families. This includes $1
million from the sale of its existing property d a $5,2 million loan. To finance a project
which will meet the current and future wors 'p needs of the Church but only the current and
near future needs of religious education for c 'ldren and adults, the Church will have to
spend $41,500 a month in principal and inter st payments. The maximum that our Finance
committee has set based on our ability to pay 's $42,000. An extra $4,906 will make our
project infeasible. If the Church cannot build then the Benedict Center would not have land
to build senior housing.
.INT HENRY'S CHURCH - ROA::J;, UTI ITIES COST AND FINANCING
FEE OR EXPENSE ~
Assess City St Hen', Notes
Sanitary sewer trunk yes NA $1,250* 20 acre site - gross area
Sanitary__sewer I~.teral __ es NA
~""---------,,,'.~"M'_~.."._~~._--"'.-
Watennaln trunk yes $625* 20 acre site - gros~1 area )
e~":~'1>v.N>e-i ti)' P'ff-
Watermain lateral es $28 500 Cit a s for oversizin for 12"line
Stonn .ewer trunk yes $173,600 67,500 Net acre use = 15 acres * $4,500
Storm sewer lateral es $35,660 $ 42,640 Private work ma result in credits a ainst trunk
......
Watennaln Connection no None $2,500 Paid at connection.
Sewer Connection no None 32,000 Paid at connection.
Building Permit/State Surch no None 14,942 Paid at application
ler
f II ,00
..._-~._~,."_----..........._..",.,,,,......~,..,,::,,~~,..~'I..\.,.
Gr~nd T~tal - Option 1__ .
Assessable
--~-~-
Annual Payment ...
Up F~~~._..~__
-
Grand Total - 0 tion 2
AsseSlable
_.,-""'._-'---
A_nnual Payment
U Front
"~_'.M_"~'."-_."-_."~-
1~ years at 6.5_~~_
.~;.;..;..,--<.-:~~..........;..:~~-,;.."",,-,:..........;._,.......,~~-~.......:.
-_-----..:..-.~------.,.:.~'.
_ $573,760
73,0,582.
681! 140
$83.4.~6
$4.9,442 _
...,._--,."....---------..~_.~~~
----=='2 y";;_, at 62% -:=_ ~
.___.'" __.....__.".'._n"'..__''''__.'''._.__.''O'.
SAINT HENRY'S CHURCH - ROAD AND UTI ITIES COST AND FINANCING
.
IFEE OR EXPENSE
Assess Ci
St. Hen's Notes
Sanitary sewer trunk
yes NA
$25000 $1,250'" 20 acre site - gross area
Sanlta sewer later~1 as
Watermain trunk yes
I
'Watermain lateral as
NA
$49 300 Estimate
$12500 $625'" 20 acre site - gross area
$28,500
~
I
~~: ,:~~::~ ::n~ltln E~lm .a~~ trun~l
$67,500 Net acre use = 15 acres" $4,500
$95000 elt a s for overslzln for 12"llne
Storm sewer trunk yes $173,600
t:::::::~tion ~I:~ ~~t::M60
Sewer Connection
no
None
$3 ,000 Paid at connection.
Building Permit/State Surch no
her
None
,942 Paid at application
$723,?,00
~
~: '::~Hi9h c~co~ d~~ro fill n~ed f~bndge ~p~h"1
Fill cost estimates are hi h according to Simola.~
~;.~;f~0:0ifill~:;;~. "'8{r ~~?")i;id.00< .9
$70 ,482 I
;
I
$6~ ,: Base<i on twe";Y y..",at 6.5% .- - J
I
,
-....... ...- .. .............. ...----1
_~_"....._---'--'--'--'--c....__..C---'--'--'--'-,_...~1
.~^.,..~
_..~,.~"..-
r ~
Subtotal _" I ..--!
~O.dway:.Strai9h~
$237 760
. ',. ":'":,',:,>:::'::::,':'::,,','.,' ".".
... . ,.....".
:":::::::>:<':::,:>:,.
.::f
,':';';::.:-:":.' ,',', , , ',::'.,.':.<:
. .', ,", ,. , ' ,'., '
.",. '.".. ., ,. ,.,,'. ,.
. ',':':','.-,','.'. .'." ",',':','..,',.,','.
..",.,,, ,. ",.".", .
. ................ ......,'::...::'.',.'......
. . . .. .".
.'.- ~,-~~
Total
"~961 ,260
~....sabJ. .__.__ .
l'lI!onthly p_ayment.____
.... "."",.
.~".,',~'''. , "'---~_. ""
$4 ,442
U .Front
REVENUE TO CITY FROM
TRUNK FEES AND PERMITS
$154,442
.
1998 14:50
WSB & ~5SOCl~TE5 INC.
I I ,
.
r1
~
IIU. .LU-'
6125411700 P.05/05
!.
t .0 lilW
81!i !;
~ ~II 8~
> liil!~
~ ~II~.,!
... III ..
il I
!i dl. I
..~ "y..,.
'. / \l\l~'1 ;
'- ........ \,.
................ -",
'tl
!
\ G
I .J ~
l "","1111
-......-... ::11'1, I
..------ "...- II
.- .-. ,I
=.v~-4-'h~!'
t I,
\ I \
7 \-J
I
I
~tIIII e I
..I !ld
II! III
1.1 I
.1
cd
~
o
rJ'.:I
~
j
...
o
] I
g ;{
~ ~t
~ ...i
4.-4 .. )
o :1
~
.~ :;
U,.
~ .
i
TOTAL P.05
,'.
,
I
;: /
~
..
~ .
~
...
Co
...
!\
=:
~!
. I
j
1
1
.
.
.
Council Agenda - 5111198
8.
h
The City's Comprehensive Plan includes la d use planning for areas south and west of the
current city boundaries. As you may recall a significant concept of the Comprehensive
Plan is to direct future growth to the south and west of the City by investing in
infrastructure improvements which would erve growth in that direction rather than to the
east. Over the past several months, staff h s conducted a more detailed study of the issues
which would affect land use patterns in tha area, including transportation, utility
corridors, physical lay of the land, existing and uses, and Goals and Policies from the
current Plan. A concept land use plan was eveloped with these issues in mind, and which
has been discussed at staff level, with other City organizations, and at a public open house.
The purpose of the plan amendment is to a ow the City to plan for both long- and short-
term infrastructure improvements which w uld be needed to serve the area. Although the
plan would have no legal effect as things n w stand, a component of the proposed Orderly
Annexation Area agreement with Monticell Township would include the adoption of the
City's land use plan in the revised OAA. A a result, the City's Comprehensive Plan and
its component "South!West Area Plan" w uld form the basis for any land use decision in
the OAA, preserving the various properties for the City's long-term intended use. This
OAA agreement has been approved by bot parties and adopted by the Municipal Board.
The Land Use Plan for the area is importan for the City. It could serve as the basis for
the City's request of the OAA Board for an amendment to its land use plan. Even as
information for that Board, and the Board' administrator (County Planner Tom
Salkowski), the Land Use Plan will provide important guidance for land use decisions in
the extra-territorial areas adjacent to the cit . Finally, it can provide direction for future
development of land in those areas when la downers are seeking annexation.
This proposed amendment has been modifi slightly from its original draft to reflect two
changes. First, following input from lando ners between County Road 39 and 90th
Street, along the proposed extension of Ch lsea Road, additional industrial land has been
identified to the south of the Chelsea Road lignment. This plan reflects landowner
requests and a response to the concern over excessive amounts of utility easement
corridors. Also shown is an area of "future study" which contemplates the expansion of
the proposed industrial area along the rema' der of the Chelsea Road corridor.
The text has also been modified to emphas' e that this is a guide plan, not a zoning
ordinance. As such, it is intended to illustra e a pattern of land use and the necessary
transportation routes, not specific district . es. It is expected that as specific conditions
are encountered by particular developers, th exact location of the lines will need to be
flexible to accommodate conditions at the t'
23
Council Agenda - 5/11/98
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of t e amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as
proposed in the "South!West Area Ian."
2. Motion to defer amendment of the omprehensive Plan at this time pending
additional discussion and/or infor IOn.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Compreh nsive Plan amendment for the South and
West growth areas. We believe that this pI n reflects the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and the city's future gr wth. The plan permits the city to grow in a
manageable fashion and allows for the logic I, incremental extensions of infrastructure to
accommodate the natural growth and devel pment of the community. Moreover, it
provides clear guidance for development pr posals in the extra-territorial area. This
guidance is important both to direct land us in areas scheduled for future annexation, and
to direct development proposals from lando ners seeking annexation to the city.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - South!West Area Land Use Plan
.
24
.
.
.
SOUTWWEST AREA
LAND USE PLAN
BACKGROUND
The City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan includes
a land use plan which reflects the various goals
and policies of the City. Included in the land
use plan element is a specific plan and
discussion of the City's southwest area (within
orderly annexation area).
The southwest area of Monticello overlays
that portion of the City lying south of
Interstate 94 and west of TH 25. Generally
speaking, the area is characterized by
farmlands and wetlands. Some pockets of
rural residential development have been
established, particularly to the west. As noted
in the Comprehensive Plan, incremental
growth in this area is encouraged both for
financial and social reasons.
This amendment to the City's Comprehensive
Plan is intended to build on the foundation
established in the 1996 Plan. The plan
amendment itself identifies conceptual street
layouts, including westerly extensions of
Chelsea Road and School Boulevard. While
the Comprehensive Plan provides generalized
street and land use depictions, a refinement of
the plan taking into account more detailed
information (i.e., wetland boundaries, power
line locations, soil conditions, etc.) is
necessary to achieve eventual plan
implementation.
South/West Area Land Use Plan Page 1
As guide plan, this amendment is intended to
provide an outline of City expectations for
future growth into the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area. To the extent that the
Orderly Annexation Area Board will be
managing land use in the MOAA until
annexation to the City, it is hoped that this
plan will provide a fra.rrework for the activities
of the Board. The preservation of the MOAA
lands during the interim period between now
and the time of annexation and development
has been the stated objective of the MOAA.
LAND USE PLAN
Design Parameters. A variety of area
features serve to influence the street and land
use depicted upon the refined southwest area
land use plan. These include Interstate 94
visibility and accessibility, existing and planned
interchange locations (accessibility), existing
land uses, property lines, and street patterns,
wetland and drainageway locations and finally
overhead power line routes.
Although this land use study pays more
attention to local factors than the 1996
Comprehensive Plan, there are still issues
which will affect the land use pattern which
ultimately develops. Wetland delineations,
utility feasibility, pacing of development, and
land owner preferences will all play into the
development of the south and west extra-
territorial areas.
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
<6--1
.
As a result of additional study, and other
unforeseen factors, it is expected that the final
developrrent pattern will vary somewhat from
this guide plan. Rather than an attempt to
create a strict "zoning" scheme, this plan
intends to layout a pattern of development in
the extraterritorial areas for the purposes of
infrastructure planning, and to provide a
general guide for land owners and developers
as to future land use expectations. The precise
line of land use change, however, may move
slightly one way or another.
.
Street System. As shown on the land use
plan, a major collector street has been
proposed which would parallel Interstate 94.
The street also follows an existing overhead
power line route. The collector street would
serve to link a future interchange at County
Road 75 (120th Street) with the existing
interchange at Highway 25 and would provide
connection to existing Chelsea Road.
In addition to the Chelsea Road extension, a
westerly extension of School Boulevard has
also been proposed. This extension would link
90th Street and Highway 25.
The land use plan anticipates a future
interchange at County Road 75 (120th Street)
and Interstate 94. It is envisioned that the
interchange would be utilized by the majority
truck traffic associated with industrial uses in
the vicinity.
.
South/West Area Land Use Plan Page 2
LAND USE
Low Density Residential. As shown on the
attached land use plan, a substantial portion of
the study area is shown as low density
residential use. It is anticipated that single
family growth in this area will be comprised of
residents who have few natural ties to the
community. The area's street system (and
arrangement of land uses) is such that area
residents will be "funneled" into Monticello's
cOmIrercial areas by virtue of their routine use
of Highway 25 and/or County Road 39.
To the extent possible, low density residential
uses have been located or oriented such that
the incompatibilities with higher intensity uses
will be minimized. Specifically, features such
as wetlands, power lines and transitional uses
have been used to mitigate adverse impacts.
The majority of the lands south of the current
City boundaries (generally the north halves of
Sections 22,23, and 24) are also programmed
for low density residential land use. It is
expected that this will consist of single family
developrrent, with a possibility of limited twin-
home or low-density townhome development
mixed in.
Mid-Density Residential. In addition to low
density residential uses, mid-density residential
uses have been proposed within the study area.
Specifically, these uses are proposed along the
School Boulevard extension east of 90th
Street. Mid density residential uses overlay
approximately 90 acres of land and are
expected to have densities of generally 4 to 8
dwelling units per acre. This translates into
over 500 medium density units within the
study area.
Commercial. As shown on the land use plan,
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
cg -- ;,L,
.
commercial development has been proposed
directly south of Interstate 94 and west of
Highway 25. TIris use designation is intended
to reinforce Highway 25 as a commercial
service corridor of the community and
supplement the downtown commercial area.
It should be noted that immediate "infilling" of
the 173 acres of cOl11lrercially designated lands
is not anticipated. In fact, it is the intent of the
plan to designate "long term" locations for
commercial development and confine such
uses to the Interstate 94/Highway 25
interchange area, and the Highway 25 corridor
south of the Interstate.
.
There has been some discussion of extending
commercial uses to the west along the freeway
frontage. However, this plan attempts to
follow the direction of the 1996
Comprehensive Plan in preserving commercial
land for the development of locally oriented
retail and service uses as opposed to purely
freeway oriented cormnerce. Too many of the
highway oriented uses would compete with
downtown revitalization efforts, particularly in
the areas of food and lodging. As a result, the
conunercial areas shown are intended to
encourage a long term supply of
general/regional business locations.
Industrial. The industrial land use
designations shown on the land use plan are
intended to take advantage of visibility
associated with the interstate corridor and
coincide with the future construction of a west
Monticello interchange at 1-94 and County
Road 75/0rchard Road. Industrial uses have
purposely been guided in the northern portion
of the study area to avoid the interspersement
of industrial truck traffic with
residential/commercial traffic at the 1-
94/Highway 25 interchange area. In total, the
.
South/West Area Land Use Plan Page 3
land use plan designates approximately 310
acres of land as industrial use.
An area of industrial land use is planned for
the freeway frontage just west of 90th Street
along both sides of the westerly extension of
Chelsea Road. This area would be quickly
accessible due to the location of streets and
utilities. Until the street connections and the
Orchard Road interchange are completed, this
area would add industrial traffic to the 1-
94/TH 25 area. It is anticipated that the
improvements along TH 25, and the signal at
Chelsea Road, will help to manage the impacts
of this traffic until the west interchange is a
reality.
There is also an area of potential industrial use
west of 90th Street and south of the Chelsea
Road corridor. This area is shown in the low
density residential land use category, with an
overlining intended to designate this area for
future study. The ultimate land use of this
area should be evaluated more specifically
based on localized conditions and market
forces.
Whereas the Chelsea Road extension would
serve as the primary land use division in this
area, it may be appropriate to allow industrial
uses to encroach south of this corridor at that
point. At issue throughout this area will be the
planning for significant buffering of the
transition between industrial and residential
uses. That buffer should consist of land,
benning, and landscaping which will help
screen the visual and noise impacts of the
industrial activities from the nearby residential
spaces.
Finally, although not shown graphically, this
plan anticipates an industrial designation for all
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
g--3
.
areas to the west/northwest of the Orchard
Road 1-94 overpass area. To best take
advantage of the benefits of an interchange at
this location, preservation of these areas for
industrial use is an objective of this plan. It is
acknowledged that both the interchange and
the active developrrent of these areas are long-
term goals. Planning for the future use of
these lands is intended to avoid conflicts
between current uses during the interim period
until annex.ation and development.
.
PublidSemi-Public. The land use pian
illustrates a large area of park and open space
between 90th Street and Highway 25. Of the
approximately 100 acres, about 60 acres is
wetland. Aside from the obvious active (i.e.,
ballfields) and passive (walking trails)
recreational opportunities offered by the park,
the use is intended to serve as a unifying
element for abutting low density residential,
mid-density residential and commercial land
uses.
The park has been located such to provide a
visual connection from Highway 25, a
transition from uses of differing intensity, and
finally to provide direct active recreational
opportunities to abutting residential uses. It is
anticipated that the more active spaces will be
able to utilize power line corridor as parking
area, with athletic fields flanking the parking.
The more passive areas would be located
around the ponds and wetlands, with pathway
connections to the Chelsea Road and School
Boulevard areas.
Moreover, the final delineation of parkland
boundaries will be dependant upon
development needs and design in the
irnrrediate area, as well as public use needs. It
may be appropriate to protect the edges of the
.
South/West Area Land Use Plan Page 4
pond areas for public use, allowing greater
encroachment of private development than is
shown on the plan. More detailed design
study will be necessary in this area as
development opportunities are brought
forward.
Also to be noted is the existing Cemetery
located along 90th Street and the proposed
Chelsea Road extension. The cemetery's
proximity to adjacent low density residential.
conunercial and industrial uses allows it to
serve as a highly visible "green area" (due to
street corner location) which will provide
visual relief to the area.
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
~"'f
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~/98 09:29:13
Schedule of 8ills
CITY OF ONTICELLC
GL050S-Y05.20 COYERPAGE
GL540R
Report Selection:
~UN GROUP... M430D COMMENT... 4/30 MANUAL CKS
OATA-JE-lD
DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
M-04301998-477 4/30 MANUAL CKS
Run Instructions:
Jobq 8anner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI
J 0: Y S 6 066 10
.
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
.7/98 09:29:14 Schedule of ills
VENDOR NAME
QESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME FUND & ACCOUNT
OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS
PLANNING-TYPEWRITER 850.94 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 101.41910.5701
ADM- TYPEWR ITER 850.93 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 101.41301.5701
1,701.87 *VENDOR TOTAL
PATCH/FRED
FRED-DISK-PETRO FUND 19.99 MISC OPERATING SUPPLIE 101.42401.2199
PRECISION PUNCH PLASTICS
WWTP-OP SUPPLIES 84.98 MISC REPAIR & MTC SUPP ! 436.49201.2299
RED WING VISITORS AND
MAYOR-CRUISE RESERVATION 135.00 CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS 101.41110.3320
U S POSTMASTER
PW-AMNESTY POSTAGE 423.23 MISC OTHER EXPENSE 101.43230.4399
POSTAGE 1ST QTR 1998 191.79 POSTAGE 601.49440.3220
POSTAGE 1ST QTR 1998 191. 79 POSTAGE 602.49490.3220
806.81 *VENDOR TOTAL
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER
4111[ORDING FEE-KLEIN 4 19.50 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERV C 458.49201.3199
ORDING FEES-EASTWOOD 83.50 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERV C438.49201.3199
103.00 *YENDOR TOTAL
WRIGHT COUNTY TREAS/AUDI
FILING FEE-KLEIN FARM 4 6.50 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERY C 458.49201.3199
.
CLAIM INYOICE
CITY OF MONTICELL2
GL540R-Y05.20 PAGE
PO# F/P ID LINE
477 00028
477 00G2?
477 00030
477 00012
477 00023
477 OOOCi
477000:-
07 00018
477 00002
477 0000:'
477 0000'
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
05/07/98 09:29:14
VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
REPORT TOTALS:
AMOUNT ACCOUNT NAME
348.687.55
RECORDS PRINTED - 000030
Schedule of 8ills
FUND & ACCOUNT
CLAIM INVOICE
CITY OF MONTICELLC
GL540R-V05.20 PAGE~
PO# F/P 10 LINE
.
.
BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM
~07/98 09:29:15
FUND RECAP:
FUND DESCRIPTION
~01 GENERAL FUND
224 SHADE TREE FUND
436 93-14C WWTP EXPANSION PRJ
438 94-02C EASTWOOD KNOLL
458 97-04C KLEIN FARMS 4(LION'S)
601 WATER FUND
502 SEWER FUND
509 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
:OTAL ALL FUNDS
SANK RECAP:
SANK NAME
~ GENERAL CHECKING
LIQR LIQUOR CHECKING
TOTAL ALL BANKS
Schedu1e f Sills
DIS URSEMENTS
8,951.37
325.00
3 4,292.90
1,083.50
26.00
191.79
191.79
3,625.20
3 8,587.55
DIS URSEMENTS
3 5,062.35
3,625.20
3 8,587.55
THE PRECEDING LIST OF BILLS PAYABLE WAS R VIEWED AND APPROVED FOR PAYMENT.
DATE ............
.
APPROVED SY
CITY OF MONTICELLO -
GL060S-V05.20 RECAPPAG~
GL54 0 R
.
.
.
(R.W.)
n
In October 1997, the Council had accepted an offi r of $24,000 for the purchase of the vacant
parcel owned by the City that was adjacent to the ost office facility and Linn Street. The Post
Office Landlord, Mr. Charles Ehlen of St. Cloud, as negotiating with the U.S. Postal Service to
renegotiate their lease to allow them to establish a additional access point to the postal facility.
The Council acceptance of the offer also included eeding to Mr. Ehlen the City-owned 12-ft strip
of land that was originally established years ago as an access point off of Locust Street.
Mr. Ehlen had noted last fall that he was having d' culty in getting a commitment from the Postal
Service on his proposal, and I had informed him t at if the purchase was not connnenced by
February 1998, the deal could be off.
Last week I received a phone call from the Real E tate Department of the Postal Service in
Kansas City requesting additional information on t e former easement the City had behind the
Metcalf and Larson Law Office and the City parce now being proposed for purchase by
Mr. Ehlen. Mr. Ehlen also called me the other da and asked whether the parcel was still
available for purchase, as he felt he was close to ing an arrangement with the Postal Service.
Although other potential uses of the City parcel c uld be to attach it to the redevelopment of the
Little Bill's Auto Repair site in the future, there ar no plans nor interest expressed by anybody
else regarding this property; and since I do believe it will be a benefit to the citizens to have
additional access points to the Post Office facility, the sale of the property to Mr. Ehlen still seems
appropriate. If the Council does not have any obje tion to this proposal, I will inform Mr. Ehlen
to proceed with his negotiations with the Postal S rvice provided the sale occurs within the next
60 days.
~~ (,~
KAREN\AGENDAS\POSTOFF.UPD: 5/7/98